Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council Livestreamed on our website,, commencing at 6:00pm.
Councillors:
S Asher (Mayor)
T Sullivan (Deputy Mayor)
A Aitken
K Grzybek
B Harwood
E Kontelj
S Mansfield
B Moloney
P Murrihy
M Cutter (Chief Executive Officer)
G Smith (Director Planning, Design and Development)
G Wilson-Browne (Director City Services)
S McKew (Manager Governance)
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:
J Mason (Leave of Absence)
R Nelson
Councillor Grzybek moved, Councillor Harwood seconded -
That Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Sullivan for the period 27 October 2021 to 18 November 2021 inclusive.
Carried.
Councillor Harwood declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Items 2.7 Gambling Harm Minimisation Council Policy – Draft, Item 2.8 G21 and AFL Barwon “Towards 2030 Strategy” and Item 2.9 Sport and Recreation Victoria Grant Programs 2021-2022 in that Cr Harwood has recently been appointed Regional General Manager of AFL Barwon.
Councillor Kontelj moved, Councillor Sullivan seconded -
That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 28 September 2021 be confirmed.
Carried.
The following questions were submitted prior to the Council Meeting. A written response will be provided via email:
John Wallace - Urban Design Framework (UDF) for Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue;
Kylie Lane - Geelong Town Planning Scheme;
Yvonne Keown - Geelong Town Planning Scheme;
William and Katerina Marshall - Geelong Town Planning Scheme;
Barb Sheehan - Urban Forest Strategy;
David Potter - Blue Plaque Heritage program;
Vanessa Whittem - Urban Forest Strategy;
Angela Mangan - Urban Design Framework (UDF) for Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue;
Jeanne Nel - Geelong Town Planning Scheme - Highton IHDA; and
Louis De Koker - Geelong Town Planning Scheme.
John Wallace asked the following in relation to the Urban Design Framework (UDF) for Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue:
Question 1
Given that the Pakington Street and Gordon Avenue Interim Final UDF proposes building heights of between 4 and 10 stories and these are likely to have specific impact for residential rooftop solar systems, how has the City of Greater Geelong acted to identify and protect the interests of properties with residential rooftop solar systems as outlined by Victorian Government Planning Amendment 2018?
Response (City Planning & Economy):
Thank you, John, for your question and continued participation in this important project.
The impact of the proposed heights in the Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordan Ave UDF on solar access has been modelled and is in accordance with the Planning Scheme.
Furthermore, as per the Planning Scheme, every new development within a Commercial 1 Zone or a Residential Zone will be required to demonstrate how impacts on any existing solar energy facility mounted on the roof of an adjoining residential dwelling have been considered.
Kylie Lane asked the following in relation to the Geelong Town Planning Scheme:
In August 2021, a development permit application referral comment from the Environment Department highlighted that there is no avenue to require retention of trees on the property but indicated that the subject site is heavily treed and provides habitat and amenity value for the suburb.
The referral response pleaded for an additional effort to retain as many trees as possible, targeting native and/or large specimens. The applicants pointed out that, contrary to other Town Planning Schemes in Victoria, the Geelong Town Planning Scheme provides only for controlled felling of trees native to Victoria, should they happen to be on the property.
Question 1
Why does the Geelong Town Planning Scheme provide such limited protection for the existing mature tree canopy on private property?
Response (City Planning & Economy):
Thank you for your questions, Ms Lane.
Council’s Environment team was referred the planning application at 2 Morven Court and recommended permit conditions to provide an offset for the removal of native vegetation. This is a requirement under Clause 52.17 for Native Vegetation under the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. Clause 52.17 is a state-wide provision included in all planning schemes. Additionally, as part of the initial assessment of the application Council queried the applicant about retaining trees on this site.
The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme is not dissimilar to other municipalities’ Planning Schemes as general vegetation protection on private land in highly urbanised areas is not common. That said, where development of two or more dwellings (Rescode) is proposed there is a landscaping requirement. This requirement sets out that a landscape design plan forms part of an application and/or is a condition of the permit. The landscaping requirement in Rescode states that development should provide for the replacement of any significant trees that have been removed in the 12 months prior to the application being made.
There are other tools in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme that are used for protection and/or enhancement of vegetation in some urban environments, via a planning overlay. Planning overlays are used in site specific areas, such as in the case of Vegetation Protection Overlays, where vegetation is part of a significant corridor/patch and may contain species protected under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, or where it has a high conservation of state and regionally significant plant species.
Question 2
Could you please indicate, how many development permit applications, relating to Highton and Belmont, under the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme were referred to the City's Environment Unit from 1 January 2019 to 20 October 2021?
