Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 8 October 2013

Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors

Reports tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday date held at City Hall, Little Malop Street in Geelong.


  1. Heavy Vehicle Restriction – Central Geelong – Request for Trial Period

  2. Street Occupancy – Kerbside Dining

  3. Amendment C291 Combined Planning Scheme Amendment and Planning Permit 112/2013, 137-139 Melbourne Road, Rippleside

  4. Community Arts and Festivals Grants Program 2013-2014

  5. Road Renaming – Southern Section Beauford Avenue, Bell Post Hill

  6. Road Renaming – Truncated Section Breakwater Road,

  7. Contract C1300022 – Waste Haulage Services

  8. Contract C1300023 – Receipt of Green Organic Material



1. Heavy Vehicle Restriction – Central Geelong – Request for Trial Period

Portfolio:

Central Geelong Cr Michelle Heagney
Transport - Cr Andy Richards

Source

City Services

General Manager:

Gary Van Driel

Index Reference

Central Geelong


Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with background in relation to the current East-West traffic issues within the Central Geelong area and to recommend the development of a staged implementation of trials for the restriction of heavy vehicles through Malop/Mercer Street and Ryrie Streets. The report provides details in relation to the staged implementation of these recommended trials.


Summary

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Richards seconded -

That Council supports:

  1. A two staged approach to traffic management in Central Geelong, including:

    1. the implementation of a 4.5 tonne weight restriction on Malop and Mercer Street in Geelong pursuant to necessary processes with VicRoads and the Truck Operations Committee on a six month trial basis, with the exemptions necessary for delivery to sites in the Central Geelong.

    2. working with all stakeholders towards the introduction of weight restrictions for vehicles on Ryrie Street following broader investigation of the traffic network, identification of required changes to the road network and supporting funding for implementation.

  2. Establishing a submissions panel to take written and verbal submissions on the Stage 1 trial.  The panel to be made up of the Transport Portfolio Holder, Brownbill Ward Councillor, Austin Ward Councillor and any other Councillor who wishes to attend the panel.  The panel will report back to Council. Heavy Vehicle limitations to continue until a final decision is made by Council.

  3. Establish a pre trial monitoring program including but not limited to:

    1. 24 hour traffic classifier counts on all East/West Streets, including Mercer, Malop, Ryrie, Myers, McKillop, Kilgour and Fyans Streets;

    2. air and noise monitoring on selected East/West Streets;

    3. pedestrian and cyclist counts on all routes.


Amendment

Cr Irvine moved, Cr Farrell seconded –

  1. That Council reserve the right to cease the trial should detrimental impacts arise during the conduct of the trial.

Lost.


The motion was then put and carried unanimously.


Division Requested:

For: Crs Ansett, Ellis, Farrell, Harwood, Heagney, Irvine, E Kontelj, S Kontelj, Nelson, Richards

Against: Nil.


Background

Significant work has been done across Central Geelong to date including the Central Geelong Structure Plan, Central Geelong Urban Design Guidelines, implementation of the Activity Centre Zone and the Vision 2 project. All of this work has indentified that further investment/development, attraction of activity and people to Central Geelong will only be delivered with strong policy and implementation support. One of the major issues identified that will need to be managed is the need to address east/west heavy vehicle traffic through the City Centre.

The Central Geelong Transportation Links Study undertaken by the Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure in conjunction with VicRoads and the City clearly identifies existing freight and heavy vehicle movements through the Central Geelong east/west network.

The study has not identified an explicit road hierarchy or heavy vehicle route for the future through Central Geelong, with VicRoads looking for direction and lead from the Council in relation to the designation of road hierarchy and in particular east/west routes across Geelong.

The study investigated opportunities to encourage east-west freight traffic to use other road routes to the south of Central Geelong.


Discussion

The Central Geelong Transportation Links Study documents existing conditions and existing traffic movements in the city. It models traffic movement across the City using existing traffic flows and gives us the ability to test scenarios if changes to the road network were proposed. For example we can model the effects on surrounding streets if heavy vehicle restrictions were introduced on primary east/west streets.

Specifically the study has identified that approximately 88% of heavy vehicles utilise Ryrie Street on a daily basis (12 hour period) to traverse east/west across the City, with a lesser number, approximately 75% of heavy vehicles per day utilising Malop Street as an east/west crossing. Refer following table of existing heavy vehicle movements on east/west network from Latrobe Terrace through to Portarlington Road, Queenscliff Highway and Breakwater Road.

Street

Vehicle Volumes - Average Daily Count

All Vehicles (incl Heavy Vehicles)
Two way traffic

Heavy Vehicles

Total
Two way traffic

Visiting Central Geelong Study area
Two way traffic

Through Traffic

Not stopping in Central Geelong

Two way traffic

Malop Street

15,400

1,080

270

25%

810

75%

Ryrie Street

24,500

1,990

239

12%

1751

88%

McKillop Street

13,400

808

154

19%

654

81%

Source: 2013-07-10 Geelong Central Transportation Links Study report vol1 Final Draft


Heavy Vehicles include any vehicle over 4.5 tonne or trucks with two or more axles.

With any restriction of heavy vehicle movements on east west streets there will be an impact on other east/west streets in relation to additional traffic volumes which are required to be accommodated.

From an engineering perspective there is adequate capacity within the existing road network to accommodate the additional heavy vehicle movements on other east west route routes through the city.


Desirability of a Trial Period

In deciding whether to introduce weight restrictions, a key issue for Council to consider is the positive outcomes delivered to Central Geelong as a result of any heavy vehicle restrictions. Further, the efficient functioning of the whole network to provide for a more workable city in the long term is clearly the desired outcome.

The Council must also consider the potential impacts on amenity of residents immediately adjacent to routes that will carry additional traffic.

In order to inform a long term traffic management strategy for heavy vehicles across Central Geelong and indeed east/west traffic generally it is considered that a trial of heavy vehicle restrictions on Mercer and Malop Streets be introduced as a first stage trial. The heavy vehicle restriction on Ryrie Street would be a Stage 2 trial.

Prior to implementing any trial it will be necessary to seek approval from the state wide Truck Operations Committee and VicRoads.


Truck Operations Committee

The regulatory approval for any heavy vehicle restriction is via the Truck Operations Committee which is a peak industry body which meets at scheduled times throughout the year to provide advice to VicRoads and local councils in relation to any application for a vehicle restriction on any road across Victoria. The next available meeting for this Truck Operations Committee is 24 November 2013 and it is recommended that the Council make an application to this committee for Stage 1 heavy vehicle restrictions to be implemented on a trial basis on Malop and Mercer Streets.


Trial Methodology

The trial would relate to any vehicle above 4.5 tonnes excluding buses, with a restriction on any utilisation of the street defined under the trial arrangements.

There would be no heavy vehicle restriction on trucks, cranes, buses and other heavy vehicles that need to access the City for a genuine purpose such as deliveries.

The trial for heavy vehicle restriction would be for a 24 hour restriction on a 7 day per week basis.

Stage 1 would see the trial implemented with 4.5 tonne weight restrictions on Mercer and Malop Streets for 6 months. It is considered that such a trial would be the most appropriate for Central Geelong as a major activity centre and eliminate the potential for any confusion around business hours.

Stage 2 of the trial would relate to heavy vehicle restrictions on Ryrie Street in conjunction with changes on the broader network.

Responsibility for enforcement of the weight restriction will be negotiated with VicRoads Transport Safety Services and Victoria Police.

Consultation with VicRoads and stakeholders including freight operations, local businesses and residents will take place throughout the trial.


Trial Outcomes

In order for the trial to actually serve its purpose of informing Council as to the appropriate course of action for the longer term management of east/west traffic across Geelong there will need to be significant resources committed to monitoring. This will need to cover not only traffic volumes across the entire network and the effective and efficient operation of this network, but also pedestrian activity across Central Geelong and amenity of the Central Geelong area to ascertain if the benefits envisaged are likely to be delivered by the permanent restriction of heavy vehicles through Central Geelong.

Further, there will be necessity for monitoring of residential areas adjacent to the east/west routes which will accommodate heavy vehicles during the trial period, again to ensure the Council is fully informed of the impacts of any permanent restrictions of heavy vehicles through the Central Geelong street network. This monitoring regime will require initial work to be undertaken in advance of any trial to ascertain existing base level of noise, and other amenity measures, with these to be then monitored for the life of the trial and ultimately reported to Council to inform a final decision.


