Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council Livestreamed on our website,, commencing at 6:00pm.
Council acknowledges the Wadawurrung People as the Traditional Owners of the Land, Waterways and Skies. We pay our respects to their Elders, past and present. We Acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are part of our Greater Geelong community today.
Nil.
Nil.
Councillor Grzybek declared a Conflict of Interest in Notice of Motion 3.1 Building Better Bike Connections – Southern Link Stage 2 High Street Retail Precinct (Between Mt Pleasant Road and Roslyn Road), in that Councillor Grzybek is employed by TAC who fund the bike lanes.
Councillor Mansfield declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 2.13 T2100087 Tender for the Provision of Immunisation Services, in that Councillor Mansfield’s husband is an employee of Barwon Health.
Councillor Mansfield moved, Councillor Kontelj seconded -
That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 26 October 2021 be confirmed.
Carried.
The following persons submitted questions prior to the Council Meeting:
Angela Mangan (Urban Design Framework for Pakington Street, (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue);
John Brown (Federal Election);
Bud Chappell (Ocean Grove Principal Pedestrian Network);
Dale Towan (Electric Vehicle Charging Stations – Geelong West);
Sharon (New Schools – Over-development in Geelong);
Mik Aidt (Climate Safety);
Jeanne Nel de Koker (Planning Scheme Amendment C393ggee Urban Forest Strategy);
Maureen Peck (Waste Management/Sustainability);
Lynne Dowling (Budget – allocating further funding for the Chilwell Library);
Bernie Franke (Declaration of Climate Emergency); and
Dr Jane Mooney (Urban Design Framework for Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue).
* For those not present at the Council Meeting, responses to pre-submitted questions are published on Council’s website and are provided by email.
Angela Mangan asked the following in relation to the Urban Design Framework (UDF) for Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue:
Question 1
Given VCAT’s approval of the 8 and 9 level Gordon Avenue twin towers development, what impact will this development have on the heights proposed in the final version of the UDF?
How will Council stop other developers from using the Gordon Avenue twin tower development height as a precedent in the area for future developments? What specific protection would a UDF provide in terms of enforceable and binding maximum building height limits?
Response (City Planning & Economy):
Thank you for your questions, Angela.
UDF height limit controls are incorporated into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme once they are endorsed by Council and approved by the Minister for Planning. All future applications would then be subject to these controls. Height controls in the Planning Scheme are discretionary, and not guaranteed. However, to be exempt from height controls an application must prove that the additional height will not adversely impact on solar access, privacy, amenity and heritage.
Further to this, applicants must demonstrate that the development offers net community benefit above the minimum requirements, Environmental Sustainable Design outcomes above the minimum requirement, and design excellence.
Question 2
The Geelong West traffic assessment report was undertaken prior to VCAT’s approval of the Gordon Ave twin towers. Clearly this development will add to the existing traffic gridlock and parking problems on Pako and surrounding streets.
Although not part of the actual UDF itself, traffic and parking will also obviously be negatively impacted by the contents of the UDF. Therefore, will new traffic modelling be done to incorporate the impact of the Gordon Ave twin tower development, and an updated traffic management and parking plan be provided and factored into the final UDF contents, and also be released to the public so we are fully aware of the traffic and parking impact on Geelong West?
Response to Question 2
The traffic assessment was based on the full build out of all proposed development in the UDF, including the site on Gordon Avenue that was recently granted a permit by VCAT. Therefore, the traffic generated from this development would not be in addition to the forecasts in the traffic assessment.
Question 3
Council has a stated policy that new developments are to, and I quote “avoid buildings that exceed the predominant building height by more than one storey”.
Will Council provide a guarantee that they will abide by this policy when assessing planning applications? A current example is the 4 level, 16 apartment / retail development planning permit application that has been submitted for 85 Pakington St Geelong West, next to the Petrel hotel. This 4-level development proposal does not fit with the character of the area and streetscape and is out of proportion and excessive in terms of density and height compared with the nearby one and two level buildings, and the surrounding low rise heritage overlay streets. It is incredulous that the applicant would be citing the Pakington strand “clock tower” as an example of predominant building height in the area when it is in fact a structure providing signage, not a building that can be used for comparison purposes.
Response to Question 3
With regard to the current planning policy for the permit application for 85 Pakington Street, the planning controls are site specific, and 85 Pakington Street currently has no applicable height limits as it is located in a Commercial Zone and it is not covered by Heritage overlay. However, the overall site context is a matter to be considered as part of the planning process. The planning application for this site is currently under assessment and Council has received seven objections to the proposal, which will be considered as part of the decision making process.