Response (City Planning & Economy):
The City’s Environment Department has advised it received 26 environment referrals in Highton and 6 environment referrals in Belmont since 2019.
Yvonne Keown asked the following in relation to the Geelong Town Planning Scheme:
Clauses 54-01.1 and 55-01.1 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme require permit applications to include a site description which describes the location of significant trees existing on the site and any significant trees removed from the site in the 12 months prior to the application being made, where known.
Question 1
For purposes of clauses 54 and 55, how does the Scheme define ‘significant tree’?
Question 2
Please indicate the number of all trees recorded in the site descriptions included in the following permit applications:
508/2021 (16 Duggan Court, Highton);
200/2021 (60-62 South Valley Road, Highton);
686/2021 (11 South Street, Belmont);
784/2020 (2 Morven Court, Highton);
1371/2019 (4 Taylor Court, Highton);
1535/2016 (36 Meadowvale Drive, Waurn Ponds); and
1300/2015 (54 Barrabool Road, Highton).
Response (City Planning & Economy):
Thank you for your questions, Yvonne.
Unfortunately, due to the amount of work required to adequately respond to your questions, the City will provide a response in writing by the end of next week.
William and Katerina Marshall asked the following in relation to the Geelong Town Planning Scheme:
In September 2019 and February 2020, Council adopted motions that formally recognized climate change as a global emergency and acknowledged that climate change poses a risk to the people of Geelong and Australia. It also recognized that the crisis requires a genuine and coordinated response across all divisions of the City of Greater Geelong.
The City of Greater Geelong Annual Report 2020-21, tabled for consideration at tonight’s meeting, lists the Deakin University urban heat mapping project commissioned by Council and State government as a response reflecting the existing crisis. That report, currently available on the Council’s web site, was published in September 2020. It identified Highton as one of seven of the City of Greater Geelong suburbs that are vulnerable to heat risk factors and that are impacted by heatwaves and will increasingly be affected.
The Greater Geelong Urban Forest Strategy repeatedly highlights the importance of canopy tree cover as an efficient tool to mitigate the urban heat island effect.
Question 1
What steps have you taken since the publication of the heat mapping report in September 2020, to incorporate appropriate standards into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme to retain and protect mature trees on public and private land?
Response (City Planning & Economy):
Thank you for your question, William and Katerina.
City officers have discussed opportunities with the State Government to strengthen tree controls on private land for existing and new development across the State however there is nothing further to report at this time.
Barb Sheehan asked the following in relation to the Urban Forest Strategy:
The Geelong Urban Forest Strategy states that ‘the most cost effective and efficient mitigation tool to mitigate the urban heat island effect is ‘an increase in tree canopy cover.’ In addition, clause 4.1 of the Tree Management Council Policy determines that the ‘City will work with developers to protect as many mature trees as is feasibly possible.’ Despite this statement trees are being felled at an alarming rate in Highton. I am concerned that the existing planning provisions fail to protect trees and vegetation adequately and effectively in Geelong.
Question 1
Could you please indicate how many trees were felled in Highton on review sites of development permits granted in terms of the Geelong Planning Scheme between 1 January 2019 and 1 July 2021?
Response (City Planning & Economy):
Thank you for your question, Barb.
Unfortunately, due to the amount of work required to adequately respond to this question, the City will provide a response in writing by the end of next week.
Question 2
In the proposed redevelopment of Highton Village, will any of the current trees to the east of Highton Reserve bordering on the Village and the Highton Library be felled? If so, how many trees will be affected?
Response (City Services):
Thank you for your question, Barb.
No trees are proposed for removal under the Highton Urban Design Framework Plan, therefore no trees will be affected.
David Potter asked the following in relation to the Blue Plaque Heritage program:
Initiative to get CoGG to have a Blue Plaque Heritage program that would identify Geelong's landmark historical buildings. Heritage Victoria issues plaques in Melbourne & other parts of Victoria, but CoGG Council does not permit this.
In Melbourne all places & objects included in the Victorian Heritage Register are automatically entitled to a blue plaque, & the plaques are issued free of charge by Heritage Victoria.
Let’s put Geelong on the heritage tourism map, highlight our amazing history & promote city pride.
Response (City Planning & Economy):
Thank you, David, for your advocacy for heritage in Geelong.
In response to your question, the City of Greater Geelong is not opposed to heritage places being acknowledged through plaques or being interpreted through other signage. However, at this time, the City has not received any enquiries about Heritage Victoria plaques for specific sites. Some applications to construct new memorials have been placed on hold until a review of the current Plaques and Memorials Policy is completed and endorsed by Council, which is expected by the end of this year.