Process for Implementation of Staged Trial – Stage 1

Step 1 – Liaise with VicRoads Regional Office and agree on the methodology of the heavy vehicle restriction for Stage 1 trial including specific routes. Agree on appropriate signal modifications and any civil works which are necessary to be undertaken to mitigate any impacts on congestion or any other anticipated adverse impact of heavy vehicles on these routes.

Step 2 – Pursue application in line with this agreed position to the Truck Operations Committee for 24 November 2013.

Step 3 – Develop a pre trial monitoring regime to assess efficient and effective management of traffic across entire east/west road network and for the Central Geelong area in relation to pedestrianisation and activity levels. Develop a post trial monitoring regime for any potential impact on east/west road links which will continue to accommodate heavy vehicle traffic, with the monitoring regime to address impacts resultant from any additional traffic utilising these routes.

Step 4 – Implement trial for Stage 1 and monitoring program for a 6 month period. (Note: restrictions would stay in place after a 6 month trial until Council resolves final heavy vehicle restriction regime).

Step 5 – Report to Council at the completion of the 6 month trial on results of trial. Resolve Council position in respect to permanent implementation of traffic regime trialled under Stage 1 and agree permanent implementation strategy.


Process for Implementation of Staged Trial – Stage 2

The recommended Stage 2 trial will be subject to VicRoads review and agreement as Ryrie Street is part of the State road network and performs a state function.

The Stage 2 trial will require significant resources to undertake signalisation modifications and civil works to ensure heavy vehicles can effectively and efficiently utilise the routes that are designated for heavy vehicles. These works would need to be negotiated with VicRoads regional office in advance of seeking consent for the trial via the Truck Operations Committee.

This is an extremely significant piece of work which Council will need to commit resources and personnel to during the course of the development of the trial and monitoring of the trial. Further Council will need to continue to commit to work very closely with VicRoads and all other relevant stakeholders in particular property owners and residents in order to have a functional trial and be in a position to have all relevant data assembled to make a final decision at the completion of the 6 month trial.

The Council is requested to resolve to implement the trial across the entire Central Geelong on a staged basis.


Environmental Implications

The potential significant environmental impacts to central Geelong as a result of removal of heavy vehicle restrictions will be assessed as part of this trial. Further, the monitoring regime as detailed within the report proper for the staged trial for the heavy vehicle restrictions will take into consideration the environmental impacts on routes that may carry additional traffic as result of the restriction on central Geelong Streets under this trial.

The trial with the appropriately resourced monitoring program will provide the information and data which will enable Council to make a fully informed decision in relation to any permanent heavy vehicle restrictions across the central Geelong network, and have regard to any mitigation that may be required as a result of additional traffic on alternate routes.


Financial Implications

There are significant financial implications associated with the introduction of weight restrictions for heavy vehicles on a trial basis. There will be a necessity for changes in signage, changes to traffic signals, line marking, potential civil works and monitoring of vehicle movements and amenity impacts as part of stage 1. A dedicated staff resource for a minimum of 6 months is proposed within Engineering Services to deliver the trial.

The costs associated with the trial will incur an over expenditure in the recurrent 2013/14 budget for Engineering Services estimated at $120,000.

Requires amendment to budget.

A more extensive program of civil works would be required before the Stage 2 trial could be implemented. This will involve future budget submissions through the State Government and Council.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The introduction of weight restrictions for heavy vehicles onto Council’s road network requires approval via the Truck Operations Committee with input from VicRoads.

Any change to Ryrie Street in relation to heavy vehicle restrictions requires the formal consent of the Truck Operations Committee, and ultimately Vic Roads as Ryrie Street is an arterial road that currently functions as part of the broader state freight network. There will be a necessity to prepare a detailed application to the Truck Operations Committee for the Mercer and Malop Streets trial, with a much more detailed assessment and submission required including full cost benefit analysis, for the implementation of the trial on Ryrie Street.

The recommendation in this report provides a direction in respect to the development of an implementation of the trial, however there will be a necessity for officers to undertake all relevant statutory steps in order to implement the trials as recommended.


Alignment to City Plan

The 2013 adopted City Plan identifies central Geelong revitalisation as one of Councils funding priorities for 2013-17.

The restriction of heavy vehicle movements through the city is considered to be a primary task within the revitalisation of Central Geelong and therefore it is considered that the recommendations of this report are firmly in line with the adopted City Plan of Council.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

Officers involved in the preparation of this report from Engineering Services and Planning Strategy own property within the Central Geelong Study area and therefore have an indirect interest in relation to the recommendations of the report or implementation of a heavy vehicle restriction across central Geelong.


Risk Assessment

There will need to be a detailed risk assessment undertaken as part of the preparation for the staged trial of restricting heavy vehicle movements through Central Geelong. The risk assessment will be undertaken on a detailed basis across each stage of the proposed trial and will include monitoring throughout the trial.


Social Considerations

The social implications of heavy vehicle restrictions through central Geelong, and broader implications on areas adjacent to streets which will accommodate the heavy vehicles dislocated as part of the trial will be a primary consideration.

Development of the monitoring program, will also consider impacts on the streets no longer accommodating heavy vehicle traffic.

Further, social considerations will be a fundamental matter which Council will have to consider in reviewing result of the trial and determining a final position in relation to the permanent restrictions on heavy vehicles through central Geelong.


Human Rights Charter

Consideration has been given to human rights relative to the subject matter of this report, such as rate payer’s property rights and a right to fair hearing.


Consultation and Communication

The trial will need to be widely advertised to all stakeholders including residents, business owners and transport operators.

A detailed communication plan will be developed to ensure all stakeholders have input and can provide comment and data during the trial to assist in the monitoring and evaluation process.


[Back to Top]

2. Street Occupancy – Kerbside Dining

Portfolio:

Cr Heagney - Central Geelong

Source:

Community Services - Local Laws

General Manager:

Jenny McMahon

Index Reference:

Community Laws Management/Standards & Guidelines


Purpose

The purpose of this report is to present an amended policy (Appendix 1) that outlines the framework and principles for making decisions about the use of existing parking bays to be used for private commercial purposes. This is in response to requests from central Geelong businesses to operate alfresco dining operations within existing car parking bay/s due to not being able to accommodate such activities on the footpath.


Summary

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Ansett seconded -

That Council adopt the Footpath and Designated Roads Trading and Activity Policy (Appendix 1).

Carried.


Background

Council regularly receives applications from business’s to conduct trading outside their property boundary on “Council Land”. Generally the request is to either place goods for sale or to place tables and chairs for alfresco dining on the footpath.

Council’s General Local Law 2005 requires a person to obtain a permit prior to placing signs, goods or establishing outdoor eating facilities on any road or Council land. Council officers then assess the application in accordance with Council’s Footpath Trading Policy. The existing policy and guideline framework is limited to activities on footpaths. The proposed changes to the policy and guidelines will provide trading opportunities for those food businesses unable to comply with the current policy and guidelines due to narrow non-compliant footpaths.


Discussion

One of Council’s priorities as articulated in City Plan 2013-2017 is to achieve “A successful and vibrant city centre”.

Responding positively and proactively to requests from businesses to enable appropriate trading on roadsides is a step towards achieving this priority. This report outlines the process for issuing a permit and some of the issues to be considered.

Prior to issuing any permit for footpath trading, an inspection of the proposed location is undertaken to ensure that the placement of any items on the footpath does not at any time restrict the primary purpose of the footpath, that is being for the free and unhindered use for pedestrians’ including those with disabilities and parents with prams.

With particular regards to the placement of tables and chairs, (Alfresco dining) consideration is also taken to ensure that the health and safety of those members of the public that are using the tables and chairs is protected.

Generally, all applications are granted with varying specific and non specific conditions. The majority of applications that are unsuccessful tend to be due to the proposed location being unsuitable with respect to being too narrow to accommodate the activity.

To ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the footpath must be a minimum of 2.9 metres wide. This width allows for the placement of alfresco related infrastructure whilst maintaining a minimum 1.5 meters of clear unimpeded passage for pedestrians.

In scenarios where compliance with existing policy and guidelines cannot be achieved, options exist for Council to consider the possible use of a roadside space (parking bay) for the use of alfresco dining. This enables all food businesses that are prepared to comply with the amended policy and guidelines to have an equal opportunity to conduct outdoor dining activities. An established “alfresco dining/café culture” can generate additional benefits including safe and vibrant meeting places, diverse and interesting public spaces and a general feeling of vibrancy and interaction.

The alternative option to the use of existing parking bays would be to extend footpath widths. However, this is likely to be an expensive option which would require significant strategic work before it could be implemented.