Sharon asked the following questions in relation to the over-development of residential dwellings in Geelong and the need for additional schools.
Given the proposed over-development of residential dwellings in Geelong West/Geelong North/South Geelong, is the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) in meaningful discussions with the State Government regarding the building new schools? Given the increase in residents and the fact that existing schools are full. Would the CoGG consider this to be a priority?
Response (City Planning & Economy) & (Community Life):
Thank you for your questions, Sharon.
Yes, senior officers from both City of Greater Geelong and Department of Education meet regularly to discuss the provision of schools both within our new growth areas and also the existing residential areas of Geelong that are experiencing growth as well. Officers will forward your question and concern regarding schools in Geelong to the Department directly.
Access to local schools is very important and a priority for Council. The planning and delivery of new schools is the responsibility of the state government. We meet with the state government representatives at least twice a year to highlight where we are forecasting population growth and discuss their pipeline of new schools. A new primary school for inner Geelong has been discussed with the education department over a number of years and there are no plans to build this yet.
Mik Aidt asked the following questions in relation to Climate Safety in Geelong.
The Centre for Climate Safety in Geelong is an active community group in our region reaching thousands with our weekly podcast The Sustainable Hour. For many years we’ve been advocating to all levels of government for urgent action to combat human-caused runaway global heating and the irreversible damage that is causing to our climate and to our ecosystems. In doing so, we reflect a widespread community uncertainty and anxiety about this fundamental and existential issue – we engage with public sector organisations and businesses as well as residents. We congratulate the City of Greater Geelong for its response to this challenge – for its courageous, community-wide net-zero emissions target by 2035, and for its leadership in setting out such a comprehensive plan at this late 2021 starting line. When the draft plan was out for public hearing, we offered a wide-ranging critique of what we thought it was missing. While we see clear evidence that a number of our suggested adjustments have been absorbed into the final version before you, we also note that three of our core recommendations have been completely ignored. So our questions are:
Question 1
We proposed the formation of a 100-member Citizens’ Assembly for Geelong that would represent all stakeholder groups in Greater Geelong. Citizens’ Assemblies is an upgrade of our democracy – it is a successful bottom-up governance mechanism that is starting to play a key role in democracies around the world. In particular when it comes to making important and difficult financial decisions on the climate emergency. A Citizens’ Assembly in Geelong could provide a true community voice to Council, helping it to reach good decisions that will gain wide community support. Why was this core recommendation not only ignored, but not even acknowledged? (NB: An advisory board is very good, but it is NOT a Citizens’ Assembly).
Question 2
Including strategies and actions of our business sector and our public sector organisations into a community-wide Citizens’ Assembly would provide the Assembly with valuable skills and insights – and in return, the group could offer the business sector a transparent forum which would create public support for initiatives that are in the public interest. Considering that a large part of Geelong’s emissions come from industry and companies, and considering that you write in the plan that “many companies in the region need help to make significant change” – why does the Plan have no initiatives that could provide or facilitate this sort of help to the business sector? Where will the leadership come from that is so crucially needed here, if not from Council?
Question 3
We note that the Plan has no milestone targets for 2025 and 2030 or five-year reviews, which we recommended, and which would have been in line with Council’s usual recommendations. Why is this?
Response Question 1 (Strategy People, and Performance):
The City is investing in continuing to establish and grow strong relationships with the community and harnessing its expertise, through deliberative engagements.
We have experience convening Citizens’ Assemblies, the first for the Our Future engagement in 2017/18 and in a similar style this year, working with 98 demographically representative community members through a series of workshops for the Our Community Plan engagement.
With regards to climate safety, at this stage the Sustainability Advisory Committee, whose members have a great level of both passion and expertise, is seen to be the best approach for deliberative conversations and engagement on topics of climate, environment and sustainability.
We will continue to welcome feedback in all its forms to ensure we are developing the best environmental solutions for both the community and Council.
Response Question 2 (City Planning & Economy/City Services):
Based on community feedback during the public exhibition of the Draft Climate Change Response Plan we have added/edited the following actions relating to the business sector.
Page 27, Ref 1.3.6 – New action regarding support for businesses developing projects for clean technology and circular economy markets: Allocate resources to support local businesses in developing clean technology and circular economy solutions.