Vanessa Whittem asked the following in relation to the Urban Forest Strategy:
The 2015 CoGG Urban Forest Strategy indicates that it ‘expands on the concept of a ‘City in a Park’, to enhance the public and private tree population in all of the suburbs and townships across Greater Geelong’. It specifically recognises that private gardens are a part of Geelong’s urban forest and ‘the importance of the private realm and of all open space in Geelong in contributing to the urban forest.’
The Strategy furthermore states that it will ‘specifically bridge the gap between the existing Council policy framework and the day to day [sic] work of the Tree Management Team. The Strategy indicates that it will be delivered by the City's Parks and Gardens Department, through the Tree Management Team. However, during question time of the Council meeting held on 28 September, the City Service’s representative responded to a question stating that “The City’s Parks and Gardens Department is not responsible for the management of trees on private property.”
Question 1
Could you please indicate who is responsible for the management of trees on private property which, according to the Urban Forest Strategy form part of the private realm of Geelong’s Urban Forest?
Response (City Services):
Thank you for your questions, Vanessa.
Private property owners are responsible for the management of trees within their property boundaries.
The City of Greater Geelong Tree Management Council Policy, approved September 2020, contains specific and strictly regulatory provisions regarding the removal of street and park trees. Clauses 4.4.1. and 5.4. specifically prescribe the replanting of new trees, subject to site suitability, in the same location in future planting seasons in the event of fatal damage to an individual street or park tree.
Question 2
Why was the street tree in front of 54 Barrabool Street in Highton, a mature gum tree with extensive canopy cover, removed?
Response (City Services):
An arboricultural assessment identified the Eucalyptus leucoxylon (Yellow Gum) had extensive decay within the trunk that had impacted the health of the tree to the extent the tree was in decline and unlikely to recover.
Question 3
Why was the street tree referred to in question 2 not replaced?
Response (City Services):
A replacement tree is scheduled to be replanted in the 2022 planting season.
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 UDF. In relation to the commissioned traffic report. It is incredulous that 1% traffic growth per annum on Pako since 2009 is considered a reasonable assumption to be used as a basis for any assessment and ultimately decisions being made, as it does not reflect the actual traffic growth that has occurred over this time frame.
Question 1
Why has Council not provided more current traffic information to be used in the traffic analysis so an accurate assessment can be provided?
In Melbourne it was recently reported that and I quote "a lot of crap buildings have been approved" and as a result there has now been the introduction of revisions to the process to set higher standards and benchmarks relating to the quality of buildings being approved, including review by a panel of architects.
Response (City Planning & Economy):
Thank you, Angela, for your question and continued engagement on the Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue Urban Design Framework.
In response to your first question, traffic growth factors are applied when data is not available for the current/base year. In the case of the Transport Network Assessment, the 1 per cent growth factor applied to the 2009 data per year (up to and including 2020) was based on actual traffic growth during this period obtained from SCATS (Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System), which is the traffic signal system used by the Victorian Department of Transport.
Data obtained from several intersections across the study area for the same time period demonstrated an annual traffic growth factor of 1 per cent.
Question 2
What are the exact processes and standards that Geelong Council have in place to ensure that any new developments are of an architecturally high standard, and fit within the character of the area that they will be located in?
Response (City Planning & Economy):
In response to your second question, planning applications are subject to internal review by several departments within the City of Greater Geelong, including Urban Design and Heritage. There are many factors in reviewing applications, including architectural quality and contextual appropriateness.
Additionally, where the Minister of Planning is the Responsible Authority for an application, the application is typically referred to the Victoria Design Review Panel. The City is currently in the process of developing a Geelong Design Excellence Program with the Office of the Victorian Government Architect, including the potential establishment of a Geelong Design Review Panel to consider significant developments where the City is the Responsible Authority.
Jeanne Nel asked the following in relation to the Geelong Town Planning Scheme - Highton IHDA:
Page 51 of the City of Greater Geelong Annual Report 2020-21 contains a progress report on Effective Environmental Management. The increased suburban tree canopy criterion is described as ‘needs improvement’. The progress comments cite 'time taken for current plants to mature', 'rapid urban growth' and 'limited space... on lots to retain and plant canopy trees on private land' as impeding factors. The comments further state that ‘We’re working with the community and developers to address this.’