The benefits of using parking bays for alfresco dining purposes within an area needs to be conveyed and consensus achieved in order for the benefits to be universally accepted for long term benefits to that precinct. It is reasonable to expect that some businesses may view this proposal detrimentally by focusing solely on the immediate loss of a parking bay within such a precinct. It is anticipated that consultation with businesses would form part of the approval process and provide an opportunity for Council to promote the longer term benefits outweighing the perceived short term loss. (i.e. in an area where there is a 2 hour parking limit between 9.00am and 5.30pm, the total number of vehicles utilising the bay could be as low as 4 vehicles per day, which could alternatively accommodate up to 2 tables and 8 chairs and potentially increase the customer visitation rate to that general commercial precinct).

In instances where any business owner feels aggrieved by such a proposal, Council will receive and review submissions from such business owners through the office of the Chief Executive Officer.

It is proposed that permits would apply throughout the municipality where footpaths are too narrow to comply with the revised Footpath and Designated Roads Trading and Activity Policy and, that the proposal relates to a designated road where council is the responsible road authority. These generally carry low volumes of traffic and often have narrow footpaths.

Existing traders who can comply with the existing footpath trading policy will not be able to extend their activities onto the road. The purpose of amending the policy and guidelines is to enable an opportunity for those food businesses to have alfresco dining where currently they are unable to do so.


Environmental Implications

All applications must be compliant with all relevant design standards to ensure the integrity of the streetscape at the proposed location.

Issues such as traffic and emergency management, and maintenance of service deliveries such as street cleansing and garbage collection must also be considered.


Financial Implications

The cost to widen a footpath to accommodate street trading could be significant. There are numerous factors that would impact on the final figure, such as the type of kerb that needs to be removed and realigned, the surface material of the footpath (paving, asphalt etc) the removal and replacement of existing or new infrastructure including but not limited to street lights, garden beds, traffic/parking signs, safety bollards, rubbish bins and stormwater drainage as an example. It is unlikely that a footpath would be widened to accommodate one business so consideration would need to be given to widening the entire street.

The more feasible option is to make use of parking bays for Alfresco Dining. On a case by case scenario certain parking bays would only require a minimum of changes, for example ramps or bollards which would minimise costs and not require the extension of the footpath.

There is no current budget allocation to meet these costs so it is proposed that the applicant be required to meet all costs associated with infrastructure (including design). To assist the applicant with these costs, Council may consider such payments to be made over a 12 month period.

In the event that the applicant vacates the property and there is a need to reinstate the car parking bay, the applicant will be required to make payment for such works.

Alfresco Dining Permit Fees will be determined in the normal manner ($31 per chair) and the loss of the income from that parking bay. As an added incentive for such proposals, Council will subsidise loss of parking income by applying a fee calculation based on the previous years parking occupancy rates X parking income X 50%. This would not apply in non paid parking bays.

Currently an indicative occupancy rate for such locations ranges between 25%-30%, which translates to approximately $2.40 p/day X 365 days.

At the time of application Council could retain a bond from the applicant equivalent to the costs associated with the reinstatement of the site to its original condition. Upon vacating the premises this bond will be returned to the business owner on the condition that they reinstate the site. In situations where the business owner vacates the premises without notice, Council would utilise the bond to reinstate the site or transfer the bond to an incoming proprietor if that proprietor wished to continue that operation and subject to Council being unable to locate the previous proprietor.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications


Alignment to City Plan

City Plan articulates Council’s strategic directions of Community Wellbeing, Growing our Economy, Sustainable Built and Natural Environment and How We Do Business.

The recommendation proposed in this Council report aligns with Council’s strategic directions through providing opportunities to ensure that community safety is maintained, whilst allowing for and encouraging the operation of commercial activities. Thereby committing to the vitalisation of the streets and businesses within the Central Geelong Area, as well as creating a “laneway” culture.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

There are no officer direct or indirect implications associated with this report.


Risk Assessment

Where extension of the footpath may be appropriate, ensuring public and vehicular safety is paramount. This would require the applicant to submit a plan for the proposed works (similar to a traffic management plan) that addresses such issues as the interaction between vehicles and pedestrians.

Assessments will be conducted in accordance with the “Assessment and Management of Alfresco Dining Application Work Instruction (including exclusion zones)”.


Social Considerations

To enhance the social fabric by creating certain ambience taking into consideration public safety and no adverse affect to people with disabilities.


Human Rights Charter

It has been determined that the decision will have no impact on any individuals human rights.


Consultation and Communication

Given the significance of street occupation proposals, comprehensive consultation with local traders would be undertaken, where the economic and strategic benefits to the entire precinct can be explained. Consensus amongst the local traders would be sought prior to any application being considered.

Consultation with Street Access Committee and Disability Access Committee would also be undertaken.


[Back to Top]

3. Amendment C291 Combined Planning Scheme Amendment and Planning Permit 112/2013, 137-139 Melbourne Road, Rippleside

Portfolio:

Planning - Cr Macdonald

Source:

Economic Development, Planning and Tourism- Strategic Implementation

General Manager:

Peter Bettess

Index Reference:

C291: Consideration of Submissions


Purpose

The purpose of this report is to consider submissions to the Amendment C291 and associated Planning Permit 112/2013.


Summary

Cr Richards moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -

That Council, having considered all submissions to Amendment C291 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, resolves to:

  1. Request the Minister for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel under Part 8 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987;

  2. Refer all submissions to the Panel; and

  3. Submit to the Panel its response to the submissions generally as outlined in this report.

Carried.


Background

The combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application was submitted to Council in February 2013.

The amendment is necessary to rezone the rear portion of the site from Residential 1 Zone to Commercial 2 Zone to give effect to the intended use of the site. The benefit of the rezoning will also remove the split zoning status of the site. (See Appendix 3).

The planning permit is required to enable the use of the site for motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales. The proposed use is a commercial activity but requires a planning permit as it is a section 2 use under the Commercial 2 Zone.

The deletion of Heritage Overlay 1630 (HO1630) from the site is necessary and logical given the historical commercial use of the site and the clear inconsistency with the adjoining residential heritage characteristics of the Drumcondra and Rippleside area.

On 20 May 2013, Council resolved, via delegated authority powers, to support the preparation and exhibition of amendment C291 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

On 24 May 2013, Council officers wrote to the Minister for Planning requesting authorisation to prepare and exhibit amendment C291. Ministerial authorisation was received on 5 June 2013 (Authorisation No. A02549). Public exhibition took place between 4 July and 5 August 2013.

A notice of preparation of the combined planning scheme and planning permit appeared in Victorian Government Gazette on 4 July 2013. Notices were also advertised in the Geelong Independent on 28 June 2013 and in the Geelong Advertiser on 29 June 2013.

Letters and notices were sent to relevant service authorities and to affected landowners on 20 June 2013.

** The combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application was submitted to Council in February 2013. Since July 2013, the previous suite of Business Zones in the Victoria Planning Provisions have been replaced by the Commercial 1 and Commercial 2 Zone. Consequently, the proposed rezoning is now from Residential 1 Zone to Commercial 2 Zone. The Commercial 2 Zone contains the former Business 3 and Business 4 Zones. The mapping attached to this report shows both the Business 4 Zone and Commercial 2 Zone and will continue to do so until the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure update the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Maps or Council initiates a planning scheme amendment to update the planning scheme maps.


Discussion

The public exhibition period resulted in a total of four submissions. Council received a submission from VicRoads, a joint objecting submission from owners of 2 Margaret Street and 4 Margaret Street, Rippleside, and two individual late submissions from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The following section of this report will discuss the submissions received during the exhibition period and will include a Council officer response.

A schedule of submitters is provided at Appendix 4.

Subject to the Minister for Planning appointing an Independent Panel to hear all submissions, the issues discussed below will form the basis of Council’s submission to the Panel Hearing.

VicRoads

VicRoads does not object to the amendment.


Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The EPA advises that it is not a statutory referral authority under section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 because the proposal does not require a licence or works approval or amendment to a licence or works approval; the site is not proposed to be used for an industry or warehouse for a purpose listed in Clause 52.10 shown with Note 1 or for which a threshold distance cannot be met; and is not a proposed extractive industry intended to be used at a later date for landfill.

The EPA states that it has no concern with the proposed planning scheme amendment. The EPA also has no concern with Council issuing the planning permit. However, the EPA recommends that Council considers a number of conditions for inclusion in the planning permit.

The EPA advises that while there are no specific EPA requirements regarding the proximity of the proposal to the surrounding residential zone, Council should ensure that potential noise emissions from the site are managed appropriately. The EPA advises that should Council consider there may be a high levels of vehicle movements to and from the site, it is recommended that Council consider requesting an assessment of the proposal against the Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria.