Page 29, Ref 2.1.4 – Edited action to include detail of business incentive and finance support programs: Empower local businesses to reduce emissions by promoting access to energy efficiency and productivity initiatives, including:
energy assessments and energy management plans
incentives and finance programs
advice on energy-efficient buildings.
Page 31, Ref 2.3.6 – Edited action to include detail of support for businesses adopting clean technology, renewable energy and climate positive solutions: Implement initiatives that support the uptake of clean technologies, renewables and climate positive solutions by business and community by 2023, such as Environmental Upgrade Finance.
Page 43, Ref 7.1.4 – New action including detail of support for businesses developing climate mitigation and adaptation programs, technologies and solutions: Allocate resources to support local businesses in developing climate mitigation and adaptation programs, technologies and solutions.
Page 43, Ref 7.1.5 – New action including detail of support for the planning and implementation of climate mitigation and adaptation programs by primary producers and agribusiness: Allocate resources to support the planning and implementation of climate mitigation and adaptation programs by regional primary producers and agribusiness.
Response Question 3 (City Services):
The Climate Change Response Plan will be reviewed in 2024 (as stated in the Plan on pages 7 and 22).
Community milestone targets (in addition to the net zero community emissions by 2035 target) will be considered as part of the review in 2024. This will take advantage of additional information from the completion of related actions within the Climate Change Response Plan e.g. action 1.1.3 Assess the region’s capabilities and skills in climate action. Please note the City has set a milestone target for its own operations in the Plan i.e. zero net emissions by 2025.
Maureen Peck asked the following questions in relation to Waste Management.
I have recently moved from Bendigo and was quite shocked to find that it is prohibited to dispose of food waste in the Green Bin. Bendigo City Council’s stated aim is to “divert organic waste from local land fill sites to reduce associated costs, avoid production of methane gases and odours, and produce compost”.
Question 1
When will Geelong City Council enable food waste to be included in Green Bin collections? Given the Council’s intention to vastly increase the population of the Greater Geelong area and its policy statements regarding sustainability and respect for the environment, better management of waste would seem to be a priority.
Response (City Services):
Thank for your question, Maureen.
The City recognises the importance of diverting food waste from landfill and this month started a food organics collection trial for 1,500 households in Lara. We will evaluate the trial in late 2022 and plan to introduce the service to other parts of Greater Geelong before having a municipal-wide service by 2024.
In addition to the food collection trial we are also investing in local organic processing capabilities. This follows the opening of our Anakie garden organics processing centre in 2019. We will shortly install two food organics processing units which will have the capacity to process approximately 2,000 tonnes of food waste per annum.
We are also working with Barwon Water and other partners to develop the Regional Renewable Organics Network to convert organic materials into nutrient-rich products that improve soil for agricultural uses and capture carbon in the ground, as well as clean, green energy.
Lynne Dowling asked the following questions in relation to the Chilwell Library.
I would like to thank the Council for its acknowledgement of the value of libraries to their local communities by its recent budget commitments to build and renew them in many Local Government Areas. As someone who campaigned to save Chilwell Library from permanent closure in 2017, I am delighted to see Concept Design Plans for its renewal currently available for community consultation. However, I am concerned that, despite the proposed plans being quite modest compared to many others, the $900,000 allocated may not, with the ever-increasing cost of building etc. cover the full implementation of these plans.
Question 1
I make no claim to understand the complexities of Council Budgets but note that the Annual Report 2020-2021 says that the City has a surplus of $141 million with page 10 of the Strategic Resource Plan forecasting surpluses over the next four years. In light of this, I ask if it would be possible for the council to consider allocating further funding for the Chilwell library plans if it should be required?
I’m sure that Charles Sladen who donated the land for a “community hub” before his death at Chilwell in 1884 would be delighted to know of Council’s commitment to the redevelopment of this much loved and valued community asset for the benefit of future generations.
Response (Community Life):
Thank for your question, Lynne.
We note your request and acknowledge that the cost of building has increased significantly over the past 12 to 18 months, which may impact the cost to deliver a redeveloped Chilwell Library. Following the community consultation that is currently underway, a final plan for the Chilwell Library will be produced and this will be costed. The proposed cost will then be considered as part of Council’s normal budget deliberations for the 2022-23 budget process.
Dr Jane Mooney asked the following questions in relation the Urban Design Framework for Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue.
Question 1
The UDF currently allows for high-rise buildings ranging in height from 4 – 10 storeys along the Northern end of Pakington St. 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 respond to local residents’ concerns and guarantee that building heights at the Northern end of Pakington St be a maximum of 3 storeys high, and be commercial zone 2, so that they fit with the existing character of the Pako surrounds?