Question 1
Can you confirm that the Greater Geelong City Council wrote to the Minister for Planning in March 2021 requesting the Minister to expedite a Planning Scheme amendment that removes the minimum garden requirement for property developments in the Increased Housing Diversity Areas, including the Highton IHDA?
Response (City Planning & Economy):
Thank you, Jeanne, for your questions.
On 5 March, officers submitted amendment C426 to make corrections to the General Residential Zone Schedule 4 to exempt the minimum garden area requirement. This approach was consistent with Council’s adoption of the same position at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 March 2020.
Question 2
If the request is granted, how will the amendment support the improvement of the suburban tree canopy in the Highton IHDA?
Response (City Planning & Economy):
Council’s policy for Increased Housing Diversity areas (“IHDA”) was adopted following the adoption of Council’s Housing Diversity Strategy in 2007. The sites identified in the IHDA are consistent with the State Governments policy for residential zone reform introduced in 2013/2014.
The purpose of the IHDA is to provide direction to accommodate residential growth in and around Geelong where sites are located around identified activity centres. These areas provide opportunity for increased accommodation to help reduce urban sprawl and use existing infrastructure, while promoting walkability. Site coverage in an IHDA area is permitted up to 70 per cent. Planning applications in these areas seek a balance between built form and landscaping that is appropriate to the zone requirements.
Louis De Koker asked the following in relation to the Geelong Town Planning Scheme:
The progress report on Effective Environmental Management in the Annual Report lists ‘protecting and restoring our natural environment as a focus area’ but does not refer to the Greater Geelong Biodiversity Strategy. The Strategy states that private lands in Greater Geelong ‘include some of the rarest and most threatened flora and fauna populations … within the region – resources which are often … poorly represented on public lands’.
According to the Strategy it offers a unique opportunity to ‘introduce a paradigm shift including a coordinated and integrated approach to conservation and biodiversity from a whole of municipality perspective’ and aims to ‘develop, promulgate and implement relevant laws, planning scheme amendments and approaches for the protection of threatened and rare biodiversity’. Commendably, the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme contains statements and objectives addressing biodiversity, e.g. the objective in Clause 22.71-2: ‘To protect and enhance biodiversity within the municipality.’
In a recent planning application, residents raised concerns and submitted a recording identified by a herpetologist as the warm-up calls of a Growling Grass Frog, an endangered species but the VCAT submissions by Planning Department did not raise biodiversity in response to the permit application.
Question 1
What can be done to ensure that the Planning Department’s responses consistently reflect a whole of municipality perspective to protect Geelong’s biodiversity on private lands?
Response (City Planning & Economy):
Thank for your question, Louis.
It is noted that the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme policy for Clause 22.71 is Environmentally Sustainable Development. The policy basis is that the City of Greater Geelong is committed to creating an environmentally sustainable city.
This policy covers a range of matters from energy performance to transport to urban ecology (where biodiversity is mentioned in the policy objective). Not every objective is relevant to every planning application. Where ESD is concerned Council’s Planning department seeks comments from Council’s Sustainable Development Officer and where biodiversity is concerned comments may be provided by Council’s Environment Department.
The Geelong Biodiversity Strategy lists ‘no further species loss’ as a target. It includes the following action in its Strategic Planning: ‘Identify areas of primary biodiversity significance on private land and protect these areas through planning instruments, overlays, zoning, policy and other methods to protect those areas identified.’ Furthermore, Policy Statement 3.14 under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 provides that any action that may have a significant impact on the habitat of the Growling Grass Frog requires a referral to the minister for approval before commencement of such action. Information was shared with the City of Greater Geelong about the possible presence of a Growling Grass Frog in Highton.
The Growling Grass Frog is a rare and endangered species. A herpetologist listened to frog calls recording in October 2020 at Frog Hollow and identified the warm-up calls of a Growling Grass Frog. Following the report:
Question 2
Has the City of Greater Geelong taken any steps to ensure the necessary investigation under the EPBC Act policy statement 3.14 is triggered?
Question 3
What steps has the Council taken or does it plan on taking to ensure that the habitat of the GGF in Highton is protected?
Response (City Planning & Economy):
While Council does not govern the EPBC Act as this is a Federal Act, Council does ensure appropriate referrals are undertaken. The City has taken a number of steps to ensure the habitat of the Growling Grass Frog in Highton is protected. This includes improving storm water quality, extensive habitat restoration in reserves and waterways, and pest plant and animal programs.
Councillor Grzybek presented a petition containing 700 signatures from K-Rock regarding the building of Geelong’s “Big Thing” – a giant 1934 Ford Ute.
Contents | Next Page: Section 2 – Reports