Response:

Council officers acknowledge the EPA’s position in relation to the proposed planning scheme amendment and the planning permit.

The recommended conditions for inclusion in the planning permit are noted. The draft planning permit has been updated to include the EPA’s condition in relation to noise levels not exceeding the recommendations contained in the Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria (NIRV; EPA Publication 1411, 2011). (See Appendix 5 - changes shown in red text).

Council officers do not consider that vehicle movements to and from the site would have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding residential zone. Consequently, a noise assessment is considered unnecessary.


Property owners at 2 Margaret Street and 4 Margaret Street, Rippleside.

General Comments:

Number of Vehicles

The objectors’ state that the application for 43 display cars will not fit on the site and that this is misleading and should not be granted.

Response:

Clause 52.14 Motor Vehicles, Boats or Caravan Sales of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme requires that on a car sales site, the number of cars for sale or hire must not exceed 1 to each 30 square metres of the site area. The draft planning permit states that no more than 43 cars may be offered for sale on the site. This figure was proposed by the proponent on the basis of the total site area of 1300 sq. metres (1300/30=43 spaces).

The requirement in relation to permissible cars for sale per 30 sq. metres of the total site area is the assessment tool in the planning scheme. It does not relate to the exclusion of existing buildings from the total site area. Whilst in reality the actual usable site area for display cars is less than 1300 sq. metres, this requirement does not specify otherwise. In any case, it is considered the likelihood of 43 cars being displayed on the site at any one time is unlikely.

Proposed Use of the Site

The objectors’ claim that to their knowledge the site has never sold boats, never had caravans and that car yards do not last. The site has remained dormant from business use consistent with the residential nature of Walker Street. The objectors’ state that the use of the site for motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales will adversely impact the adjoining and proximate residential properties. The objectors’ also state that the heritage area behind the existing commercial building has not been used for business activities and should remain protected.

The objectors’ state that given the application does not conform to Clause 63 Existing Uses of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, it should not be granted.

Response:

The proponent cannot demonstrate a continuous use of the site for motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales under the provisions of Clause 63.11 Proof of continuous use of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. Furthermore, the proposed use of the site for motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales is prohibited under the Residential 1 Zone.

To enable the use of the site for motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales, it is necessary to rezone the rear section of the site from Residential 1 Zone to Commercial 2 Zone. Under the Commercial 2 Zone, the proposed use requires a planning permit.

The amendment to rezone the rear portion of the site from Residential 1 Zone to Commercial 2 Zone is necessary for a number of reasons:

  1. To enable the use of the site for commercial uses, namely Motor Vehicle, Boat or Caravan Sales.

  2. To reflect the historical commercial use of the Residential 1 Zone section of the site.

  3. To remove the split zoning status of the land at 137-139 Melbourne Road.

While the proponent cannot demonstrate a continuous use of the site for motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales, this does not mean that the use should not be considered by Council as suitable for the site. It is important to note that the site has a split zoning and the existing Commercial 2 Zone section of the site could be proposed for use as a motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales yard.

The fact that the site may not have sold boat or caravans in the past is not a significant consideration in the assessment of the combined application. It is clear that Clause 52.14 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme relates to the use of a site for the sale of such vehicles and will ensure that due consideration is given to any potential issues, particularly in relation to impact on the amenity of adjoining properties.

The Residential 1 Zone section of the site does not reflect any residential or heritage character similar to the adjoining residential properties to the north and east of the site. The rear section of the site affected by the Residential 1 Zone and Heritage Overlay 1630 contains part of the existing commercial building footprint. In fact, over half of the building footprint is located in the Residential 1 Zone section of the site (See Appendix 1 and Appendix 2). Therefore, it is clear that the Residential 1 Zone/Heritage Overlay section of the site has been used for commercial uses in the past and that the objectors’ reference to ‘1 Walker Street’ being consistent with the adjoining residential area is incorrect. Notwithstanding the proposed use of the site, there is no justification to retain the Residential 1 Zone or Heritage Overlay 1630.

The objectors’ statement that car yards do not last is not a consideration in the assessment of the amendment and planning permit application. It is noted that a car yard operates immediately south of the proposed site, which provides a context to the Commercial 2 Zone corridor and associated uses that operate north/south fronting Melbourne Road. The objectors’ statement that there are no boat or caravan sale yards in the vicinity of the site is not a material consideration. It should be noted that a caravan sales yard is located to the north the site on the corner of Melbourne Road and Victoria Street at 161 Melbourne Road.


Noise

The objectors’ state that a noise assessment should have been prepared and submitted with the application. The objectors’ have prepared a “simple assessment” that show how the noise generated from a boat or car yard could violate the Environment Protection Policy with respect to noise. The objectors’ discussion focuses on the potential for varying throttle levels from motor engines. The objectors’ further contend that given the application does not adequately address noise and that the simple assessment prepared shows the proposal will exceed the regulated noise levels, the application should be refused.

Response:

The objectors’ simple assessment has been referred to Council’s Environmental Health department for comment. The Environmental Health department provides a number of points for consideration in relation to the planning permit:

The objectors’ assessment was also provided to the EPA as an informative to assist with their response.

The proponent has been informed of the comments made by Council’s Environmental Health Unit and the EPA.

Council’s statutory planning department advise that a noise assessment is not usually requested as part of a planning permit application for motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales. Clause 52.14 Motor Vehicle, Boat or Caravan Sales of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and the planning permit are tools used to control the proposed use and to protect the amenity of the surrounding properties.

The purpose of Clause 52.14 is:

Clause 52.14 is therefore focused on the protection of residential amenity and traffic/road safety. The clause sets out a list of requirements specific to the use of the land for motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales. The requirements can be varied. Nonetheless, the requirements are often carried through to the planning permit in order to protect adjoining residential areas from any detrimental impact by the proposed use. Requirements include: No vehicle may be repaired on the site and a landscape buffer strip at least 3 metres wide must be provided on the site along the common boundary and planted and maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The draft planning permit contains a number of conditions in relation hours of operation and amenity.

The site layout plan shows paling fencing and a landscape buffer strip, which are important features of the proposed use/site layout that will assist with alleviating any potential amenity concerns. The draft planning permit has been updated to include a condition relating to the repair/replacement of paling fencing along the boundaries with the adjoining properties and to confirm the dimensions of the landscape buffer strip (See Appendix 5 – changes shown in red text).

The objectors’ suggested noise levels or circumstances where noise levels may exceed permissible levels are unlikely to be constant. The noise emissions from the site are likely to primarily relate to the adjustment of display cars and visiting customers. These movements are not considered to be a significant and constant generator of adverse noise. With the implementation of paling fencing and a landscape buffer, the potential for detrimental noise emissions affecting adjoining residential properties is considered low.

Having considered the objecting submission, the response from Council’s Environmental Health Dept and the EPA, Council planning officers do not consider that a noise assessment is required to support the proposed use of the site nor does it consider the potential issue of noise to be a significant factor sufficient to abandon the planning scheme amendment and refuse the planning permit. The planning permit is Council’s preferred tool for controlling the extent of the proposed use with due regard to the residential amenity of the adjoining area.


Traffic

The objectors’ raise concerns about the insufficient level of on-site customer car parking, the major impact visiting customers will have on the local transport system and amenity of adjoining and proximate residential properties, and the inability of the service road to provide a safe loading/unloading area. The objectors’ contend that a detailed traffic management plan should have been submitted with the application. Consequently, the application should not be granted.

Response:

Council considers that there is no requirement for a detailed traffic management report to be submitted. The lack of a traffic report is not a sufficient reason to abandon the planning scheme amendment and refuse the planning permit. There will be peak and low periods of visiting customers. However, the extent of visiting customers during peak times is not expected to have a major impact on the local road network nor a detrimental impact on the residential amenity currently enjoyed by adjoining properties. Where visiting customers require car parking spaces, spaces will be provided on site, as per the site layout plan, and the local road network will be able to comfortably accommodate any additional demand, if required.

The loading/unloading of vehicles from the site can be undertaken using the access points that lead directly onto the service road. The use of the Walker Street access points would appear inferior in comparison to those on the service road. The question of safety is acknowledged. However, the existing site access points should provide a suitable basis to undertake loading and unloading in a safe manner.


Crossovers

The objectors’ state that one of the two crossovers on Walker Street cannot be used for traffic movement due to employee car parks blocking access. The objectors’ state that the two crossovers on the service road are not safe or practical due to the fast moving traffic and the Bus routes. Further clarification is sought by the objectors’.