Question 2
Car parking: On-street car parking is a very important issue for residents who live in the streets that run off Pakington Street, Geelong West. Many residents are unable to park their own cars due to visitors coming to shop and conduct business in the area. In response to these concerns, Council has installed car parking restrictions in residential streets. Such restrictions are useless however if they are not enforced.
This problem will get much worse with increased development proposed in the UDF. Council needs to state what their plan is to protect local residential on-street car parking. How many parking infringement notices have been issued in the last 6-month period in the residential streets that run off Pakington Street, Geelong West from Autumn to Isabella Streets between Madden Avenue / Latrobe Terrace to Elizabeth Street?
Question 3
Recent applications for 4 level mixed use office and apartment developments on or just off Pakington Street in Geelong West are requesting a decrease in on-site car parking – for example 90 Autumn Street, just off Pakington Street (behind Hodges Real Estate) and 85 Pakington Street (just in front of Pakington Strand). The latter has a shortfall of 9 car parks. The applicants try to justify this by stating or implying that the shortfall can be met by the use of near-by public and privately owned car parking – for example, either behind the heritage core, surrounding side streets off Pako and the privately owned Woolies car park on Pakington Strand.
This practice must be stopped now. Proposed increased development resulting from the Pako UDF would serve to exacerbate the risk of this becoming an increasing practice. How will Council guarantee that these public and private car parks are reserved for their intended use – that is: for people coming to shop and do business in the Pakington Street area rather than developers commandeering these parking spaces? Will Council guarantee that developers must provide the mandated on-site car parking requirements?
Response (City Planning & Economy):
Thank you for your questions, Jane.
Response Question 1
The Final UDF proposed to be considered by Council on 14 December 2021, including proposed height limits, has been informed by the feedback from all stakeholders. It is reasonable to say that there has been differing views in relation to potential heights with some seeking higher and others lower, particularly in the northern Pakington Street precinct.
With regard to Councillors’ positions in relation to your question, as the UDF is subject to a future decision of the Council, Councillors are required to remain open to continued feedback regarding the UDF and not determine a position prior to voting at the Council meeting.
Response Questions 2 & 3
The Planning Scheme details the number or rate of car parking spaces required for various types of uses. There is the ability under the Planning Scheme to waive parking requirements based on assessing parking demand for individual planning permit applications. Each application is considered on its merits and may allow a reduction or waiving of parking for the following reasons:
availability of public transport in the area;
multi-purpose trips;
short stay and long stay parking demand; and
variation of parking demand over time.
David Phillips asked the following in relation to the Measurement of Emission Reduction.
I would like to see more data about emissions reduction as we progress to zero emissions by 2035. I think we need shorter term targets and show how Council initiatives reach those targets, e.g. electric buses and EV’s for Council. It would be useful to make the measurement of each improvement and that these could be celebrated as a community, e.g. have a public symbol, like a thermometer, that shows the decreasing emissions. This would raise public awareness of Council initiatives as we move to zero emissions.
The Mayor thanked Mr Phillips for his question and responded Council is aware of the issues outlined and will be bringing the Draft Sustainably Report to Council shortly for further consideration.
Randall Apps asked the following in relation to a Peace Park.
When the Christchurch Mosques were attacked multiple faith groups wanted to gather in community prayer straight away. With the lack of an open venue, it took us a full month to have the memorial. With the cyclist’s accident, a Peace Park would have drawn the faithful easier. Our experience with prayers for bushfire victims, etc let many come to support.
A more comprehensive written proposal for Peace Parks can be made at the next Council Meeting in December?
Robyn Stevens responded that the Social Infrastructure Plan covers the large proportion of community assets and infrastructure that Council and the City provide for community use. That strategy is undergoing review and feeds into our budget processes. What you have described could also be raised through the Multicultural Advisory Committee which you have previously been involved in, as has the interfaith network. Ms Stevens added she would take the question on notice and provide a more detailed response in writing.
Asher presented a petition containing approximately 180 signatures on behalf of Elizabeth Crowe requesting the sealing of Coriyule Road, Curlewis.
Councillor Sullivan presented a petition containing approximately 240 signatures on behalf of Lesley Gordon calling for a community project to seal parking strips along Fenwick Street between Fisher and Brown Streets, Portarlington.
Contents | Next Page: Section 2 – Reports