Response:

It is considered that both access points onto Walker Street are available for vehicle use.

The site is gated and this set-up is designed in accordance with the existing crossovers and dropped kerbs. The set-up is not proposed to be altered and is considered suitable for the proposed use of the site. The service road is ancillary to the main Melbourne Road. The service road also has a 50 kph speed limit. Consequently, fast moving traffic and the presence of a Bus service are not considered an issue in relation to the proposed use.

Kerbs, barrier and sealed surface

The objectors’ raised concerns that the rear portion of the site is not sealed and overgrown. The objectors’ contend that the Heritage Overlay should not be removed from the site in order to protect the buffer between the commercial and heritage areas.


Response:

The objectors’ comments are noted and it is agreed that the rear section of the site is not sealed and slightly overgrown. It is anticipated that prior to a commercial use coming into operation on the site that the rear section of site would be cleaned up and any unwanted vegetation removed. However, this is a matter for the proponent to consider. Council does not consider it necessary to require the rear section of the site to be sealed.

The removal of the heritage overlay is warranted. The site contains no residential heritage characteristics. As has been discussed previously in this report, the purpose of the Heritage Overlay is not to act as buffer to protect residential properties from potential adverse land uses but rather to conserve buildings and areas of heritage value.


Light Spill and Glare

The objectors’ contend that the application does not address light spill and glare and that it should not be granted.

Response:

The objectors’ issues with previous uses of the site in relation to light spill are noted.

The planning permit deals with light spill and glare. At condition no. 11, the permit states that any outdoor and/or security lighting provided must be designed to prevent adverse light spill on adjoining land or road reserve to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Council considers this an appropriate outcome to control any potential issues.


Adjoining commercial/residential sites and interface

Response:

Council notes that there has been no objection from the owner of 3 Walker Street.

The proponent will plant a landscape buffer of a specified height and depth along the adjoining property boundary, which will assist in removing any potential adverse noise and visual issues. Paling fencing will also be required and this will be reflected in the updated draft planning permit. The permit requires that the site layout accords with the endorsed plans, which will ensure that the proposed use and associated mitigation measures for screening and noise are implemented.

Response:

Council acknowledges these concerns and notes the positioning and description of screening on the adjoining properties.

Response:

Council acknowledges that complaints have been previously made by residents of Margaret Street in respect of activities on the site and adjoining commercial areas. However, the planning permit will seek to control the use of the site and, thereby, minimise the impact of the proposed use on the residential amenity of the adjoining properties.

The proposed planning scheme amendment and planning permit are likely to result in a good planning outcome. The appointment of an Independent Panel by the Minister for Planning will allow the objecting parties an opportunity to be heard and any matter of contention to be discussed in further detail at a Panel Hearing.


Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications foreseen as a result of the use of the site for motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales.

The proposed use of the site will be controlled by a planning permit. The planning permit will ensure that emissions from the site (noise/light/vibration/odour/fumes/smoke etc.) are controlled and do not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding environment.


Financial Implications

There no foreseen financial implications associated with the combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application.

No impact to budget.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, including the State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework

The planning scheme amendment will rezone the rear section of 137-139 Melbourne Rd from Residential 1 Zone to Commercial 2 Zone. This will reflect the historical use of the site for commercial purposes. The planning permit will control the use of the site for motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales.


Alignment to City Plan

The combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit align with the City Plan’s strategic direction, Growing our Economy and the priority to support existing businesses and encourage new and emerging growth sectors. The recognition of the historical use of the site for commercial purposes is important to ensuring the site continues to offer a source of economic activity for Geelong.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officers or contractors involved in the proposed rezoning and planning permit have a direct or indirect interest in matters contained in this report.


Risk Assessment

There are no foreseen risks associated with the combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application.


Social Considerations

No social implications are foreseen as a consequence of the proposed use of the site for motor vehicle, boat or caravan sales. The planning permit will ensure the propose use does not have a detrimental impact on adjoining and surrounding sensitive land uses, namely Residential1 Zone areas.


Human Rights Charter

The amendment will not impact on any basic rights, freedoms, responsibilities as set out in the Charter. Planning legislation ensures an open community consultation process occurs enabling people to freely express their views and if necessary, obtain a fair hearing before an Independent Planning Panel.


Consultation and Communication

The planning scheme amendment and planning permit were exhibited for a period of one month. Notices and letters were issued to affected property owners and also, in the local newspapers and Victorian Government Gazette.

This report recommends that the Minister for Planning appoint an Independent Panel to hear all submissions to the amendment. This will ensure a just and fair process is undertaken and that the objecting submitters have an opportunity to be heard by an independent panel of planning experts.


Appendix 1 Site location plan

Appendix 1 Site location plan


Appendix 2 Existing Zoning and Overlays

(Greater Geelong Planning Scheme maps will continue to refer to the previous Business 4 Zone but this is the new Commercial 2 Zone as per parent Clause 34.02 Commercial 2 Zone.)

Appendix 2 Existing Zoning and Overlays - map one

Appendix 2 Existing Zoning and Overlays - map two


Appendix 3 Proposed rezoning and deletion of Heritage Overlay 1630

Appendix 3 Proposed rezoning and deletion of Heritage Overlay 1630 - page one


Appendix 3 Proposed rezoning and deletion of Heritage Overlay 1630 - page two


Appendix 4 Schedule of Submitters

Submitter

Address

Submission type

Mr Gary Yewdall

4 Margaret Street, Rippleside, VIC 3215

Joint objection with Mr. Barry Palich

Mr Barry Palich

2 Margaret Street, Rippleside, VIC, 3215

Joint objection with Mr. Gary Yewdall

VicRoads
Bryan Sherritt, Manager Program Development)

PO BOX 775, GEELONG VIC 3220

No objection

Environmental Protection Agency South West Region
(Joanne Coupar, Planning Assessment Officer)

4th Floor State Government Office, Cnr Little Malop St, GEELONG VIC 3220

Two submissions with comments:

  1. Planning scheme amendment

  2. Planning permit application


Appendix 5 Updated Draft Planning Permit- changes shown in red text

Appendix 5 Updated Draft Planning Permit- changes shown in red text - page one

Appendix 5 Updated Draft Planning Permit- changes shown in red text - page two

Appendix 5 Updated Draft Planning Permit- changes shown in red text - page three

Appendix 5 Updated Draft Planning Permit- changes shown in red text - page four


[Back to Top]

4. Community Arts and Festivals Grants Program 2013-2014

Portfolio:

Arts and Culture - Cr Heagney

Source

Community Services - Arts and Culture

General Manager:

Jenny McMahon

Index Reference

Subject: Arts & Culture
Subject: Community Arts and Festivals Grants 2013-2014


Purpose

To provide Council with information on the allocations made under the 2013-2014 round of the Community Arts & Festivals Grants Program.


Summary

Cr E Kontelj moved, Cr Richards seconded -

That Council:

  1. agrees to fly the Aboriginal flag from the rooftop of Geelong City Hall on a permanent basis according to national flag flying protocols

  2. undertake the structural changes and ancillary works to enable two flags (Australian and Aboriginal), and up to one other flag (three in total) to fly from the rooftop of City Hall

  3. continue to fly the Aboriginal flag at other local sites for significant events, such as Naidoc Week and Reconciliation Week.


Carried Unanimously.


The Aboriginal flag, flown from Geelong City Hall alongside the Australian National flag, will be a permanent reminder of the City's commitment to the Aboriginal community. It will also serve as a symbol of the significant contribution Aboriginal people continue to make to this region, and make a visible statement acknowledging the traditional owners in and around Geelong. Additionally, it will send a clear message to the Aboriginal community that Council and the community recognise the Aboriginal people as an important part of the municipality, state and nation.

The Aboriginal flag was formally proclaimed as an official Australian flag by the Governor-General in 1995.

Currently, the Australian National flag is flown from the roof top of City Hall fronting Gheringhap Street on a permanent basis. This practice has occurred since at least the 1920s.

The Australian National flag and Aboriginal flag have been flown on a permanent basis on the Geelong waterfront since 30 November 2001.


Discussion

This report seeks Council’s approval to fly the Aboriginal flag, from the rooftop of Geelong City Hall on a permanent basis.

Flying the Aboriginal flag will be a permanent reminder of the City's commitment to the Aboriginal community and a symbol of the significant contribution Aboriginal people continue to make to this region. It also makes a visible statement acknowledging the traditional owners in and around Geelong.

As part of Council’s commitment to recognising the Aboriginal community, flying the Aboriginal flag means recognition and respect for all Aboriginal people, and shows leadership to our local community.

During Reconciliation Week (May/June) and NAIDOC Week (July) the Aboriginal flag is flown in the Johnstone Park forecourt at City Hall, and also from the Geelong West Town Hall in Pakington Street.

The flags are flown strictly in accordance with the Australian Government Protocols and the Flags Act 1953. In July 1995 the Aboriginal flag was proclaimed a ‘Flag of Australia’ under the Flags Act 1953. National Flags flown on a permanent basis must be illuminated.

Council values its relationships with a broad range of individuals and organisations from the Aboriginal Community. As such, the opinion of Wathaurong Co-operative regarding the proposal contained in this report was sought and the proposal is supported.


Guidelines/protocols for flying flags other than the Australian National Flag

It is recommended that Council establish guidelines/protocol for flying flags other than the Australian National flag. Council currently has civic flag raising events including Reconciliation and NAIDOC Weeks, East Timor Independence Day and International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO).

It is recommended that three flag poles be erected, which would be used to fly the Australian National flag, the Aboriginal flag and provide an opportunity to fly one other flag of ceremonial or civic importance. This could also include the State or Council flag. From an aesthetic viewpoint, having three poles rather than two will provide better symmetry.

Over time, as flags become worn and need to be replaced, the worn Aboriginal flag would be passed on to the Aboriginal community for ceremonial use.

The proposed addition of two flag poles to the roof of City Hall required an engineering assessment to be conducted. The assessment was recently undertaken and has confirmed that the additional flags can be flown safely, subject to specified works been undertaken. Flag poles are unable to be added to the rooftop without additional structural upgrades.


Environmental Implications

Not applicable.


Financial Implications

The costs associated with this project will be borne through the draft Karreenga Aboriginal Action Plan.

Costs will include purchasing new flags and flagpoles; making structural changes to support the parapet; additional upgrades to support the proposed flag poles and additional lighting.

The total projected cost associated with the rooftop option is approximately $40,000.

There would be some ongoing costs relating to the replacement of worn flags.

There is currently $59,000 allocated to actions of the Karreenga Action Plan for 2013/2014. The completion of this project will leave approximately $19,000 for implementation of remaining actions.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The flags must be flown strictly in accordance with the Australian Government Protocols and the Flags Act 1953.

The Aboriginal flag was proclaimed an official flag under Section (5) of the Flags Act (1953) by the Governor-General on 14 July 1995. This recognises the flag of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia as a flag of significance to the Australian nation generally, and to be known as the Australian Aboriginal Flag.


Alignment to City Plan

The draft Karreenga Aboriginal Action Plan is aligned to City Plan as part of Annual City Plan Actions 2013-2014. Under the strategic direction of Community Wellbeing Council has a key partnership with Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officer has a direct or indirect interest in this report.


Risk Assessment

An engineering assessment has been undertaken, and it has been confirmed that the additional flag can be flown safely, subject to specified works been undertaken. Flag poles are unable to be added to the rooftop without additional structural upgrades.


Social Considerations

Flying the Aboriginal flag symbolises Council and its community’s recognition of shared history. It sends a positive message to the Aboriginal people that this Council and its community recognise them as an important part of this municipality, state and nation. Furthermore, it aims to highlight to the Aboriginal and wider community that the City of Greater Geelong provides opportunities, equal access to services, facilities and spaces for all community members as outlined in the draft Aboriginal Action Plan.


Human Rights Charter

The guiding principles of flying the flag articulate the core values and philosophy that guide the work of Council in all areas. It captures the need to explicitly consider issues relating to diversity, equity and community participation and empowerment. The UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people recognises that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while also recognising the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such. Reaffirming also that, indigenous peoples in the exercise of their rights should be free from discrimination of any kind, the Aboriginal flag was proclaimed as an official flag.


Consultation and Communication

The flying of flags is administered by the Governance and Marketing Unit, which was consulted in the preparation of this report. Council has also consulted Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative, which is supportive of the proposal to fly the Aboriginal flag as described in this report.

The Community Development Department is responsible for all communications relating to this report.


[Back to Top]

5. Road Renaming – Southern Section Beauford Avenue, Bell Post Hill

Portfolio:

Governance – Cr Harwood (Acting Mayor)

Source:

Corporate Services - Financial Services

General Manager:

Jeff Wall

Index Reference:

Subject/Financial Management - Reporting
Subject/Roads, Footpaths & Streets


Purpose

Seek approval to rename the southern section of Beauford Avenue, Bell Post Hill to McNaughton Street, Bell Post Hill due to a subdivisional development.


Summary

Cr Richards moved, Cr Irvine seconded -

That Council approves the renaming of the southern section of Beauford Avenue, Bell Post Hill to “McNaughton Street”, Bell Post Hill.

Carried.


Background

A two (2) lot subdivision is occurring on a corner allotment, 45 Neil Street, Bell Post Hill which has created a new property with frontage and access off Beauford Avenue. This property will require a unique address to this section of roadway.

The current numbering of Beauford Avenue begins north of Ruhamah Avenue where it intersects with Edison Road, Bell Post Hill (Refer Attachment A). The southern section of Beauford Avenue currently has no property numbering. Renaming the section of Beauford Avenue, south of Ruhamah Avenue only, will have the least impact on property owners and residents, rather than renumbering the entire length of Beauford Avenue. This option will also enable future property subdivision to create unique identifiable property addresses.


Discussion

The proposed name of the southern section of Beauford Avenue, south of Ruhamah Avenue is “McNaughton Street”. This name has been selected from a recently compiled ANZAC register of suitable road names that was compiled as part of the State Government’s Office of Geographic Names ANZAC Commemorative Naming Project.

Sister McNaughton was born in Geelong and served as a nurse in Cairo and the Western Front.

The suggested naming meets the requirements of the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010.

The proposed renaming was advertised in The Independent newspaper on 10 May 2013 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 11 May 2013 and all abutting land owners were notified at this time. Council did not receive any submissions regarding this road renaming.

A favourable news article was published in The Independent newspaper on 17 May 2013 (Attachment B) recounting the history of Sister McNaughton.


Environmental Implications

There are no environmental issues arising from this report.


Financial Implications

Council is responsible for street signage at an approximate cost of $250.00 per sign.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The Local Government Act 1989, Geographic Place Names Act 1998 and The Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 have been followed and met.

The proposal was advertised in The Independent newspaper on 10 May 2013 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 11 May 2013 with no submissions received by Council.


Alignment to City Plan

This proposal aligns to City Plan with encouragement of future growth through subdivision of land.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

There is no Council Officer direct or indirect interest involved in this report.


Risk Assessment

Should an emergency situation occur Council’s proposal to rename this section will minimise the risk of emergency services not being able to locate the situation.


Social Considerations

The renaming of this section of roadway will allow for easy identification to the public and utility services in case of an emergency.


Human Rights Charter

It is the right of every resident and property owner for their property to have a unique address in order to receive services and reduce confusion or delay of emergency services.


Consultation and Communication

Correspondence was sent to all 10 adjoining property owners advising them of the proposal to rename this section of roadway and inviting submissions.

This proposal was also advertised in The Independent newspaper on 10 May 2013 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 11 May 2013. The proposal was published on Council’s Geelong Australia website for 30 days as per the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010.

No submissions have been received and it is now appropriate to seek Council approval to proceed with the proposed renaming.

Subject to Council and The Registrar of Geographic Names approval, the relevant authorities and abutting owners will be notified of the official registration of this road renaming.


Attachment A

Road Renaming - Southern Section Beauford Avenue, Bell Post Hill

Road Renaming - Southern Section Beauford Avenue, Bell Post Hill


Attachment B

Overdue honour for our angel of World War 1 - posted on 17 May 2013


[Back to Top]

6. Road Renaming – Truncated Section Breakwater Road, Belmont/Breakwater

Portfolio:

Governance- Cr Harwood (Acting Mayor)

Source:

Corporate Services - Financial Services

General Manager:

Jeff Wall

Index Reference:

Subject/Financial Management - Reporting
Subject/Roads, Footpaths & Streets


Purpose

Seek approval to rename a truncated section of Breakwater Road, Belmont/ Breakwater to Gundog Lane, Breakwater / Belmont.


Summary

Cr Richards moved, Cr Irvine seconded -

That Council approves the renaming of the truncated section of Breakwater Road, Belmont / Breakwater to “Gundog Lane”, Belmont / Breakwater.

Carried.


Background

VicRoads have constructed a new bridge, retaining the name of Breakwater Road for the section of roadway crossing the new bridge.

The original roadway known as “Breakwater Road” and the breakwater crossing have been declassified as an arterial road and transferred to Council as a local road. The roadway is a continuous roadway through two suburbs with the Barwon River being the locality boundary between Belmont and Breakwater.

The road has been truncated and disjointed from the remainder of Breakwater Road and can only be accessed over the old breakwater crossing off Tucker Street, Breakwater. According to the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010, a separate name is required for any section of roadway that becomes disjointed.


Discussion

It is proposed to rename the truncated section of Breakwater Road to “Gundog Lane”.

The truncated section of Breakwater Road is the only access point to the Target Rifle Geelong Club and the Geelong Obedience Dog Club. The proposed name chosen for this section of roadway recognises both organisations in the word “Gundog”. Also gundogs or bird dogs, are types of dogs developed to assist hunters in finding and retrieving game, usually birds.

The suggested renaming complies with the Guidelines for Geographic Place Names 2010.

The proposed renaming was advertised in The Independent newspaper on 17 May 2013 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 18 May 2013 and abutting occupiers were notified at this time.

Council has received four submissions in regard to this proposed renaming. Two submissions were in favour and supported the new name. Two submissions were against the proposed new name, with one submission suggesting to rename the roadway as ‘Centre Fire’ and the other submission would like a name honouring Foster Fyans.

The name ‘Centre Fire’ only recognises one of the clubs utilising the roadway. Foster Fyans has already been recognised in the naming of West Fyans Street, Fyans Street, Foster Street and a number of other features across Geelong. Utilising either of these names would be considered as a duplicate according to the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 and therefore is not acceptable.


Environmental Implications

There are no environmental issues arising from this report.


Financial Implications

Council is responsible for signage costs, however in this case VicRoads will be arranging for the purchase and placement of the signs.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The Local Government Act 1989, Geographic Place Names Act 1998 and the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 have been followed and met.

The proposal was advertised in The Independent newspaper on 17 May 2013 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 18 May 2013 with four submissions being received.


Alignment to City Plan

This proposal aligns to the current City Plan with How we do Business and The Changing Needs of the Community.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

There is no Council Officer direct or indirect interest involved in this report.


Risk Assessment

Should an emergency situation occur within this roadway, Council’s proposal to rename will minimise the risk of emergency services not being able to locate the situation.


Social Considerations

The renaming of this section of roadway will allow for easy identification to the public and utility services in case of an emergency.


Human Rights Charter

It is the right of every resident and property owner for their property to have a unique address in order to receive services and reduce confusion or delay of emergency services.


Consultation and Communication

Correspondence was sent to all adjoining property occupiers and owners advising them of the proposed renaming and inviting submissions.

The proposed renaming of this roadway was advertised in The Independent newspaper on 17 May 2013 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 18 May 2013. The proposal was also published on Council’s Geelong Australia website for 30 days as per the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010.

Subject to Council and The Registrar of Geographic Names approval, the relevant authorities and abutting residents will be notified of the official registration of the road renaming.


Cr Harwood declared an Indirect Interest by Close Association with one of the tenderers in Item 7 – Contract C1300022 – Waste Haulage Services, and Indirect Interest by Close Association with a business that is connected to tenderers in Item 8 – Contract C1300023 – Receipt of Green Organic Material and vacated the Chair prior to discussion at 8:39pm.

Cr Nelson assumed the Chair at 8:39pm..



[Back to Top]

7. Contract C1300022 – Waste Haulage Services

Portfolio:

Environment & Sustainability – Cr Andy Richards

Source

Environment & Waste Services

General Manager:

Gary Van Driel

Index Reference:

T1300022


Purpose

Consideration of tender submissions for Tender No. T1300022 – Haulage Services: Landfill Waste & Green Organics.


Summary

Cr Richards moved, Cr Ansett seconded -

That Council:

  1. Accept the tender submission’s from:

    for inclusion on a panel of preferred suppliers for the hire of haulage vehicles under Contract No. C1300022 – Waste Haulage Services for the hourly hire rates submitted (exclusive of GST).

  2. Sign and seal the contract documents.

Carried.


Background

The City of Greater Geelong has invited tenders for the provision of Waste Haulage Services via public advertisement in Tenderlink, The Age and the Geelong Advertiser.

At the close of tenders the following submissions were received:

Discussion

The tender called for submissions on the basis of hourly hire for vehicles of a minimum of 20 tonne load capacity with a preference for walking floor vehicles. Tenderers could choose from hire periods ranging from 10 hours per week to in excess of 40 hours per week as well as at-call hire or for extended periods from one week through to two years. These flexible arrangements are necessary to meet the likely variations in material quantities due to seasonal variations and in particular to enable changes to the location of delivery for green organic material.

The tender submissions were evaluated by a panel consisting of:

Evaluation: Stage One – Mandatory Criteria

The Evaluation Panel determined that all four tender submissions received complied with Council’s OH&S requirements as detailed in the Tender Schedule

Evaluation: Stage Two – Comparative Criteria

Tenderers with an overall score of 60% or above were deemed to have the necessary skills, experience and resources. The tenderers who achieved this score were then assessed on a best value basis resulting in the following suppliers being recommended for inclusion to the Waste Haulage Panel.


Tenderer

Rank

Vegetation Management & Greenwaste Recycling Services Pty Ltd t/a Green Care Mulching

1

Four Seasons Waste Pty Ltd

2

NW Sand & Soil P/L t/a Tidy Town Bin Hire

3

Newcomb Sand & Soil Supplies

4


Overview of Successful Tenderers

D.P. & J.P. Dunoon Pty Ltd t/a Newcomb Sand & Soil Supplies

Newcomb Sand & Soil Supplies have operated in Geelong for 40 years and are a current contracted supplier to CoGG. This tender complied with Council’s OH&S requirements and was supported with detailed documentation covering their current workplace OH&S practices.

Vegetation Management & Greenwaste Recycling Services Pty Ltd t/a Green Care Mulching

Green Care Mulching currently provides waste haulage services to CoGG and being a local supplier (they operate from Point Henry) they utilise and support local businesses. Green Care Mulching stated compliance with Council’s OH&S requirements and supported this with documentation detailing their current health & safety practices.

Four Seasons Waste Pty Ltd

Four Seasons lodged a detailed submission that addressed all aspects of the evaluation criteria. They provide waste haulage services for a number of Councils including CoGG. Their submission complied with the OH&S requirements for the works with independent AS/NZS4801 certification.

NW Sand & Soil Pty Ltd t/a Tidy Town Bin Hire

Tidy Town Bin Hire have operated in Geelong for 28 years. They currently transport green organics for CoGG and have a proven track record for service delivery. They demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Evaluation Panel that they have the capacity to successfully deliver the service offering a range of options including a 73 cubic metre and a 50 cubic metre truck and trailer which the Evaluation Panel thought would meet Council’s short haulage requirements. This tender submission complied with Council’s

OH&S requirements with evidence provided of their current workplace health & safety practices.


Environmental Implications

The haulage is for waste materials collected under Council’s environmental best practice residential kerbside waste collection system. Within this system the quantity of material disposed of at landfill is reduced by the provision of the green organic material collection and this haulage service provides for the delivery of this material for processing for environmentally beneficial purposes.

The haulage of municipal solid waste reduces the number of vehicles on the road by bulking material for the longer distance cartage to the Drysdale Landfill. This reduction in vehicle numbers also reduces the traffic through the township on the haulage route, such as Drysdale.


Financial Implications

The tendered rates of the contractors recommended for acceptance represent value for money to Council and will enable the provision of this service for an amount within current approved budget. The annual value of this service is estimated to be at least $600k, depending upon the material quantities and delivery locations.

By accepting these contractors to a panel the General Manager City Services will be able to select the most suitable combination of haulage vehicles to suit the circumstances at any particular time.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The requirements of Section 186 of the Local Government Act have been complied with for this tender. There are no other policy, legal or statutory implications associated with this tender process.


Alignment to City Plan

This tender aligns with two of the Strategic Directions in the City Plan:

Sustainable Built and Natural Environment – Priority: Support our community to live sustainably and minimise our environmental footprint; and

How We do Business – Priority: Efficient and customer focused organisation.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officers involved during the evaluation process or the preparation of this report have any direct or indirect interest in this matter, in accordance with Section 80c of the Local Government Act.


Risk Assessment

There are not considered to be any risks associated with the acceptance of this tender that cannot be managed through the contract conditions.


Social Considerations

There are no social implications that will arise from the acceptance of this tender.


Human Rights Charter

There are no human rights implications that will arise from the acceptance of this tender.


Consultation and Communication

There are no communication issues associated with the acceptance of these tenders.


[Back to Top]

Cr Eddy Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest in relation to Contract C1300023 - Green Organics Receival, in that several of the tenderers are significant customers of his employer and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 8.41pm.


8. Bailey Street, Grovedale – Footpath, Road and Kerb and Channel Construction – SRC 318 & 313 – Finalisation of Schemes

Portfolio:

Environment & Sustainability – Cr Andy Richards

Source

Environment & Waste Services

General Manager:

Gary Van Driel

Index Reference

T1300023


Purpose

Consideration of tender submissions for Tender No. T1300023 – Receipt of Green Organic Material.


Summary

Cr Richards moved, Cr Heagney seconded -

That Council:

  1. Accept the tender submission’s from –

    for their inclusion on a panel of preferred suppliers for Contract No. C1300023 – Receipt of Green Organic Material for the associated schedule of rates (exclusive of GST).

  2. Sign and seal the contract documents.

Carried.


Background

Council has sought tenders to establish a panel of contractors to receive the City’s green organic material collected by Council’s residential kerbside collection service (green lid bin), as deposited at resource recovery and transfer facilities and generated during the course of Council operations.

At tender close the following six organisations submitted tenders for the Receipt of Green Organics:

The green organic material will be delivered to the contractor’s facility either decontaminated and mulched or just decontaminated, depending on the contractor’s stated preference and Council’s preferred option.

A secondary consideration is that compost produced from the green organics may be purchased from the contractor by Council as backload material for use in urban landscape works through to blending with soil for landfill rehabilitation.

The successful contractors will be appointed as preferred suppliers to a panel for a period of three years and actual quantities supplied by Council will be at the discretion of the General Manager City Services. This operational flexibility is necessary due to the uncertainties in the organics processing industry as requirements may change to meet market demands or changes in regulations, almost on a day to day basis.

Also, a number of the tenderers have requested variations to the contract arrangements to suit their particular organisational arrangements and operations. The establishment of a panel with the General Manager City Services able to select the most beneficial contractor at any particular time within the context of the Council’s and the contractor’s operational parameters provides the best opportunity to achieve the most beneficial environmental and financial outcomes.

The tendered prices are for delivery of the green organics to the contractor’s facility and therefore actual cost to Council may also include the cost of hauling the material. This haulage will be carried out by contractors nominated from Contract No. C1300022 with the best financial outcome coming from a combination of the receival fee and haulage costs. Again, having flexibility in the choice of the receival contractor will enable Council to utilise the best value package of receival and haulage.

Barro Group Pty Ltd, Boral Recycling Pty Ltd and SITA Australia Pty Ltd included contract non conformance requests in their submissions that sought to amend various aspects of the contract conditions to align to their organisational and operational practices.


Discussion

The tender submissions were evaluated by a panel consisting of:

Evaluation: Stage One – Mandatory Criteria

The Evaluation Panel determined that all six tender submissions complied with Council’s OH&S requirements as detailed in the Tender Schedule


Evaluation: Stage Two – Comparative Criteria

Tenderers with an overall score of 60% or above were deemed to have the necessary skills, experience and resources.

The tenderers who achieved this score were then assessed on a best value basis resulting in the following suppliers being recommended for inclusion to the Panel for Green Organics Receipt.

Tenderer

Rank

Camperdown Compost Company Pty Ltd

1

Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd

2

SITA Australia

3

Barro Group Pty Ltd

4

In a review of the requests for variations to the contract documentation from Barro Group Pty Ltd, Boral Recycling Pty Ltd and SITA Australia Pty Ltd by Council’s Waste Services, Procurement and Governance and Legal Services Units it was concluded that the requests from Barro Group Pty Ltd and Boral Recycling Pty Ltd could be met or addressed by reasonable operational changes.

The operational variations required to meet the requests by Barro Pty Ltd and Boral Recycling Pty Ltd will be considered as required in the selection of the actual receival contractor by the City Services General Manager from time to time.

As a secondary consideration tenderers were also requested to provide prices for the supply of composted material that could be backloaded for use by Council in landscaping or landfill rehabilitation works. The savings in the supply of this material will also be a consideration in the choice of the actual contractor at any particular time.

In nominating the above suppliers Council does not warrant the quantity of green organic material that will be delivered during the Contract term. The selection of the actual contractor and the quantity of material to be supplied will be at the discretion of the General Manager City Services, subject to actual conditions of receival and operational efficiencies.

It should also be noted that Council is currently testing the feasibility of establishing its own composting operation for the purpose of producing compost to blend with soil for use in the rehabilitation of the former Corio Landfill site. Should this eventuate then the supply of material to any one or all of these receival contractors may be short term only.


Overview of Successful Tenderers

Barro Group Pty Ltd

Barro Group currently obtains green organic material from the City of Greater Geelong for use in their quarry rehabilitation program. The Evaluation Panel determined that their tendered rates provided value for money to Council and through their local facilities employing 100+ staff they demonstrated their economic benefit to the local region. Barro Group’s business processes and systems including OH&S have been independently certified and endorsed to the Australian standard AS9001 and AS4801.


Camperdown Compost Company Pty Ltd

Camperdown Compost has received green organics from the City of Greater Geelong since March 2012 and has complied with Council’s requirements for both service and safety (they also process green organics from Southern Grampians Shire, Moyne Shire and Colac Otway Shire). They use the green organics to rehabilitate local farming land resulting in both cost savings and environmental benefits for ~100 farms between Geelong and Portland this year.


Boral Recycling Pty Ltd

Boral in conjunction with subcontractor PineGro supply municipal green waste services to a range of Councils including Booroondara City Council, the City of Stonnington and Maroondah City Council. Boral operate from a landfill site located at Christies Road, Truganini where green organic material is used for site rehabilitation and composted for sale into the landscaping market. Their submission demonstrated their continuous improvement processes that are governed by the EPA and comply with the Australian standard AS4454 for mulching and composting, while their tender submission detailed their approach to continuous improvement and safety.


Environmental Implications

The predominant material to be delivered to these contractors for processing is that collected under Council’s residential kerbside collection service as part of its three bin system that is environmental best practice. This system is designed to maximise the reduction of waste going to landfill and the receival of this material is an essential element of the system with value being added through processing the material into usable product that in some instances also reduces reliance on less environmentally beneficial products.

Effectively without a sustainable receival and processing option(s) this material may end up in landfill with detrimental consequences for Council’s waste reduction programs and an increase in Council’s carbon footprint.


Financial Implications

Funding for the provision of this service is included within the current approved budget. As with the environmental implications should a sustainable processing option(s) not be available and this material is then directed to landfill there will be a significant increase in the cost of this service with no current budget allocation to cover this increase.

The establishment of a panel of preferred service providers enables the General Manager City Services to select the most financial and operationally beneficial materials receival and haulage package at any particular time within the industry parameters that exist at that time. The green organics industry has a history of uncertainty and this is likely to continue as markets and regulations continue to adjust to materials supply and best practice.

The annual value of this service is estimated to be at least $600,000.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The requirements of Section 186 of the Local Government Act have been complied with for this tender.

The receival and processing of green organics is an essential element of Council’s waste reduction policy position.


Alignment to City Plan

This tender aligns with two of the Strategic Directions in the City Plan:

Sustainable Built and Natural Environment – Priority: Support our community to live sustainably and minimise our environmental footprint; and

How We do Business – Priority: Efficient and customer focused organisation.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officers involved during the evaluation process or the preparation of this report have any direct or indirect interest in this matter, in accordance with Section 80c of the Local Government Act.


Risk Assessment

The risks associated with the acceptance of these contractors have been thoroughly examined by both the Evaluation Panel and the group of Council units. This has lead to the non acceptance of three of the tenderers and a comprehensive review of the remaining tenderers, particularly with regards to the requests for variation.

Risks have been minimised within the contract documentation and these will continue to be assessed on a day to day basis in the selection of the actual service provider within the context of the contract requirements and to some extent the variation sought by some of the contractors.

The greatest risk is that of no service at all that would see green organics delivered to landfill at a significant increase in cost to Council and the likely undermining of the community’s faith in Council’s entire waste reduction program.


Social Considerations

There are no social implications that will arise from the acceptance of this tender.


Human Rights Charter

There are no human rights implications that will arise from the acceptance of this tender.


Consultation and Communication

There are no communication issues associated with the acceptance of this tender.


[Back to Top]

Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors