Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 14 October 2014

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. Amendment C298 Combined Rezoning and Planning Permit Application (Ref 782/2013) for Land at 400 Melbourne Road, North Geelong

  2. Amendment C259 – Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan Adoption

  3. Onshore Gas Extraction Report

  4. Integrated Comprehensive Transport Plan

  5. Geelong Train Stations Local Infrastructure Survey

  6. G21 Regional Economic Development Strategy

  7. Annual Report 2013-2014

  8. Flinders Peak Secondary College Education and Community Activity

  9. Barwon Health North – Preferred Land Discussions on the Northern Arc Site

  10. State Government Climate Change Adaptation – Memorandum of Understanding – Exhibition Draft

  11. Geelong Major Events Annual Report to Council 2013/2014

  12. Sale of Land – Draper Street, Ocean Grove – New Notice of Intention to Sell Land

  13. Mayors Geelong Fund

  14. Variation to Council Meeting Timetable

  15. Road Naming – Unnamed Laneway, Highton to Garrard Lane, Highton

  16. Proposed Development (Confidential)

  17. Land Sales 2014-2015 – Quarterly Progress Report (Confidential)

  18. Audit Advisory Committee Summary Report (Confidential)



1. Amendment C298 Combined Rezoning and Planning Permit Application (Ref 782/2013) for Land at 400 Melbourne Road, North Geelong

Portfolio:

Planning - Cr Heagney

Source:

Planning and Tourism - Strategic Implementation

General Manager:

Peter Bettess

Index Reference:

Application: C298


Purpose

The purpose of this report is to consider the Panel report for Amendment C298 and to adopt the amendment.


Summary

Cr Heagney moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -

That Council, having considered Amendment C298 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and Planning Permit 782/2013:

  1. adopts Amendment C298 in the form attached in Appendix 6;

  2. recommends to the Minister for Planning that Planning Permit 782/2013 be granted pursuant to Section 96G of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in the form attached in Appendix 7; and

  3. submits the adopted amendment with the prescribed information to the
    Minister for Planning requesting approval.


Carried.


Background

The combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application is necessary to facilitate the sale of Council-owned land by applying the appropriate land use zone, planning overlay and subdividing the land from the Park Reserve.

The amendment affects land at 400 Melbourne Road, which contains a McDonalds restaurant. A site location plan is included in Appendix 1. The McDonalds restaurant operates on land zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone. (See Appendix 2 Existing Zoning).

The amendment will rezone the affected land containing the McDonalds restaurant from Public Park and Recreation Zone to Commercial 2 Zone and apply the Environmental Audit Overlay. (See Appendix 3 Proposed Rezoning).

The Planning Permit (ref: 782/2013) will subdivide the affected land from the Park Reserve creating a new lot. The permit will also remove the Reserve restriction from the lot to be created.

On 22 October 2013, Council resolved to support the preparation and exhibition of the combined rezoning and planning permit application.

The combined application was exhibited between 20 March 2014 and 28 April 2014.

The exhibition period resulted in a total of four submissions. A list of submitters is provided at Appendix 4.

VicRoads advised it has no objection to the amendment.

Three objecting submissions were received from Geelong residents. The submissions raised the following issues: opposed the loss of recreational open space; that the park requires upgrading including landscaping; queried why a new McDonalds restaurant is necessary; the reason for rezoning the land to a commercial zone; and who will profit from the rezoning.

The objectors misinterpreted the purpose of the amendment and planning permit application. During the consideration of submissions stage, Council officers endeavoured to rectify this issue by making contact with submitters.

Council officers were successful in resolving one objection. The objector stated that Geelong has enough McDonalds restaurants and advised that there is no reason for any more junk food outlets. After speaking with the objector and explaining the purpose of the amendment, the objector wrote to Council and requested that the objection be withdrawn on the basis that there is an existing McDonalds outlet at the site.

On 10 June 2014, Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel to hear all submissions to the amendment, including the two outstanding objecting submissions.


Discussion

The Minister for Planning appointed an Independent Panel on 19 June 2014. A one person Panel consisting of Chair, Sue Porter, conducted Panel proceedings.

The Panel notified all submitters to the amendment about the Panel Hearing process and invited those parties to be heard. The Panel only received one request to be heard, being Council. Consequently, the Panel directed that a Directions Hearing and Panel Hearing would not be necessary and that matters could be dealt with by written submissions. Council agreed to this process.

The Panel made a number of Directions about the exchange of submissions. The exchange of submissions commenced on 1 August 2014.

During the course of the Panel proceedings, the two objecting submitters wrote to Planning Panels Victoria advising that they wish to withdraw their submissions.

Consequently, the Panel stated that on the basis that all objecting submissions have been withdrawn, it recommends:

"That Council adopt Amendment C298 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme as exhibited and issue Planning Permit 782/2013 subject to the conditions specified in the exhibited Draft Planning Permit.”

The Panel also advised the following:

“It should be noted that this is a formal recommendation made in the circumstances stated and that the Panel has not considered the substance of the submissions referred to it or the merits of the Amendment or Planning Permit application.”

The Panel’s report was received on 5 August 2014. A copy of the Panel Chair’s recommendation is included in Appendix 5.

The combined rezoning application and planning permit will result in a good planning outcome. By applying the appropriate zone to the subject land and subdividing the said land from the Park reserve, this will enable Council to sell the land.


Environmental Implications

It is unlikely that the amendment and planning permit will create any adverse environmental issues. The amendment will ensure that existing on-site environmental conditions are suitable for any future sensitive land uses by introducing a planning control, namely the Environmental Audit Overlay.


Financial Implications

There will be associated planning scheme amendment costs (amendment fees and panel costs) as part of the implementation process given this is a Council-initiated amendment. These costs can be accommodated within the existing department budget.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Amendment C298 is consistent with the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks, that comprise part of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, as outlined below.

The State Planning Policy Framework is relevant to the assessment of this proposal in so far as it discusses the use of contaminated and potentially contaminated land, at Clause 13.03-1 and the importance of planning facilitating economic development at Clause 17.

Clause 13.03-1 states that the objective is:

“To ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for its intended future use and development, and that contaminated land is used safely.”

The strategy for Clause 13.03-1 requires applicants to provide adequate information on the potential for contamination to have adverse effect on the future land use, where the subject land is known to have been used for industrial, mining or the storage of chemicals, gas, wastes or liquid fuel.

Clause 17 Economic Development states:

“Planning is to contribute to the economic well-being of communities and the State as a whole by supporting and fostering economic growth and development by providing land, facilitating decisions, and resolving land use conflicts, so that each district may build on its strengths and achieve its economic potential.”

The amendment satisfies the above requirements of planning in so far as facilitating decisions and resolving land use conflicts so that the City of Greater Geelong can build on its strengths and achieve its economic potential.

The Local Planning Policy Framework is relevant in so far as applying the Environmental Audit Overlay and the application of a commercial zone to recognise an established retail activity.

The introduction of Clause 45.03 Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to the land is considered a logical proposal. The purpose of the EAO is:

“To ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for a use which could be significantly adversely affected by any contamination.”

An EAO is required because the Commercial 2 Zone allows sensitive uses such as a childcare centre.

Clause 45.03 requires:

Before a sensitive use (residential use, child care centre, pre-school centre or primary school) commences or before the construction or carrying out of buildings and works in association with a sensitive use commences, either:

Assessment Criteria for Retail Planning Applications requires that applications involving a planning scheme amendment in or adjoining existing activity centres clearly establish a retail need for such use and development and demonstrate that there are no adverse impacts on the operation of the retail activity centres hierarchy. The subject land is adjacent to an existing commercial precinct which forms part of the broader Geelong North Homemaker precinct. The proposed rezoning will in effect extend the commercial precinct to include the subject land. Given the historical commercial use of the site, it is considered there will be no adverse impacts on the operation of the homemaker precinct.


Alignment to City Plan

The amendment aligns with the City Plan’s strategic direction, How We Do Business, and the priority relating to “Responsible and Sustainable financial management”. The amendment will assist Council in maintaining a strong financial position by rezoning, subdividing and selling the subject land.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officers 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 significant notable risks that would arise as a consequence of the combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit.

Consideration has been given to the previous use of the site, which formed part of a landfill between the 1950’s and 1970’s. It is proposed that the Environmental Audit Overlay will be applied to the affected land to ensure that if a sensitive use is proposed in the future, the requirements of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and Ministerial Direction No.1 Contaminated Land, will be complied with, where relevant.

The preparation of the planning scheme amendment is in accordance with the requirements of Ministerial Direction No.1.


Social Considerations

The planning scheme amendment is unlikely to result in any adverse social impacts on adjoining land uses. The site has been used by McDonalds Australia Ltd. since the 1980’s and will remain in commercial use as a consequence of the proposed rezoning from Public Park and Recreation Zone to Commercial 2 Zone. One of the purposes of the Commercial 2 Zone is to ensure that uses do not affect the safety and amenity of adjacent, more sensitive uses.


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 Panel process afforded C298 submitters an opportunity to be heard by an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning. No submitter made a request to be heard.

Once Council has resolved to adopt the combined rezoning and planning permit application, Council officers will submit the adopted amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval. The Minister for Planning has 40 business days to approve the amendment.

Upon approval of the amendment by the Minister for Planning, the amendment will be gazetted and implemented into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.


Appendix 1 - Site location plan

Site location plan

Appendix 2 - Existing Zoning

Existing zone

Appendix 3 - Proposed Zoning and Overlay

Proposed Zoning and Overlay - page 1
Proposed Zoning and Overlay - page 2

Appendix 4 - List of submitters

Name

Address

Type

VicRoads

PO Box 775 GEELONG VIC
3220

Submission

Ken Best

87 Ernest St, BELL POST
HILL VIC 3215

Objection
(Withdrawn)

Barbara McMahon

36 St Albans St, ST
ALBANS VIC 3219

Objection
(Withdrawn)

John Wyllie

3/53 Isabella Street,
GEELONG WEST, VIC
3218

Objection
(Withdrawn)




Appendix 5 - Panel recommendation

Panel recommendation - page 1 of 1

Appendix 6 - Amendment documents for Adoption

Amendment C298 - Instruction Sheet
Amendment C298 - Commercial 2 Zone
Amendment C298 - Environmental Audit Overlay

Appendix 7 - Final Planning Permit 782/2013

Final Planning Permit 782/2013 - Page 1 of 3
Final Planning Permit 782/2013 - Page 2 of 3
Final Planning Permit 782/2013 - Information Sheet

Cr Nelson declared an Indirect Interest by Close Association in Agenda Item 2 – Amendment C259 – Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan Adoption in that the developers are personally known to him, and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 7:43pm.

Cr S Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest by Close Association in Agenda Item 2 – Amendment C259 – Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan Adoption in that the developer(s) are known to him, and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 7:43pm.

Cr E Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest by Close Association in Agenda Item 2 – Amendment C259 – Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan Adoption in that the developer is a significant customer of his employer, and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 7:43pm.

Cr Heagney declared an Indirect Interest by a Conflicting Duty in Agenda Item 2 – Amendment C259 – Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan Adoption in that she is on the Geelong Cemeteries Trust, and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 7:43pm.


[Back to List]

2. Amendment C229 - Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan Adoption

Portfolio:

Planning - Cr Heagney

Source:

Planning and Tourism - Strategic Implementation

General Manager:

Peter Bettess

Index Reference:

Amendment C259


Purpose

Council is being asked to resolve to adopt the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan and request that the Minister for Planning approve the amendment and incorporate the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan, and associated documents, into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.


Summary

Cr Macdonald moved, Cr Richards seconded -

That Council, having considered the independent Panel Report to Amendment C259 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, resolves to:

  1. adopt Amendment C259 in the form as outlined in Appendix 2 of this report;

  2. submit the adopted Amendment with the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval.


Carried.


Background

Council resolved, at its meeting of 22 April 2014, to request that the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Panel to review and consider all submissions to the Horseshoe Bend PSP.

The Minister for Planning appointed a Panel of three independent members with a wide range of expertise particularly relating to the main themes of submissions.

The Panel Hearing was conducted over a period of four (4) days commencing on June 10 2014 and concluding on June 18 2014.

A total of eight (8) submitters made formal presentations to the Panel. The Panel also considered all the written submissions.


Discussion

Amendment C259 proposes to incorporate the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan (HBPSP), Horseshoe Bend Development Contributions Plan (HBDCP) and Horseshoe Bend Native Vegetation Precinct Plan (HBNVPP) into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

The HBPSP details the forward planning that will guide the future urban development of approximately 638 hectares of currently rural land located in the heart of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area (ACUGA).

A plan of the HBPSP area is attached at Appendix 1. The precinct is bounded by Reserve Road to the north, an irregular eastern boundary comprising Sparrovale Road, Charlemont Road and Batten Road, Burvilles and Boundary Roads to the south and the Surf Coast Highway and Geelong Railway line to the west and north-west.

The amendment was formally exhibited between 5th December 2013 and 17th January 2014. A total of 42 submissions were received from landholders, developers, servicing authorities and government and non government agencies.

An independent Panel was appointed, by the Minister for Planning, with the Hearing held between 10th – 18th June 2014.

Prior to commencement of the Panel Hearing, Council officers continued to negotiate with submitters in an attempt to reach agreement on issues raised in submissions. As a result of these discussions the number of submitters, and consequently issues, referred directly to Panel was significantly reduced.

The Panel were keen to ensure that they fully understood which issues had been resolved through negotiation and which issues remained outstanding. To this end, the Panel issued a Direction requiring that Council officers provide a ‘Statement of Agreed and Not Agreed Matters’ to be signed off by Council officers and the relevant submitter prior to commencement of the Panel Hearing. The document was then required to be tabled on the morning of Day 1.

To enable preparation of the Panel requested statement, Council officers directly contacted each of the 42 submitters. Each submitter was provided with a written summary of their submission and the Council response to each of the issues raised.

The submitter was then asked to nominate whether they felt that the issue had been resolved or whether it remained in contention.

The Panel assessed all outstanding issues and submissions made during the exhibition period. A detailed discussion of key matters is included later in this report.

In summary, the Panel concluded that:

To better understand the basis behind the Panel recommendations the following summary details the submitter issue, Council response to the issue and the Panel recommendation(s).

Issue 1: Housing density and diversity
A number of the landholders within the HBPSP area submitted on the issue of a lower housing density being nominated for their landholdings. The submitters believe that the reduction in nominated density for their landholdings, from the ‘conventional’ rate of 15 dwellings per net developable hectare to 12 dwellings per net developable hectare ultimately makes their land less valuable and less likely to be developed.

Council response

Council noted that the nomination of 12 dwellings per hectare is a minimum only and the subject of further detailed design when a sub-precinct plan (as required by the PSP) is prepared by landholders and endorsed by Council. Council’s nomination of 12 dwellings per hectare is also directly related to constraints associated with smaller landparcels including size, shape and land specific encumbrances. Council is concerned that mandating a 15 dwelling per net developable hectare minimum of these landparcels may result in development of the sub-precincts being delayed or rendered economically unviable.

Panel conclusion and recommendations

‘The Panel endorses the proposals for housing density and diversity incorporated in the HBPSP and revised in Document 25.

Given the particular constrains applying to some properties, especially within subprecinct C, the Panel considers that Council exercise some discretion in considering subdivision applications for individual properties that do not meet the specified minimum density, provided that the approval process for the relevant sub-precinct Development Plan has demonstrated that the best efforts have been made to achieve the specified minimum densities on a sub-precinct wide basis’ (Page 12).

Council Response to Panel conclusion and recommendations
Agreed. Assuming that satisfactory design rigour has been applied to the development of sub-precinct plans for sub-precinct B and C, Council officers will utilise discretion when considering applications that do not specifically meet the housing density targets nominated in the HBPSP.

Issue 2: Activity Centres

A couple of submitters raised concerns relating to the location of the Neighbourhood Activity Centre (NAC) and the Local Activity Centres (LAC) in so far as the location differed from the location nominated on the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan
Greater Geelong City Council 14 October 2014 (ACUGP). In addition, one submission argued for the nominated maximum floorspace for the NAC to be increased from the current figure of 7,000 square metres to 8,800 square metres.

Council response

Deviation from the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan consists of the NAC moving entirely to the eastern side of Horseshoe Bend Road as a component of a hub that also contains the school site and the regional active open space. This adjustment was based on detailed site assessment and the locational requirements of the facilities.

It must also be noted that the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan provided the strategic basis upon which the more detailed master planning required of a PSP could be undertaken. As a result, there was always envisaged to be modification to the ACUGP as an outcome of further detailed design and refinement.

With regard to the issue of increasing the maximum floorspace for the NAC from 7,000 to 8,800 square metres Council has clearly initiated a defined retail hierarchy across the ACUGA through the application of floorspace limits. Council officers believe that without the ability to limit retail floorspace in both the NAC and LAC’s there is an immediate threat to the economic viability and early provision of the Armstrong Creek Town Centre.

Panel conclusions and recommendations

‘The Panel supports the proposed shifts in the location of the NAC and north-western LAC. The Panel considers that the planning principles being adopted for development of the NAC and LAC are appropriate and should result in the provision of effective and attractive hubs for the local community.

The imposition of floor space caps for Activity Centres can be argued to be inconsistent with the intent of current Government policy. However the Panel is satisfied that in relation to this Amendment, such floor space limits can be justified at least as an interim measure in the light of the localised role of the centres in question and the need to establish the proposed activity centre hierarchy within the ACUGA’ (Page 14).

Council response to Panel conclusions and recommendations

Agreed. No further modification to the PSP or associated documentation is required.

Issue 3: Open Space

The Catholic Education Office submitted to Panel that the central area of active open space, shown on the eastern side of Horseshoe Bend Road and surrounded by Sub- Precinct B, should be relocated to the western side of Horseshoe Bend Road to directly abut the northern boundary of the Catholic school site.

In their presentation to Panel, the Catholic Education Office revealed that a review of the total land required for school provision on their site results in 5.7 hectares of land that is surplus to their requirements. The CEO envisaged that, should the proposal to relocate the active open space be adopted, Council will be required to purchase their surplus land in addition to another 2.5 hectares from surrounding landholders.

Council response

The active open space within the HBPSP has been evenly distributed across the precinct to ensure that principles of equal access and walkability are met. Should the active open space be relocated there is a significant risk that the facilities become less accessible to the surrounding residential area it has been located to serve.

The Catholic School proposal also represents a topographical challenge, and a resultant unforeseen cost impost in establishing the open space, as the land falls significantly towards the north. This results in the requirement for significant cut and fill and the potential to need more land than currently budgeted for to provide accessible open space.

Council also believe that the development of the active open space, in the location shown on the exhibited HBPSP, would ensure excellent accessibility to students attending the Catholic School.

Panel conclusions and recommendations

‘……What is clear is that as yet, no detailed comparative estimate has been prepared of the full cost of developing the proposed active open space on the site proposed by the CEO rather than that preferred by Council and identified in the exhibited HBPSP.

In the absence of such a full cost estimate, and given the competing views expressed by Council and the CEO, the Panel is not satisfied that a convincing case has been made for the relocation of the active open space reserve……..

The Panel does not support any change to the location of active open spaces as set out exhibited {sic.}Precinct Structure Plan’ (Page 16).

Council response to Panel conclusions and recommendations

Agreed. The HBPSP will be modified to reflect the reduction in the size of the catholic school site but no changes will be made to the proposed location of the central active open space.

Issue: Transport Planning – East West Link Road

A number of submitters objected to the nomination in plans of the Geelong Ring Road extension in the exhibition version of the PSP plans and documents.

One submitter requested that the Armstrong Creek East West Link Road alignment should be moved further south to avoid impact on their landholding.

Council response

Council agreed that the documents would be modified to replace ‘Geelong Ring Road Extension’ with ‘Armstrong Creek East West Link Road’ as part of the final amendment package prior to submission to the Minister for Planning.

With regard to the alignment of the Armstrong Creek East West Link Road, the alignment has been established for a number of years through the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area planning processes. The road, when constructed, will also be required to link to Baanip Boulevard, which is currently under construction on the western side of the Surfcoast Highway. Movement of the alignment further south will make this direct connection impossible and result in a costly financial impact on existing and planned major services along the Surfcoast Highway.

Issue 4: Transport Planning

4(a) Road Network within Horseshoe Bend

A number of submissions questioned the nominated road reservation width for Boundary Road and stated that there was no justification for the ultimate cross section of Boundary Road, as nominated in the HBPSP. The ultimate cross section for Boundary Road has made allowance for a four lane road which submitters argue is not justified by the supporting traffic modelling.

Council response

The reservation width, and ultimately the four lane set out of Boundary Road, is considered necessary as Boundary Road is one of only two collector roads that will provide east-west connectivity across the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area. The ultimate set out of Boundary Road only requires an additional two metres within the road reservation, with the ultimate change from two lanes to four lanes as a result of linemarking and the movement of kerb and channel.

4(b) Transit corridor

Some submitters raised the issue of funding of the transit corridor, which is nominated as a north-south connection through the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area, through the HBDCP.

The transit corridor moves through the Horseshoe Bend, Armstrong Creek Town Centre and Armstrong Creek East Precinct Structure Plan areas and is already nominated as a cost in the Development Contributions Plans of each of these precincts.

Council response

It is Council’s preference that the State takes over the funding responsibility of this key piece of public transport infrastructure. As no such funding arrangement has been able to be secured, the Council has been forced into a position of alternate funding through Development Contributions Plans. This mechanism has been employed to ensure that the opportunity to provide for public transport through the ACUGA, and ultimately further south to Torquay is not lost.

4(c) Shared path network

The suitability of both pedestrian and cycling use of pathways and the inclusion of signalised pedestrian crossings within the HBPSP were both issues raised in submissions.

Council response

The proposed design of shared pathways complies with the relevant Australian Standards. The locations of pathways have been clearly determined to be in alignment with the strong grid network of roads across the ACUGA which results in major road crossings for pedestrians and cyclists occurring at signalised intersections.

With regard to the issue of provision of signalised pedestrian crossings, Council believe that the location of these crossings is difficult to determine at the precinct planning level. Detailed design of subdivision layouts will assist in correct placement of proposed signalised pedestrian crossings should they be required at development stage.

Panel conclusions and recommendations

‘The Panel endorses the key elements of the transport planning for Horseshoe Bend as representing a sound and sustainable response to meeting the future movement needs of the population of Horseshoe Bend and the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area.

The Panel supports:

Council response to Panel conclusions and recommendations Agreed. No modification to documents is required.

Issue 5: Drainage
The development of the HBPSP area is, to a large extent, predicated upon the purchase and development of two low lying properties which are outside the eastern boundary of the HBPSP area.

The acquisition and development of the proposed wetlands will result in additional land for urban development within the HBPSP and create both an environmental and community asset for the HBP.

A number of submitters, realising the importance of the wetland in the development of the HBPSP, suggested that a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) be applied to the site with Council nominated as the acquiring authority. And, whilst there was general acceptance that the acquisition of the wetland be funded by the HBDCP, submissions questioned the application of a cost in the DCP for a 10 year management/development and maintenance plan for the wetland.

In addition, one submitter raised concern about the potential for flooding of his property and the subsequent impact upon the viability of his business.

Council response

Council acknowledges that the development of a maximum area of 25% of the HBPSP area is dependent upon the purchase of the two properties in question but believe that a PAO is only required if the land is to be compulsorily acquired. Council’s preference is to negotiate purchase first and only consider a PAO should negotiations fail.

The 10 year implementation/management plan reflects the realistic requirements of implementation of such a unique and complex environmental system in significantly degraded farmland. Council have engaged both stormwater and environmental experts to peer review and proposal and, whilst it is acknowledged that there may be limited possible savings, the plan has been found to be sound in its assumptions.

Panel conclusions and recommendations

‘The Panel supports Council’s proposal for development of the Sparrovale wetlands as the central element of the drainage infrastructure for Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan.

The proposed wetlands – located outside Horseshoe Bend Precinct – will provide environmental and recreational benefits to the community, in addition to managing stormwater, while freeing up additional land in the Precinct for development.

The Panel finds that the drainage costs included in the Horseshoe Bend Development Contributions Plan (including the 10 year development/maintenance costs), with the minor reductions proposed by Council, are reasonable.

Land acquisition by negotiation for the proposed wetlands was concluded to be an acceptable approach.

The Panel accepts the advice of Council’s experts that Mr Balog’s property is unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposed development of the Sparrovale wetlands and encourages Council to liaise further with Mr Balog to provide him with suitable assurances.

The Panel accepts the Horseshoe Bend Stormwater Management Strategy including purchase by Council of the Sparrovale lands and development of the proposed Sparrovale wetlands’ (Page 25).

Council response to Panel conclusions and recommendations

Council officers will continue to work towards resolution of the purchase of the farmland nominated for development of the wetland complex. Small changes have also been made to the wetland establishment costs in accordance with the expert evidence and peer review of the management plan.

Issue 6: Native Vegetation and Greenways
The extent of vegetation nominated for retention, particularly along greenways, was raised in a number of submissions with subsequent requests for modification to the both the HBPSP and HBNVPP.

In addition, the State Government introduced reformed native vegetation provisions into Victoria Planning Provisions on 20 December 2013 which will result in a translation of the exhibited HBNVPP to ensure compliance with the new guidelines.

Council response

Council officers continued to negotiate with affected landholders up until commencement of the Panel Hearing. These negotiations resulted in Council proposing to introduce greater design flexibility in subdivision responses to nominated greenways and a reduction in proposed greenway nominated along the southern portion of Barwarre Road.

Council also engaged an external consultant to translate the exhibited NVPP to ensure compliance with the new State Government guidelines relating to native vegetation.

Panel conclusions and recommendations

‘The Panel concludes that with updating, the HBNVPP is appropriate for the Precinct.

The Panel accepts the HBPSP greenway guidelines, adjustments to the extent of the greenway on Barwarre Road, and minor changes regarding lot access adjacent to greenways, as modified by Council in discussions with landowners’ (Page 27).

Council response to Panel conclusions and recommendations

Agreed. The HBNVPP has been translated as part of the final Horseshoe Bend amendment package and the HBPSP has been modified to reflect the agreed changes in the southern portion of the Barwarre Road greenway.

Issue 7: Electricity Substation

A number of submissions requested the relocation of the nominated Powercor substation, which is shown on the north-west corner of Boundary Road and Barwarre Road. It was suggested by submitters that the sub-station should be relocated to the Geelong Cemetery or on the north side of Boundary Road (opposite the new emergency services area within the ACTC).

In addition, submitters stated that a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) should be applied to the site, to ensure that the site is purchased by Powercor in a timely manner, and a Design and Development Overlay (DDO) applied to control the urban and landscape design outcomes.

Submitters have also demanded that Council undertake a siting review to consider possible alternative sites that might not result in the same visual impact as that perceived with the current site.

Council response

The Powercor sub-station location was determined during the development of the Integrated Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IIDP) as part of the earliest stages of planning for the ACUGA. The location has been selected to meet servicing requirements of the ACUGA in accordance with both Powercor operational requirements and future distribution network design.

Council recognises the need to have both design and landscaping controls for the development of such a high profile site. Unfortunately, the application of a DDO to the site places significant onus on Council in reviewing an application against controls and on Powercor who are rarely required to apply for a planning permit for their facilities.

Council believes that other opportunities for control such as a Section 173 agreement will provide an appropriate level of support to inform the future design of this facility.

With regard to the PAO, Powercor have not consented to the application of a PAO and have consistently argued that they do not have the powers of an acquiring authority.

Despite this, the site needs to remain nominated for Powercor use to ensure that the network can meet upcoming demands at the necessary time.

Panel conclusions and recommendations

‘……the Panel does not support any change to the HBPSP either to alter the proposed substation site or to remove the identification of the site and substitute a generalised reference in the text of the HBPSP.

The Panel supports the view (expressed by all parties, including Council, Powercor and submitters) that it is important to ensure that the design and landscaping of the substation meets best practice standards and minimises any adverse effects on the amenity of adjacent areas. The Panel recommends that Council seek to reach agreement with Powercor on suitable design and landscaping guidelines which would provide some assurance to the local community regarding the visual impacts of the proposed sub-station when it is finally constructed. Such guidelines should desirably be included in the PSP. While not a formal recommendation in the context of this report, the Panel urges Council to undertaken this negotiation as soon as practicably possible’ (Page 30).

Issue 8: Urban Growth Zone

The Catholic Education Office (CEO) sought, both through submission and presentation to Panel, modification to some of the provisions in Schedule 4 to the Urban Growth Zone. Specifically, the CEO argued that a use permit should not be required for non-government schools although the CEO acknowledge that a Buildings and Works permit would still be required.

Council response

Council do not support the removal of the requirement for use permits for nongovernment schools. The types of conditions that may be placed upon a use permit include regulation of the hours of operation activities that may occur on the site, lighting, main broadcast systems and the transport arrangements for students. The absence of the ability to adequately assess and regulate the potential impact of the school on the existing or proposed residential amenity of the surrounding area has the potential to create conflict.

Panel conclusions and recommendations

‘…………In the Panel’s view it is unfortunate that there is scope for inconsistency between councils in the way in which controls are exercised on the development of non-government schools. However the responsibility for such decisions currently lies with local planning authorities. As a consequence, each council must determine what it believes is the most appropriate way to implement controls designed to manage any local impacts associated wit the development and operation of such schools.

The Panel has therefore concluded that there be no change to the exhibited Amendment for non-government schools in relation to ‘use’ and ‘buildings and works’ permit’ (Page 32).

Issue 9: Development Contributions Plan

A number of submitters to the exhibition of the HBPSP raised issues relating to the exhibited HBDCP and either removal or reduction in the funding of some of the nominated infrastructure items.

More specifically, the following items were raised in submissions:

Council response

As noted in the Panel Report, ‘….During the course of the Hearing there were ongoing negotiations between the Council and major landowners. As a result of those negotiations the extent of disagreement between Council and the landowners in relation to the HBDCP was significantly reduced’ (Page 34). Despite these negotiations, a number of issues were still discussed at the Panel Hearing or reviewed by Panel in their assessment of submissions.

With regard to the disputed facilities within the HBDCP Council’s position is that all but one of the items listed in submissions have been incorporated within other DCP’s across the ACUGA including the Armstrong Creek East and West residential precincts.

The exception is the Athletics facility which is unique to the Horseshoe Bend precinct and has been described in detail during past Panels as part of the distribution of regional facilities in home-of sites around the growth area. Funding of these facilities is an outcome of their location and the inclusion of the Athletics facilities in the HBPSP is simply an outcome of its nominated site on Boundary Road.

Other precincts within the ACUGA have included similar facilities for other sporting codes such as, soccer/hockey within the Armstrong Creek West regional active open space and AFL, Netball and Soccer in the Armstrong creek East regional active open
space.

On the issue of the 10 year establishment and maintenance costs for the Sparrovale wetlands Council will manage the wetlands in perpetuity and fund appropriate ongoing maintenance costs. That being said, it should be acknowledged that the capital delivery of this facility is not to be achieved in the short-term and Council is required to deliver works over a long period of time including the transition of this degraded farmland into a functioning sustainable wetland system.

The very nature of environmental projects is that they require long periods of time for establishment and settlement. This is particularly important in a precinct that will be under a constant state of development for many years to come.

The requirement for the DCP to fund the acquisition of the Transit Corridor is as a result of a lack of State Government commitment to the acquisition of the transit corridor land. Funding for acquisition of the transit corridor has previously been approved in the Armstrong Creek East PSP, and the soon to be approved Armstrong Creek Town Centre PSP. The funding of acquisition of the transit corridor in the HBDCP further implements the consistent funding policy position across the ACUGA.

The Boundary Road reservation has been set aside to allow for an ultimate four lane cross section. As discussed previously in this report, the transition from the interim to ultimate cross section involves linemarking and a movement in kerb and channel. As a result, the actual additional land for the road is minimised to two metres. A late submission to Panel raised the issue of equitable funding of construction costs of a Boundary Road intersection with the Armstrong Creek Town Centre. Council’s position on this issue is that the same principles in terms of funding of connector roads
have been applied to the ACUGA in its entirety. Should this submitter be successful in arguing that the intersection construction costs should be funded by the DCP the underlying principles utilised by Council in apportioning costs across the ACUGA would be open for debate, at considerable cost.

Panel conclusions and recommendations

‘During the course of the Hearing, Council agreed to make a number of changes to the HBDCP…..a reduction of $280,000 in the provision for the cost of establishment of the Sparrovale wetlands…..a reduction of $800,000 in the cost of active open space and community centres and additional provision of $600,000 for Stage 1 of the Surf Coast Highway/Boundary Road intersection. Council has further agreed to review the provision in the HBDCP for the construction of the intersection of Surf Coast Highway, the East-West Link Road and Collector G, and of some drainage works within Horseshoe Bend’ (Page 45).

Conclusion

Given that Council officers continued to negotiate with submitters both prior to and during the Panel Hearing, Council was able to provide the Panel with a revised version of the exhibition documents which had been modified to reflect agreements that had been reached with submitters. These documents were handed to Panel on the final day of the Hearing and are referred to as Document 25.

As per the discussion above, it is recommended that development within the Horseshoe Bend Precinct be facilitated through the approval of the Horseshoe Bend PSP, NVPP and DCP.


Environmental Implications

Amendment C259 gives effect to the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan. The planning for the Horseshoe Bend Precinct has addressed potential environmental implications of the development including retention of remnant native vegetation, through the incorporation of the Horseshoe Bend Native Vegetation Precinct Plan, and the purchase and development of the Sparrovale wetland for the purposes of stormwater and environmental management. In addition, the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan nominates larger areas of passive and active open space for the benefit of the Armstrong Creek community.


Financial Implications

The Horseshoe Bend Development Contributions Plan identifies all the capital financial requirements for the provision of infrastructure across the Horseshoe Bend Precinct. The Horseshoe Bend Development Contributions Plan details the specifics of the developer contribution to relevant infrastructure.

With Council responsibility for the management of the DCP there will be decisions required across this precinct and other precincts within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area, regarding managing the income stream from contributions under the DCP and the provision of required infrastructure. These will be matters which will be assessed via a multi-division committee with recommendations coming to Council as part of the annual consideration of the budget.

Two DCP projects will require co-funding by Council, including a multipurpose stadium ($1.40M) and land for future road widening ($0.96M). These costs have been identified in Council’s long term financial plan and will be refined (if required) once the DCP has
been approved.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The planning scheme amendment to incorporate the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme accords with the broader structure of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area as established under Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C138 – Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan.

The Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan and Development Contributions Plan have been prepared having regard to the Council’s adopted position on the Armstrong Creek Integrated Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IIDP).

The amendment is also considered to meet the relevant requirements of both State Government and Council.


Alignment to City Plan

The Armstrong creek Urban Growth Area is one of Council’s priority projects. The Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan will ensure that the project is continuing to meet the needs of the community and the growth of the economy. In addition, a number of Council’s sustainability principles will also be met.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

In accordance with Section 80C of the Local Government Act no Council officers involved in the preparation of the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan, or this Council report, have a direct or indirect interest.


Risk Assessment

As the ultimate development of the HBPSP is predicated upon the purchase and establishment of the Sparrovale wetlands it is considered a significant risk to Council should early acquisition not be pursued. Council is the development agency for all of the items nominated in the HBDCP and it is more than likely that forward funding of the purchase of the two properties that make up the wetlands will be required.


Social Considerations

The Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan will ensure a considered and well planned approach to the development of additional residential communities within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area. It will also ensure, through the application of the DCP, that the infrastructure required to service the community meets their needs and expectations.


Human Rights Charter

Council officers have taken into consideration the Human Rights Charter relative to the subject matter of this report. This includes ‘ratepayers’ property rights and a right to a fair hearing.


Consultation and Communication

All submitters to the exhibition and Panel Hearing for the HBPSP have been directly informed of the findings of the Panel.


Appendix 1: Horseshoe Bend Urban Structure Plan

Horseshoe Bend Urban Structure Plan

Appendix 2: C259 - Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan and associated amendment documentation

(Appendix 2 available in the Councillor’s Lounge)


[Back to List]

Crs Nelson, S Kontelj, E Kontelj and Heagney re-entered the meeting room at 7:47pm.

3. Onshore Gas Extraction Report

Portfolio:

Environment and Sustainability - Cr Richards

Source:

City Services

General Manager:

Gary Van Driel

Index Reference:

Mining/Extractive Industries, Minerals


Purpose

The purpose of this Report is to inform Council of the results of the onshore gas extraction submissions process as well as provide Council with recommendations regarding this matter.


Summary

Cr Irvine moved, Cr Farrell seconded -

That Council:

  1. note the high number of submissions received opposing onshore gas extraction and hydraulic fracking;

  2. write to the Victorian Government advising that the City of Greater Geelong rejects onshore gas extraction including fracking and supports a permanent ban;

  3. write to the Victorian and Federal governments requesting support for the development of renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels in the
    provision of heating, cooling and power.


Carried unanimously.


Background

For many decades, Victoria has had access to low cost electricity and gas, which has provided a major competitive advantage and underpinned its strong and diverse economy. Natural gas accounts for 19 per cent of all energy used in Victoria. With the completion of new large scale export facilities, domestic consumers will compete with international consumers for gas. It is expected that the price of gas will significantly increase to approach international prices.

Victoria has no coal seam gas (CSG) production or confirmed resources but there are a number of licences for exploration, one of which includes areas within the City of Greater Geelong. The Victorian Government has put a halt on approvals for new coal seam gas exploration licences and approvals and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) a technique used to stimulate hard-to-reach gas deposits.

Council has received a significant amount of feedback on Council’s Draft Environment Management Strategy regarding the potential impacts of coal seam gas, tight gas, and shale gas fracking within the municipality including its environment, agricultural land and land access issues on coal seam gas mining on private land. At the 22 July 2014 Ordinary Council Meeting it was resolved that a 30-day process be commenced to educate Council of the issue of ‘fracking’, and that this process will be followed by Council taking public submissions on the issue of coal seam gas extraction and in particular, the ‘fracking’ process, for a period of one month commencing 25 August. A Briefing Note and Information Pack were prepared to assist Council, in-line with the Notice of Motion and the Manager Stakeholder and Community relations from Clean Coal Victoria section of the Department of State Development, Business and Innovation presented at the Councillor briefing Session on the 19th August.


Discussion

A total of 449 submissions were received during the 1 month submission period. Of these 447 were opposed to onshore gas extraction and in particular the use of hydraulic fracking. The submissions ranged from simple one line statements to lengthy multi-page submissions. A sample of the submissions is included in Appendix 1. Copies of the submission have been made available to Councillors.

The primary concerns listed in the submissions opposed to onshore gas extraction and hydraulic fracking were contamination of land air and water, impacts of groundwater, health concerns, noise pollution, decrease in property values and the need to utilise renewable energy sources rather than fossil fuels. A summary of the comments regarding these concerns is as follows:

  1. Contamination of land, air and water Submissions raised concerns that contamination of land, air and water would occur via the use of chemicals and waste by-products, including saltwater and methane. Submissions were concerned about accidental chemical and waste spills, inability to store and dispose of waste products. Of particular concern was the use of hydraulic fracking and associated use of chemicals which are injected into the ground and which may migrate into groundwater.

  2. Groundwater impacts
    Submissions stated that significant amounts of water are required to enable hydraulic fracking and it was not known where this would come from. It was also submitted that use of water for the onshore gas industry would complete with usage for other activities including farming and domestic supply.

  3. Health concerns
    Concerns were specifically raised regard the use of BTEX chemicals (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) in the fracking process. These compounds are some of the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in petroleum derivatives such as petrol (gasoline) and have potential health impacts(http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/dc6c0439-ac47-4c53-981a-
    876fa8d8e6d4/files/report6-appendices.pdf).The Victorian government has recently banned the use of BTEX chemicals used in the process of hydraulic fracturing or 'fracking' to extract coal seam gas. Submissions highlighted concerns regarding air pollution caused by methane leakage from onshore gas extraction. Concerns were also raised regarding noise from truck movements, drilling, machinery and other processes, particularly in rural environments. Submissions highlighted the risk of accidents occurring and the potential damage that these might cause and the difficultly in cleaning up chemical spills.

  4. Decrease in Property Values and other land uses
    Submissions raised concerns about the potential negative perceptions of supporting an onshore gas industry (fossil fuel) in the Geelong region. It was felt that this would be to the detriment of the regions tourism and agricultural sectors. It was also submitted that the development of an onshore gas industry would decrease property values and only bring short term profit to large international companies.

  5. Utilise renewable energy
    Many submissions stated that Geelong should be moving away from fossil fuels and supported the development of renewable energy sector. This would provide the platform for future economic and job growth for the region as well as decrease environmental impacts.
    The only detailed submission in support of onshore gas extraction submitted that there were many benefits of natural gas usage in Australia, proposed that many attending recent anti-fracking rallies were from ‘other areas’ and put forward views and ‘facts’
    about natural gas extraction This submission put forward the following to support the extraction and use of gas;


Environmental Implications

The full environmental impacts of onshore gas extraction are likely to be unknown at this stage. There are risks associated with any industry, particularly those in rural areas, and the extraction of natural gas has the potential to result in land, air and water pollution. It should be noted however that strong regulations and implementation of best practice techniques, and technology can substantially reduce any risks. Natural gas (methane) is a greenhouse gas and its usage will contribute to increases in greenhouse gases within the atmosphere which may result in climate change and other
impacts.


Financial Implications

There are no direct financial implications on Council as a result of the recommendation in this report


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The state government ultimately determines whether the development of an onshore gas extraction industry will proceed.


Alignment to City Plan

The recommendations in this report align with supporting our community to live sustainably under the Sustainable Built and Natural Environment pillar.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

There is no officer direct or indirect interest in this report.


Risk Assessment

Many submissions advocated that Council should adopt a precautionary risk based approach regarding the development of an onshore gas extraction industry. Further work is required to assess the potential environmental and health risks.


Social Considerations

There is considerable community concern regarding the potential impacts of onshore gas extraction, including the use of fracking in the Geelong region.


Human Rights Charter

There are no human rights charter issues resulting from the recommendation in this report.


Consultation and Communication

Council has conducted an engagement process which has yielded over 400 submissions, Council has been provided with information and material relating to onshore gas extraction and had a presentation from State government representatives.

Council’s position on onshore gas extraction will need to be reflected in its Environmental Management Strategy, currently in draft form. Community engagement has been extensive.


Appendix 1

Example submission 1

Dear Councillors,

There are a number of issues to be considered, these include Potential damage which is caused by the use of rural, conservation or open space land for fracking purposes will be irreversible. There will be no going back to the original condition of the land when the gas is exhausted. Natural justice would indicate that clean air, water and access to privately owned agricultural land and public open space is a right. The legislation which allows an industry the absolute right to whatever is underneath a landowners topsoil without the permission of the owner, appears to have been suitable for the 1800,s but certainly not appropriate in the 2000,s. It is therefore urged that Council strongly opposes fracking in general within its boundaries.

XXXXX urges that COGG Council join with Surf Coast and other regional councils to lobby Government to extend the moratorium in perpetuity and protect Victoria from this damaging and polluting industry. It is understood that the companies concerned will produce gas for export, which will cause a rise in local gas prices, (perhaps not understood by gas supporters).

Hazards which may result from the fracking industry include –

It is clear that farmers and landholders in this region are strongly opposed to any introduction of this very damaging industry and should be supported in their efforts to protect our landscapes and farmlands from a mining industry.

Example submission 2

Dear Mayor, City of Greater Geelong Councillors, and Mr Thomas

The fossil fuel extraction company Lakes Oil has a licence to drill in our region. I look forward to hearing what concrete action Council will take in regard to cancelling or opposing this drilling licence to Lakes Oil under the Exploration Permit 163. At the moment it looks like that fracking operations is something that could begin in our region from next year, when the state moratorium on fracking runs out. Judging from the state government’s website – and contrary to the “Not on my guard” election promises from Premier Denis Napthine – both state government and the fossil fuel industry appears to be very eager to get started.

In New South Wales, the onshore gas industry – according to sources within the industry itself – is paying $135 million in land access payments to farmers and landowners, and the NSW government’s revenue is estimated to be $1.6 billion. A 49- page report from 2013, ‘Getting gas right: Australia’s energy challenge’, talks about producing an estimated $50 billion-a-year gas industry in Australia by 2017, and about Australia’s role in a so-called “gas revolution” created by surging demand in Asia.

“We believe that the US shale gas revolution is about to hit Australia’s shores,” “the potential size of Australia’s shale gas resources is truly enormous,” writes the gas extraction company RFC Ambrian. “It’s Cleaner. It’s Safer. It’s Jobs. It Is The Future,” proclaims the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association, APPEA.

And accordingly, lots of money appears to have been invested already in trying to convince our elected representatives and decision makers in government to let what I would call “the fracking nightmare” roll out here in Victoria.

Our faith in democracy at stake I will give some examples which explain why it will become a nightmare, if you allow this to happen. I will give you some of the reasons why I don’t think we should allow fracking for gas in Victoria – ever. You need to understand that people in your
municipality are quite upset about this. “How can this happen in a democratic society when a vast majority of the population is against it?” they rightfully question. Citizens feel that their legal and civil rights have been take away from them. Old laws from another century – those days when gold mining was a big thing here in Victoria – have never been modernised, and this means that when the state government grants a licence to a gas company, as it has done with Lakes Oil in our region, the legislation actually allows Lakes Oil to mine anywhere within that licence, even if it is on private land. In order to maintain good public relations, most mining companies do try to gain permission from land-holders, but in reality a land-holder has no legal right to stop mining from occurring on their land.

In legal terms, people don’t even have the right to lock the gate on their own property and refuse gas mining on their land, and so far, I haven’t seen or heard anyone in politics advocating for an update of these old laws. This needs to change. What we need to understand here is that what is happening with the fracking question is that people’s faith in democracy is being shattered. Fracking creates anxiety and tension, and it makes otherwise normal peaceful citizens lose faith in the democratic processes and move over to unusual and often very messy civil disobedience measures with sad and expensive consequences for everyone. This is one aspect of what it is at stake if you allow this industry to enter our municipality.

Dangerous air pollution
I see some very serious problems arising in our society at the moment. The most urgent of these problems is that we are collectively ignoring what science is telling us, almost screaming at us, at the moment: that we have to stop burning fossil fuels. We have to stop filling the air with our tonnes and tonnes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The solution is to quickly switch over to solar, to wind, to hydro power instead, and the good news is that there are so many good reasons to start doing that, economically, health-wise, and so on.

Even so, it is not really happening at the rate and at the scale which the scientists are advising us we should be doing this. You probably noticed the warnings coming from the UN Summit in New York about the same topic this week. Extensive reports from the Climate Panel of the United nations, IPPC, use more urgent language at each successive report to say we must stop burning fossil fuels if we want future generations to avoid a total runaway climate disaster.

And no, unconventional gas is not cleaner than coal – and it does not make environmental sense to use it as a “bridge fuel”. That is industry spin. Recent peerreviewed science from Cornell University as well as several other universities raise serious doubts about the industry’s claim that gas is “cleaner than coal”, in particular because of the fugitive emissions at every stage of its extraction through to use.

Every dollar spent on gas is one we don’t get to spend on renewables, which – slows down the transition to a post carbon world. Investment in gas mining removes focus and economy from the transition to renewables and sustainable jobs. Gas mining is creating an unnecessary detour away from where we need to get to.

If you understand the latest peer-reviewed climate science, then you are aware that we must leave fossil fuel reserves in the ground to avoid runaway climate change.

This gives you a great responsibility. Because we can see that that won’t happen unless you, our elected leaders in City of Greater Geelong, step in, take some real leadership and legislate in this area:

  1. Ban onshore gas extraction once and for all

  2. Move investments from fossil fuels over to renewables.

Worrying health impacts
When taking a position on fracking we must first of all look at its impacts on our health and safety – that fracking is risky gambling with drinking water and health. However, the issue also raises a question about which connection we would like to have with the land that we live on, and to that end, which possibilities we would like to have in terms of cultivating tourism.

Another issue with fracking, which you must take into account when you make your decision, is that our farmland becomes an industrial zone with lights, noise and truck movements 24/7, and how this affects the local tourism industry. We have seen this in Queensland and in the United States. Many more trucks will be on our roads. The landscape becomes mutilated by drilling towers and machinery. Geelong region’s reputation as an area for tourism gets ruined, and the real estate value of houses near gas mining wells drops.

Fracking has become known to be a very destructive industry that pumps toxic chemicals deep down in the ground and leaves us with lakes of poisonous water that we can’t get rid of. The industry claims that it knows what to do with the produced waste water, but the reality is that it doesn’t. Naturally occurring toxic chemicals and active elements which have been trapped in the rocks which are fractured are released with the gas. These plus 60 percent of the initial injected chemicals are returned to the surface. Not even reverse osmosis can remove some of these. Often these are just put into the local sewerage treatment system. Even the chemicals and don’t just vanish. Where to?

The negative effects on our health, on our environment and the climate are all very well documented by now, and I assume you have been made aware of that.

The local pollution from fugitive emissions, toxic chemicals, mining equipment and particulates from diesel powered equipment causes citizens who live near the gas wells to get sick – and apart from the individual problems this causes, the bill for this sickness eventually becomes a bill to you, the Council, and to our society.

The mining industry has impact on people living nearby and workers who are exposed to the chemicals and pollution. A study which recently came out of Yale University found that people who lived near oil and unconventional gas operations had greater respiratory illnesses and skin rashes than those who lived further away.

And regardless of what the industry claims, accidents happen. Water contamination happens. The industry at the same time won’t give any guarantees that water contamination won’t happen. Evidence both from Queensland and the United States shows that this is happening. In terms of the chemicals being used for hydraulic fracturing, the industry only mentions the least offensive ones – vinegar, ‘many of the chemicals are under people’s sinks’, or ‘chemicals used in making ice-cream’. Very few of the chemicals they use have been tested for health effects on people and
animals, let alone when they are used in combination.

The real bill is left unpaid
The only reason that fracking is taking place and happening even so – especially in Queensland, but also now possibly coming to Victoria, and maybe even to our region – is that there are some people out there who are making a lot of money on this (most of them not even living in Australia), while we, the rate payers, are unfairly left with all the bills to pay and the destruction of our land.

The mining industry has some very bad records for not cleaning up after itself, and unconventional gas mining is only profitable because costs of cleaning up and climate damage are not made a part of the equation.

What drives the gas mining industry forward is a desire to make profits. Local communities in Queensland are seeing the devastating consequences of this industry: Only a few people benefit financially from it, and they are not held accountable by authorities to pay the bills for the damage they create in the ground as well as in the air. Take a look at Tara in the Western Darling Downs for nightmarish health and community impacts. It becomes the local community which must bear the burden of the industry’s environmental impacts while the profits go elsewhere. Why should we, the citizens, accept being treated like that?

See through the industry spin and lies
‘Facts’ and ‘the science’ is being used as an argument for allowing onshore gas mining. Like the ‘fact’ that there has never been a ‘proven case’ of contamination of ground water because of fracking. This is not true. Facts and science can be manipulated and deliberately miscommunicated and many other myths are being created to delay the inevitable transition away from fossils fuels over to renewablesI can see that CoGG and the Victorian Government as well as local media all refer to studies and research carried out by CSIRO as if it was a reliable and ‘neutral’ scientific source. I suggest you ask yourself: Can the branch of CSIRO working on unconventional gas be relied on to be impartial when they are funded by the unconventional gas industry? They clearly cannot!

Regardless of the aggressive ‘fact claiming’ rhetoric flying through the air and through local media columns, there is one 100 percent indisputable argument as to why unconventional gas mining must be permanently banned. That is the fact that gas is a fossil fuel and a greenhouse gas. The methane, which leaks in the gas production, is a fossil fuel and an extremely potent greenhouse gas. The greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels which we flood our atmosphere and oceans with are damaging our planet to a point where it is getting really dangerous now. It could get out of hand for humanity within the life time of our children, according to scientists in the United Nations’ Climate Panel.

Investing in gas mining in our area is not only locking us into polluting the air with more carbon, which is the wrong thing to do – we all know that, even most of those who pretend to ignore or oppose it – instead of going over to solar, wind and hydro, and so on, as our main sources for electricity. When on top of that you add the riskfactors involved and the fact that fossil fuels in general are not just dangerous to the climate, they are very dangerous to our health as well, then switching over to renewable energy sources becomes a very obvious choice. Gas can explode, and the gas production involves a lot of risks. Renewable energy sources don’t involve any such health risks. Add to that that the gas prices are continuously rising. More fracking won’t make gas cheaper to the consumer. On the contrary, prices are expected to triple soon. Meanwhile, prices on renewables are dropping – and will continue to drop.

The list of good reasons to ban fracking appears to be almost endless. As Victoria and Geelong gets drier and drier because of climate change, the gas extraction companies’ excessive use of millions litres of water in itself represents a threat. You will need to consult with Barwon Water about this.

The vast quantities of water needed to release oil and gas by fracturing rock formations are not available in many of the large areas with the richest deposits – and globally this poses a major challenge to the viability of fracking. According to a report by the World Resources Institute, 38 per cent of the areas where unconventional gas and oil is most abundant is arid or already under severe water stress – and the 386 million people living in these areas need all the spare water they can get.

Please apply for the exemption
Our neighbours in Surf Coast Shire have put forward a motion on Unconventional Gas Exploration and Development expressing concern about potential impacts and lack of regulatory framework. (See council minutes for motion details, page 177). It seems the Shire can apply to be exempt from this type of mining, but needs the community to ask council, through letters and emails, to apply for the exemption. I therefore ask City of Greater Geelong Council to apply for this extension as Surf Coast Shire is doing, and ensure that City of Greater Geelong remains gas mining free.

Help stop this intergenerational theft
Gas mining jobs are not needed here, there are many more jobs in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and that is the path we need to invest in. In California, for every job lost to fossil fuels, 50 new jobs have been created in energy efficiency. The most basic and fundamental question you as councillors must ask yourselves is probably: Why should we allow further investments in a fossil exploration and exploitation such as gas when we all know that what we urgently need to invest in is modern and clean, renewable energy technology? There comes a time when we must say ‘stop it’, and that time is now. Fracking is intergenerational theft. It is a shortsighted and amoral to provide energy in a world that needs to decarbonise its energy production.


Submission example 3

Dear councillors,

I write to you as a very concerned lifelong resident of Geelong on the issue of fracking.

In the last 2 years I have taken the time to educate myself on many environmental issues including the extremely dangerous process of gas extraction known as fracking. I have learnt about the process itself and the effect it has had on towns that have been fracked and the picture is very clear – allowing gas companies to frack Geelong would be catastrophic for our region. The risks to our precious land andwater supply, the health risks to our residents, the list goes on.

But apart from the innumerable negative effects it would directly have on Geelong, there is simply no sense to fracking. The simple fact is gas can no longer be extracted from the ground conventionally or unconventionally. The burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming which is creating an unstable climate. Geelong is not immune to the effects of climate change. Quite the contrary – we are a bayside town!!! We can help protect our beautiful town by making smart choices. Geelong has such a wonderful opportunity right now for clean energy technology manufacturing. Geelong is more than ready to be a ‘Clean Tech Hub’.

Councillors – you have the power to help create a safe, resilient, frack-free future for Geelong. Please use that power.


Submission example 4

I wish to register my opposition to fracking in the Geelong area. Given the issues related to global warming and climate change, I firstly think that to uncover yet another fossil fuel makes no sense. Apart from this, the practice of fracking is invasive environmentally and potentially damaging to the underground water system. Reading accounts of the effects on locals when fracking has moved into different farming/winery/tourist areas in Australia gives some insight into its invasiveness in communities. Why would Geelong even consider letting this practice start here? There are other ways to harness energy. Will Geelong City Council show any leadership in this area?

Submission example 5

I would like it duly noted that I am totally opposed to any form of unconventional (fracking) gas mining/ exploration in the Geelong Region. I believe we should be expanding and transitioning into renewable energy. Fracking is a destructive energy source, puts our water supply at high risk of contamination and is not necessary. The jobs created are minimal and we know that most of the gas is exported so that fact that 'they' purport it is for our future energy supplies to prevent shortage is nothing more than a lie. Profits are for a few. There is no community gain in this industry.


Submission example 6

I write as a worried Geelong resident to raise my serious concerns about fracking coming to the Geelong region. No doubt you will receive many submissions from similarly concerned residents RE: why fracking should be BANNED in the region (and essentially, across the entire world), but here are five points that I read some time ago in an article online that I believe accurately sum up my main reasons for opposing fracking so instead of reinventing the wheel I have posted them here: http://www.rodalenews.com/fracking-2

  1. Natural gas is not clean. Natural gas burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels, but in the course of its entire life cycle, it's actually worse than coal, long touted as the dirtiest of our fossil fuels. Because fracking involves mixing millions of gallons of water laced with chemicals into the ground at high pressure, it creates fissures in the shale that release the natural gas. Life cycle analysis expert Robert Howarth, PhD, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University, discovered that anywhere from 3.6 to nearly 8 percent of the methane from shale gas drilling escapes through venting and leaks. Methane is a greenhouse gas about 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

  2. Howarth's latest life cycle calculations updated in January 2011 find that when considering the burning of natural gas, and the methane leaks that fracking creates, shale gas produces 1.20- to 2.1-fold more greenhouse gas emissions when compared to coal during a 20-year time period. Methane leaks are worse during the actual fracking process, but they continue to slowly seep over long periods of time. When considering this, natural gas is on par with coal when looking at greenhouse gas production over a 100-year period, the Cornell research shows.

  3. Fracking chemicals are extremely dangerous. Since most natural gas drilling companies will not disclose all of the products they use in the drilling process, Theo Colborn, PhD, founder and president of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, set out to figure out what's in the chemical cocktails used to drill wells and frack. She and her team found 649 different chemicals, more than half of which are known to disrupt the endocrine system. Exposure to these types of chemicals has been linked to certain cancers, diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome (the name for a group of risk factors that occur together and increase the risk for heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes). Fifty-five percent of the chemicals cause brain and nervous system damage, and many are linked to cancer and organ damage. The threat of exposure to these chemicals occurs via contaminated air, water, and soil. "They're getting away with absolute murder; it's criminal, the things they're doing," says award-winning scientist Colborn. "If you destroy an aquifer, you've lost it. You've destroyed your drinking water supply."

  4. Natural gas drilling turns clean country air to smog. Even if drilling and the fracking process run completely according to plan with no leaks, no methane migration into drinking water wells, no explosions, and no issues dealing with wastewater, air pollution from fracking is inevitable. It's part of the process, as huge condensate tanks and compressor stations release toxic hydrocarbons like benzene, toluene, xylenes, and ethylbenzene (BTEX) into surrounding communities. At high levels, exposure to BTEX vapors may cause irreversible damage. That, paired with chemicals used in the initial drilling process, make it very harmful to live in the vicinity of a drilling operation, Colborn says. Her study in the International Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment found that 36 percent of the identifiable chemicals used are volatile, meaning they become airborne. Among those, 93 percent have been shown to harm the eyes, skin, sensory organs, respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, or liver.

  5. Fracking releases uranium. That's right, the radioactive stuff. The 2005 Energy Act included what is known as the Halliburton Loophole, which exempts the natural gas drilling industry from many safeguards, such as the Clean Water Act, intended to protect citizens from industrial corporate activities that pollute. While the chemical cocktail used in fracking has been of much concern, new research is pointing to another fact: Contaminants and dangerous substances trapped deep underground become mobilized when fracking creates mini-earthquake-like explosions underground. A 2010 study out of the University of Buffalo found that natural gas drilling using the fracking method could potentially contaminate water supplies with uranium.

  6. Fracking affects everyone. A natural gas survey released in December 2010 found that regardless of political leanings, most people are concerned about fracking. Even if you don't live atop a major shale deposit, the pollution generated in fracking could affect you. Conrad Dan Volz, DrPH, MPH, director of the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities and the GSPH Environmental Health Risk Assessment Certificate Program at the University of Pittsburgh, notes that as more wells are installed in various states, there's more toxic wastewater to deal with. Wastewater from fracking operations is often sent to municipal treatment plants that are not properly equipped to handle contamination by more than 600 chemicals, and possibly radioactive material. This wastewater is often shipped to locations where fracking isn't even taking place, threatening rivers and drinking water supplies in those towns. In short, the best defence against the negative impacts of fracking is to have NO FRACKING AT ALL.


Example submission 7

We implore the Council of Geelong to remove all investment into fossil fuels and redirect it into renewable energy. Especially we want to make our opposition known to fracking. Please make the City of Greater Geelong a frackfree area. Coal should be left in the ground undisturbed. Fracking will ruin fertile soil suitable for agriculture and risks contaminating groundwater, the two things we need most in the future.


Example submission 8

I am writing on behalf of my sister and myself, who are co-owners of a property in Highton, and wish to register our strong opposition to any fracking being approved in the Geelong area.

The issue was brought to my attention by my sister who lives in the region, and when she told me about the proposal, I must say I thought it was a bad joke!

The environmental dangers along with the devastation caused to prime farmland by fracking are already well known from the well-documented experiences of many people in Queensland. I believe the idea that fracking could possibly be extended to the beautiful geelong region is totally outrageous.

Respected TV programs like 'Four Corners' have clearly explained all the negatives to this form of exploration - and how widespread those negative consequences can be (as opposed to the very narrow band of stakeholders who benefit from such resource exploitation, with wilful disregard to the environment and the local communities where they operate), so I won't attempt to re-state those arguments here, but again, reinforce our strongest opposition to any fracking proposal for Geelong. I would also suggest that those with leadership roles in the community should be backing plans for renewable energy at every possible opportunity (e.g. wind / wave and solar, which we have here in abundance!), thus negating the need for our on-going dependence for so called 'traditional' energy solutions. We must look to achieve a sustainable energy future.


Example submission 9

I am a resident of Waurn Ponds with grave doubts about the safety of fracking in light of the significant health issues which have been experience by those where fracking is well established overseas. As a former Science teacher, I have reviewed relevant information with interest and a great deal of concern. My main concerns are:

To err on the side of caution and not introduce fracking to the Geelong community would put residents health and safety first which is where it always should be.

If there is any risk to community surely prevention is better than cure.

I hereby submit my very strong objection to fracking in Geelong.


Example submission 10

A group of coal-seam gas protesters recently “democratically” declared the areas of Moriac, Mt Moriac and Paraparap to be “frack free”. Of the 70-80 people assembled at the ‘declaration’ event, many were from other areas, including Melbourne. Yet the organisers, like colonists, felt at liberty to stake their claim over the territory. To support their belief, they presented petitions, and spoke earnestly about the evils of gas – and indeed all fossil fuels – and the need for Victoria and the world to shift to renewable energy. This is a pattern which has played out in many small-town locations in NSW and Victoria. The same can not be said for WA, Queensland, NT, and SA, where natural gas has been safely extracted for up to 20 years.

At Moriac, the whole ‘democratic’ process unfolded without any examination of the facts about natural gas extraction. Unless they were already well educated, the people who attended left the meeting ignorant to the most telling facts about natural gas. If they were already educated, they left knowing nothing more than when they arrived.

The meeting and petitions presented had as much interest in facts and science as the Lock The Gate Queensland petition which called for the closure of the CSG industry because it had supposedly caused ‘black rain’ in the Darling Downs and a host of health problems for the people in the area. Did the people who signed that petition know what they were signing? Did the organisers contact all the signatories to apologise, when a costly Queensland Health investigation came to the conclusion that the so-called ‘black rain’ was naturally occurring lerps, and had nothing at all to do with the nearby gas wells?

Will Frack Free Geraldton and the Conservation Council apologise for their deliberately misleading advertisement in the Geraldton Guardian newspaper – the one which claimed CSG turns water into a "dangerous chemical cocktail"? Will they apologise for the deceptive ‘facts’ that US research had found 6 per cent of fracking wells leak into groundwater in their first year; and that once water is contaminated, it will be contaminated forever. Each of these claims was used in advertising which WA Newspapers decided was misleading and deceptive. The Sydney Morning Herald (26 September 2014) published details of these findings and other anti-gas propaganda in an article headed “Lies, damned lies and social media”. Some of these unfounded claims were aired at the Moriac meeting.

Protest groups claim blanket community support, but in the activist-targeted area of Narrabri, in Northern NSW, the ‘silent majority’ supports responsible gas drilling (The Courier, 12 Sept. 2014). As NSW Minister Anthony Roberts said recently: “There has been an awful lot of
rubbish thrown at this industry. I would be happy to have a gas well on my property.” Mr Roberts drank water which NSW Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham claimed was CSG poisoned and riddled with radioactive heavy metals. Mr Roberts reported no ill effects.
Key facts about natural gas extraction:

At a time when manufacturing is contracting and unemployment growing, there is a big opportunity for regional Victoria to create jobs and generate additional income for land and business owners – all from responsibly managed, Government regulated resources. That is what has happened in a number of States in the US and Canada, and in Queensland -- and there is good reason to believe it can happen in Victoria, to the benefit of consumers, farmers and local businesses – with environmental benefits and without harm to water supplies or agriculture. History and science show that with sensible, regulated development, the economic power of gas can be harnessed, to the benefit of all.


[Back to List]

4. Integrated Comprehensive Transport Plan

Portfolio:

Transport - Cr Richards

Source:

City Services - Engineering Services

General Manager:

Gary Van Driel

Index Reference:

Transport, Council Reports 2014


Purpose

This report presents the Integrated Comprehensive Transport Plan (ICTP) for adoption by Council.


Summary

Cr Richards moved, Cr Ellis seconded -

That Council approve and adopt the Integrated Comprehensive Transport Plan for the City of Greater Geelong.


Carried.


Background

This ICTP supersedes the 2003 Geelong Transport Strategy which was prepared 10 years ago. Since this time a large number of the actions from that Strategy have been implemented and now a new ICTP is required that responds to the current and future transport needs of the City of Greater Geelong for the next ten years. Many of the recommended actions from the 2003 Strategy were not directly Council responsibilities and therefore lobbying to State and Federal governments was required in order to implement specific projects.

The City of Greater Geelong has experienced significant population growth over the past five years and is predicted to grow 1.8 % rate p.a. This has changed the transport needs for all forms of transport including, walking, cycling, public transport, private vehicles, freight, air and sea. The City of Greater Geelong is a diverse area comprising urban, peri-urban and coastal settlements with key gateways provided to the region via Avalon Airport and Geelong Port and the Midland, Hamilton and Princes highways.

The growth in cycling, both for commuters and for recreation, has not been met by an increase in funding for cycling related infrastructure. Current studies have shown that cycling improves health by reducing stress, anxiety and depression.

Public Transport provision in the City of Greater Geelong is also limited in its form. It is recognised that the Regional Rail Link project will improve some services on transport links to Melbourne. Bus services, access to rail stations and provision of services at rail stations are recognised as inadequate.

People travel to access employment, retail, education, recreational and tourism facilities and social networks or simply to improve their health. Planning the transport system is critical and will play a significant role in defining the city’s and its inhabitant’s future.

The need to make Central Geelong more liveable, and to find alternate routes for freight is also a significant issue, along with the expansion of Avalon Airport and the Port of Geelong.

There is no other plan or strategy in Council that includes all forms of transport and how they work together to move people and goods around and through the City. Given the City of Greater Geelong’s continued growth, it is timely that Council has developed an ICTP for all forms of transport. The ICTP will not supersede previous studies undertaken in the City of Greater Geelong. Instead it will aim to draw upon their findings to form a set of short, medium and long term actions that address identified transport and land use issues and challenges. The ICTP references these background reports when providing clear strategic direction to Council on managing and developing infrastructure. As the ICTP is implemented, these background studies will continue to be important reference documents linked to State planning and assets. They contain the specific details, including the analysis and recommendations which align with the actions in the Plan.


Discussion

The ICTP specifically identifies issues that influence the performance of Geelong’s transport system, while also recognising the strategic transport issues which impact upon Geelong. Identification and analysis of these issues, including those offered through the ICTP’s consultation process, provides impetus for the development of a range of actions to address current issues and to pursue new initiatives. Importantly, the ICTP provides direction for Geelong to manage its transport needs into the future.

Key Challenges that have been identified are:

  1. Encouraging the community to reduce car use for local trips and be more physically active;

  2. Minimising the impact of freight movements on the community against a background of economic growth; and

  3. Overcoming capacity and/or connectivity constraints that hinder local and regional movement.

As part of the development of this ICTP, all relevant strategies and studies which are existing or partially complete were reviewed, along with a comprehensive stakeholder consultation process.

During the course of the ICTP’s preparation, the interrelationship with a number of transport related studies currently in progress was considered. ie. the Network Operating Plan. In addition to this, existing studies and strategies, including those of a broader nature that have relevance to transport, are referred to in the ICTP (refer to Attachment 1).

Environmental Implications

Development of this ICTP will enhance the natural and built environment through the consistent improvement of the infrastructure base. The establishment of this Plan will lead to the understanding of transport issues leading to better environment protection. Provision of an efficient road transport system minimises delays and associated greenhouse gas emissions.


Financial Implications

The ICTP recommends initiatives within the Action Plans that may require future funding. The Bulk of the major funding to implement the Plan will be considered for inclusion in Council’s future programs through the normal project evaluation process and through partnerships where relevant. Studies will be completed by stakeholders who will be responsible for the implementation of their respective action plans.

The ICTP will provide guidance in the development of other adopted Council projects to maximise community safety and help improve road accessibility. Council’s ability to secure funding for road projects, particularly where safety issues are involved, will be significantly improved by the existence of this ICTP. Given the relevance of the ICTP to the wide range of initiatives that can help provide an efficient road system, this document will be an important support whenever it is appropriate to seek additional funds from VicRoads, TAC, Federal Government and other agencies as opportunities arise.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The ICTP will provide direction for the ongoing improvement of Transport Management within the Municipality. It will also demonstrate that the City is taking a responsible position on road network management issues.

Alignment to City Plan

ICTP supports the strategic direction of City Plan, and this study is aligned with City Plan strategic directions of Community well being with objectives such as to improve the health and quality of life of all residents of Greater Geelong, Growing the economy and Sustainable built and natural environment. Having an integrated approach to transport planning is a way forward to influence the land use development planning and provide sustainable transport systems. Transport directly affects the community, economy and the environment and to have an efficient transport system is important for the prosperity of local economies and to improve quality of life within the region. The ICTP will identify and prioritise transport infrastructure and transport service improvements to meet community needs and Council objectives.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officer involved in the preparation of this report has a direct or indirect conflict of interest.


Risk Assessment

The Development of an ICTP will improve Council’s position in terms of the level of understanding of Transport network improvement needs and accessibility issues.


Social Considerations

Appropriate transport planning means that social impacts are properly considered during the development and management of the transport issues. The ICTP aims to enhance accessibility, connectivity and mobility of walking, cycling, public transport, private vehicle usage, freight, air and sea and improve amenity and reduce road trauma. Initiatives that are proposed for programs that balance the needs of road users, through increasing empathy and understanding of the needs of each group, have the potential to reduce conflict between various travel modes.

Appropriate planning of road accessibility and connectivity within the City will contribute significantly to improving the health and wellbeing of local residents.

Improved safety for ‘active’ travel modes such as walking and cycling and provision of more equitable access for people of all ages and abilities has many documented social benefits, increasing opportunities for social interaction and participation.


Human Rights Charter

ICTP does not impact negatively on any basic rights, freedoms and responsibilities as set out in the Charter.


Consultation and Communication

Two ICTP workshops were held in 2013, where stakeholder and community based issues or concerns were discussed and noted. The key themes for the workshops were Local accessibility, Freight and land use integration and Connectivity to Melbourne and beyond.

Some of the road related issues raised included cycling issues, growth in remote areas and infrastructure requirements, Reliance on cars, funding issues, connectivity between regional town centres, pedestrian connectivity, road maintenance, lack of capacity on trains to Melbourne, Station upgrades, connection to Avalon Airport, congestion and capacity constraints, freight, Port access and community mobility options.

The Stakeholder and community workshops comprised representatives from the City, VicRoads, Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI), Victorian Regional Channel Authority, Public Transport Users Association, Geelong Port, McHarry’s Buslines, Geelong taxi Network, Taxi Services Commission, Benders Buslines, Bike safe, Bicycle Users Geelong, Bicycle Network Victoria and other CoGG members.

The ICTP was placed on public display from the 17th of March 2014 to the 25th of April 2014 (for six weeks to collect submissions). A total of twelve submissions were received during the public exhibition period, Responses have been sent to those people who made a submission and the relevant changes have been updated in the ICTP report. During the exhibition period, the opportunity to provide feedback on the document was advertised through local newspapers in Geelong, online at Council’s “Have Your Say” page and through local networks.


[Back to List]

5. Geelong Train Stations Local Infrastructure Survey

Portfolio:

Transport – Cr Richards

Source:

City Services - Asset & Traffic Management

General Manager:

Gary Van Driel

Index Reference:

Public Transport Strategies


Purpose

This report presents the findings of the ‘Geelong Train Stations Local Infrastructure Survey’ (GTSLIS). Council was seeking feedback from local residents and public transport users to help identify opportunities for any improvements to local infrastructure around all existing train stations within Geelong and the new station at Waurn Ponds.


Summary

Cr Richards moved, Cr Fisher seconded -

That Council receive this report and:

  1. exhibit the survey report to the Public, inviting formal written submissions advising they can be heard by a submissions review panel; and

  2. advocate on behalf of the community to Public Transport Victoria (PTV) for issues under their responsibility.

Cr Irvine left the meeting room at 8:23pm

Cr Irvine re-entered the meeting room at 8:25pm


Carried


Background

More people are catching the train than ever before. The Regional Rail Link Project will build new rail lines from Little River to Southern Cross Station. When finished in 2016, the Geelong line is expected to deliver better train services and attract more passengers. By 2016 Geelong is expected to be home to an extra 38,000 people.

The project to construct the new station at Waurn Ponds commenced in February this year and will be completed by October 2014.

At the Council meeting on 12 November 2013, a resolution was passed by Council to carry out a survey to ascertain Geelong train station local infrastructure shortages and to identify key responsible groups and required works.

Council also sought feedback from local residents to help identify opportunities for any improvements to local infrastructure around the new station at Waurn Ponds.


Discussion

Geelong train stations local infrastructure survey specifically identifies issues that impact on accessibility and connectivity to train stations in Geelong. Identification and analysis of these issues, including gaps in infrastructure provides impetus for the development of a range of actions to address current issues, and to pursue new initiatives. Importantly, these survey findings provide direction for Geelong to manage its transport accessibility needs into the future.

Some of the train station related issues raised included cycling access and storage, pedestrian access and connectivity, public bus service improvements and related infrastructure, coordination between bus and train services and safety within the train, stations and at the station car parks.

Key Challenges that have been identified are:

  1. Improve existing train and bus time coordination to facilitate better connectivity between these two modes of transport. This will encourage the community to reduce car use by using the bus and train to carry out trips in relation to work, school and shopping and be more physically active;

  2. Increase existing car parking spaces at train stations to provide ‘park and ride’ facilities. Minimising the impact on the road network;

  3. Improving local accessibility and connectivity into train stations from key local activity centres by providing pedestrian and cycle access ways.

  4. Improving key infrastructure within train stations, such as availability of Myki machines, covered shelters, increased seating capacities, toilets, well lit car parks and stations.

  5. To promote Safety and security at all of these train stations. More police and PSO present at the station, in the train and within the car park at all train working times will improve the use of these facilities.

Key Findings

City of Greater Geelong Responsibilities

DDA access audits of six Geelong train stations were conducted between 2010 and 2012. A number of works have resulted from this, especially at the Geelong train station with a new lift, bridge, toilet changes and related works, some of which are still currently being constructed.
Council will proceed to prepare a program of required infrastructure works that are the responsibility of the City.

It will also give a copy of the survey to PTV and advocate on behalf of the community for works that come under their responsibility.

After the train survey report is finalised it will be exhibited to the Public. Written submissions would then be heard by a Review Panel consisting of the Transport Portfolio Holder and any other two councillors who wish to attend the Panel. The Panel will report back to Council.


Environmental Implications

Development of this action plan will enhance the natural and built environment through the consistent improvement of the infrastructure base. The establishment of this Plan will lead to the understanding of public transport related issues leading to better use of these modes. Provision of an efficient public transport network supported by a sustainable transport connection, such as cycling and pedestrian access ways, will minimise delays and associated greenhouse gas emissions.


Financial Implications

The GTSLIS identifies and recommends initiatives within the Action Plans that may require future funding.

The GTSLIS action plan will provide guidance in the development of other adopted Council projects to maximise community safety and help improve train station accessibility. Council’s ability to secure State funding for these projects, particularly where safety and accessibility issues are involved, will be significantly improved by the existence of this GTSLIS action plan.

Given the relevance of the GTSLIS action plan to the wide range of initiatives that can help provide an efficient public transport system, this document will be an important support whenever it is appropriate to seek additional funds from PTV, VicRoads, TAC, Federal Government and other agencies as opportunities arise.

The Bulk of the major funding to implement the action plan is expected to be funded by PTV, State and Federal. The other improvements to implement the Plan will be considered for inclusion in Council’s future programs through the normal project evaluation process and through partnerships where relevant.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The GTSLIS action plan will provide direction for the ongoing improvement of Public Transport improvements within the Municipality. It will also demonstrate that the City is taking a responsible position on public transport and sustainable transport activities and management issues.


Alignment to City Plan

GTSLIS action plan supports the strategic direction of City Plan, and this study is aligned with City Plan strategic directions of Community well being with objectives such as to improve the health and quality of life of all residents of Greater Geelong, Growing the economy and Sustainable built and natural environment. Having an integrated approach to sustainable transport planning is a way forward to influence more public transport use and improve sustainable transport systems. Transport directly affects the community, economy and the environment and to have an efficient transport system is important for the prosperity of local economies and to improve quality of life within the region. The GTSLIS action plan will identify and prioritise transport infrastructure and transport service improvements to meet community needs and Council objectives.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officer involved in the preparation of this report has a direct or indirect conflict of interest.


Risk Assessment

The Development of a GTSLIS action plan will improve Council’s position in terms of the level of understanding of Transport network improvement needs and accessibility issues.


Social Considerations

Appropriate public transport and sustainable transport planning means that social impacts are properly considered during the development and implementation of the transport and accessibility infrastructures. The GTSLIS action plan aims to enhance accessibility, connectivity and mobility of walking, cycling and public transport.

Appropriate planning of road accessibility and connectivity to train stations within the City will contribute significantly to improving the health and wellbeing of local residents. Improved safety for ‘active’ travel modes such as walking and cycling and provision of more equitable access for people of all ages and abilities has many documented social benefits, increasing opportunities for social interaction and participation.


Human Rights Charter

GTSLIS action plan does not impact negatively on any basic rights, freedoms and responsibilities as set out in the Charter.


Consultation and Communication

The GTSLIS was open for public comments from the 20 June 2014 to the 18 August 2014 (for eight weeks to collect submissions). A total of 116 ‘electronic’ submissions and 66 hard copy submissions were received during this survey period. 600 letters were dropped to residents who live within a radius of approximately 500 m from the new Waurn Ponds train station. During the public and hard copy letter drop out period, the opportunity to provide feedback on the survey was advertised through local newspapers in Geelong, online at Council’s “Have Your Say” page and through local networks.


[Back to List]

6. G21 Regional Economic Development Strategy

Portfolio:

Enterprise Geelong – Cr Harwood

Source:

Enterprise Geelong

General Manager:

Dr Russell Walker

Index Reference:

G21 Regional Economic Development Strategy


Purpose

The purpose of the G21 Regional Economic Development Strategy is to:


Summary

Cr Harwood moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -

That Council endorse the G21 Regional Economic Development Strategy (Appendix 1).


Carried.


Background

Through discussions at the G21 Regional Alliance Board and Economic Development Pillar it was identified that it would be desirable to take a Regional Economic Development Strategy to guide the efforts of the G21 Regional Alliance and member Municipalities in coordinating economic development activity across the region.

A Project Steering Group (PSG) was formed Chaired by Stephen Griffin Chief Executive Officer of the City of Greater Geelong and included the Chief Executive Officers from all member Municipalities, Barwon Water, Deakin University, G21 Regional Alliance, The Gordon Institute, and Regional Development Victoria to develop a brief, appoint consultants and ultimately oversee the development of an Economic Development Strategy for the region.

The PSG was supported by a Project Working Group (PWG) of economic development professionals from each Municipality and the State Government representatives.

Consultants (AEC Group) were engaged to undertake a review of the economic structure of the region inclusive of detailed consultation with peak bodies across the region and commercial stakeholders across the region.
Consultation was undertaken by AEC with key regional stakeholders from mid-2011 into 2012.

Key regional stakeholders included:

A draft G21 Regional Economic Development Strategy was prepared in 2012 reflective of this consultation process in the lead up to the Council elections. This draft strategy was presented at the Councillor Briefing on 20 March 2012 for comment.

As the draft strategy would require approval by all G21 Councils, the PSG decided to defer the consideration of it until after the elections in November 2012. Consideration was further deferred whilst Council established Enterprise Geelong – the refocusing of their Economic Development unit.


Discussion

In April 2014, it was timely for Enterprise Geelong to coordinate a further update of the draft G21 Regional Economic Development Strategy and to brief all G21 Councils on the contents of the strategy. The five G21 Council CEOs have also had input into the draft strategy.

The purpose of the G21 Regional Economic Development Strategy is to:

The strategic focus areas for the strategy are:

The key recommendations of the strategy are Game Changer Initiatives, which are recommended by the consultant team and have been accepted by the PSG as initiatives which will affectively advance the region further faster. These key five game changer recommendations are:-


Environmental Implications

The recommendations of the G21 Regional Economic Development Strategy are considered to provide direction in respect to some of the environmental challenges facing the region from an economic development perspective.


Financial Implications

The project has been funded by G21 Councils and the State Government. There are no further funds required the City of Greater Geelong or from other member Municipalities.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The strategy is intended to provide direction in relation to the G21 Regional Councils in developing and implementing an economic development agenda for the region.


Alignment to City Plan

This report aligns to the Growing the Economy section of our City Plan.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officer involved in the preparation of this report has declared a direct or indirect interest in this report.


Risk Assessment

There are no notable risks associated with accepting the recommendation in this report.


Social Considerations

The development of an Economic Development Strategy for the entire region is considered a key step in the maturity of the G21 Regional Alliance to provide direction in relation to economic development initiatives undertaken by the G21 Regional Member Municipalities.


Human Rights Charter

This report has no direct impact on the human rights of the residents of the City of Greater Geelong.


Consultation and Communication

The preparation of the G21 Regional Economic Development Strategy has been managed by the PSG. The consultation with key regional stakeholders from mid-2011 into 2012 was undertaken by AEC.

Key regional stakeholders included:

After the consultation period, a draft G21 Regional Economic Development Strategy was prepared, however approval by all five Council’s was deferred until after the elections in November 2012 and the establishment of Enterprise Geelong in 2013.

A review of the draft strategy was conducted from April - July 2014 by the PSG, the G21 Economic Development Pillar, the CEO’s of all five member municipalities, and the G21 Board. Recommended changes were provided to AEC with the final draft strategy completed in July 2014.

The final G21 Regional Economic Development Strategy was endorsed by Colac Otway Shire Council in September 2014. The strategy will be endorsed by the remaining G21 Councils in October 2014.


[Back to List]

7. Annual Report 2013-2014

Portfolio:

Governance - Cr Lyons (Mayor)
Finance – Cr Lyons (Mayor), Cr S Kontelj & Cr E Kontelj

Source:

Corporate Services - Corporate Strategy

A/General Manager:

Michael Kelly

Index Reference:

Subject: Annual Report


Purpose

The Annual Report 2013-2014 was submitted to the Minister for Local Government as per the requirement of the Local Government Act 1989, Section 131.

As per the Local Government Act 1989, the purpose of this report is for the Council to receive the Annual Report 2013-2014 (previously circulated with briefing papers).


Summary

Cr S Kontelj moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -

That Council receives the 2013-2014 Annual Report in accordance with Section 134 of the Local Government Act 1989.

Carried.


Background

Council approved “in principle” the Financial Statement of Accounts, Standard Statements and Performance Statement and authorised the signing of the Accounts subject to Auditor General requirements on 26 August 2014.

The Auditor-General has signed the accounts and issued his report stating that the accounts fairly present the financial position of the Council and comply with accounting requirements.

A copy of the Annual Report together with the Audited Performance Statement, Financial Statements and Standard Statements was provided to the Minister for Local Government on 26th September 2014.

Under Section 134 of the Local Government Act 1989, the Council must consider the annual report at a meeting of Council as soon as practicable after the Annual Report has been sent to the Minister.


Discussion

The Annual Report is a comprehensive review of highlights and achievements for 2013-2014 financial year.

Under the Local Government Act the Council is required to give public notice when the Annual Report is available for public inspection and is also required to provide 14 days notice of when it will be considered at a Council Meeting.

On Saturday, 27 September 2014 Council gave public notice that:

  1. Council had prepared the Annual Report for the financial year to 30 June 2014 and that copies containing the following information contained within the Annual Report were available from the Council’s website and Customer Service Centres:

  2. The Annual Report, including the Performance, Financial and Standard Statements, is to be received at the Council meeting to be held on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 commencing at 7.00 p.m.

It is important to note that recent changes to the Local Government Act 1989 (18 April 2014) in regard to the Performance Reporting Indicators and Standard Statements do not take affect until the 2014-2015 financial year.


Environmental Implications

The Annual Report addresses the City’s achievements in the Sustainable Built and Natural Environment strategic direction and reports on actions undertaken in 2013-2014 and progress indicators.


Financial Implications

The Annual Report includes a copy of the City’s Audited “Financial Statements” and “Standard Statements” that has been the subject of a previous report to Council.

No impact to budget.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The recommendation and procedures outlined in this report conform to the requirements of the Local Government Act and Regulations.

Council has given public notice that the Annual Report 2013-2014 is available for public inspection and provided 14 days notice of a meeting to consider the report.


Alignment to City Plan

City Plan 2013-2017 is the guiding document for the 2013-2014 Annual Report. The Annual Report provides and update on the achievements under the Community Wellbeing, Growing Our Economy, Sustainable Built and Natural Environment and How We Do Business strategic directions.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

There are no direct or indirect interests.


Risk Assessment

There are no identified risks arising from this report.


Social Considerations

The Annual Report provides a report to the community on the Actions and Initiatives undertaken during the reporting period.

In addition to the Statutory Financial Reporting, the Annual Report provides information to the community on how the resources of the City have been allocated between the Social, Environment and Economic needs of the community.

This information is presented in the City’s adopted Planning Framework of the four strategic directions being:

  1. Community Wellbeing

  2. Growing Our Economy

  3. Sustainable Built and Natural Environment

  4. How We Do Business


Human Rights Charter

The 2013-2014 Annual Report will be made available to the community in a number of formats satisfying accessibility requirements:

All images in the final design version that feature staff or members of the community have had photo releases signed.


Consultation and Communication

The Council’s Annual Report 2013-2014 is a primary communication document that has been made available for public inspection in draft form.

A printed publication is currently being prepared and will be distributed to leaders within the community.

A copy of the report will also be accessible via the City’s internet site and at Council’s Customer Service Centres.


[Back to List]

8. Flinders Peak Secondary College Education and Community Activity

Portfolio:

Sport and Recreation - Cr John Irvine

Source:

Projects Recreation and Central Geelong - Sport and
Recreation

General Manager:

Dean Frost

Index Reference:

Subject: Land acquisition and building purchase
Property key: 282219, 95 Hendy Street Corio


Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a status on negotiations surrounding the former Flinders Peak Secondary College in Corio.


Summary

Cr Ansett moved, Cr Fisher seconded -

That Council:

  1. call upon the State Government to reconsider Council's offer to swap land of an equal value adjacent to the former Flinders Peak site to ensure that the ECA remains in community hands;

  2. also calls upon the State Government to recognise Council’s financial contributions to this site on behalf of the community, and appropriately compensate Council so it may rebuild like facilities to ensure that the sporting community is not disadvantaged as a consequence of the proposed site sale.

Carried.


Background

Flinders Peak Secondary College (formerly Corio North High School) commenced operations in 1978. The Shire of Corio contributed to the construction cost of sporting facilities at the school site in order to facilitate community use. The Shire of Corio contributed $18,000 in 1979 toward the cost of playing fields, tennis courts, playground, furniture and landscaping, and $80,000 in 1983 toward the cost of the ECA Centre (Education and Community Activity Centre, i.e. the stadium). Various formal and informal arrangements between the school Council and the Shire of Corio and later the City of Greater Geelong dictated the administrative and maintenance obligations of the parties with regard to these facilities.

Council placed the Geelong Rugby Union Club on the facilities at Flinders Peak in 2005 and subsequently invested approximately $347,000 into floodlight installation and change facilities upgrades between 2005/2006 and 2007/2008. The sports oval is irrigated (installed by CoGG c. 1997 at a cost of approximately $48,000), and ongoing sports ground maintenance since 2005/2006 has totalled approximately $264,000.

A Licence Agreement dated 2007 between the CoGG and the Minister for Education is currently in place for use of the sports oval and F-Block, both of which are used as the field and sporting clubrooms of the Geelong Rugby Union Club. The sports oval is also used by Corio Cricket Club as its seconds ground during the cricket season. This agreement expires in 2022.

The Licence Agreement includes provision for the Minister to terminate the agreement if it is determined that the land is required for reasons including ‘disposal of the Land or part of it’ or ‘any other reason’ (clause 9). In addition, there is a clause allowing the Minister to terminate the agreement if the facility is ‘damaged or destroyed so as to render it unfit for use and it is impractical or undesirable to reinstate’.

If the decision is taken to terminate the Licence Agreement, the Minister is required to present one of the following three options to CoGG (clause 10). The choice of options presented is at the discretion of the Minister and cannot be the subject of a dispute:

  1. Subdivision of the whole or part of the land and an offer of sale to the Licensee;

  2. Entering into a lease for the whole or part of the facility with the terms and conditions consistent with the existing Licence Agreement; or

  3. Compensation payable to the Licensee to the amount determined by the Minister at the Minister’s discretion and taking several factors into consideration including the construction contribution made by the Licensee, reduced to reflect the portion of the Licence Term which has expired.

CoGG was notified in a letter from the DTF, dated 21 October 2013, that it has been directed by DEECD to dispose of the Flinders Peak school site. DTF sought to establish whether CoGG had any interest in purchasing the property. A valuation was subsequently sought by Council on the portion of the land which accommodates the sports oval and F-Block, in order that an assessment could be made on the relative benefits of attempting to purchase that particular parcel in which Council had invested over the years, as opposed to investing in new recreation infrastructure to serve the tenant sporting club and the broader community at the adjacent Council reserve on the corner of Plantation Road and Hendy Street.

CoGG was advised in email correspondence dated 9 April 2014 that a decision had been taken to demolish the school buildings except F-Block and associated services. Ongoing use of F-Block and services has been subsequently assured, and planning by DEECD’s Demolition Project Manager is being undertaken to ensure there is no disruption to services during the current sporting season while the rugby club is tenant.

The Council considered options for the future provision of sporting infrastructure at the Flinders Peak site at its Ordinary Meeting of 8 July 2014, resolving that it:

  1. Informs the Department of Treasury and Finance that it wishes to retain the former ECA Centre (Education and Community Activity Centre) site to the Hendy Street Road frontage and will not seek to purchase the parcel of land that the Geelong Rugby Club resides on;

  2. Pursues Option 2 and establishes a new multi-use turf field and consider the refurbishment of the ECA Centre to fulfil club player amenities;

  3. Negotiates with the Department of Treasury and Finance and enters into a lease until 2017 at the existing F Block site, to provide ongoing security of tenancy for the Rugby Club during the transitional period of developing and establishing alternate facilities at the adjacent Council reserve.

In seeking a cost-neutral option for the acquisition of the ECA Centre and immediate surrounds, officers proposed a land swap whereby Council would receive the ECA Centre site in exchange for a developable portion of the adjacent Council owned reserve. Advice from the Hon Damian Drum MLC, Minister for Sport and Recreation, dated 10 September is that the State Government preference is for Council to purchase the land; a land swap is not supported.

As part of Council’s due diligence on the site, GHD was commissioned to undertake a condition report on the ECA Centre and produce an estimate of the cost of its refurbishment and upgrade to current standards. The preliminary report estimates a cost of $1,100,000 inclusive of services reconnections but excluding land purchase, legal and subdivision costs.


Discussion

In line with the 8 July 2014 Council resolution, officers are progressing the planning of a new multi-use turf field on the Council owned reserve to the immediate south of the ECA Centre. The multi-use field would accommodate two rectangular fields (suitable for rugby union, rugby league and gridiron), a central cricket wicket and sports lights. The planning has not included provision of clubrooms, given the resolution to pursue acquisition and refurbishment of the ECA Centre to fulfil that role.

Land purchase costs had not been included in the preliminary feasibility assessment of the retaining the ECA Centre, with the intention being to achieve ownership of the site via a land swap with DEECD. Correspondence from the Minister for Sport and Recreation has advised that the government is not supportive of this proposal and so now land purchase costs must be factored into the overall cost of the project.

An estimate of value was prepared by the Valuer-General for part of the school site, estimating an approximate rate of $540,000 per hectare. The ECA Centre and its surrounds (including frontage to Hendy Street) is approximately 1 ha.

The combined cost of purchasing the land and refurbishing the ECA Centre exceeds the cost normally attributed to the construction of a purpose-built sporting pavilion and is almost equivalent to the estimated cost of purchasing F-Block and the existing oval to retain the rugby facility at its current site. When considered as part of the project to construct the new multi-use field, the cost of that project almost doubles.

The following table outlines the estimated cost scenarios for the development inclusive of potential land purchases:

Option

Total Capital Cost

Comment

Option 1 – Purchase the existing Ruby facilities and oval.

Total $2,000,000

This option purchases the existing facility and allows the Rugby Club to continue its use of the site. The sale of the surrounding site and its impact on the functionality of the site are unknown.

Option 2 – Create 2 new pitches and prefabricated change facilities

Grounds – $800,000
Pavilion - $1,000,000
Total - $1,800,000

This option creates new facilities on Council owned land. It delivers a base level of facilities.

Option 3 – purchase the land associated with the ECA centre and refurbish the building

Grounds - $800,000
Pavilion - $1,100,000
Land – $ 500,000 – $600,000
Total $2,500,000

This option would redevelop the ECA site, retain the land and build new pitches on Council land. The pavilion cost has been based on refurbishment of the facility to its former state, it does not reflect building requirements to meet sporting needs


Cost Assumptions


Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications associated with the recommendations in this report.


Financial Implications

The proposal to redevelop the ECA Centre becomes financially unviable when a land purchase is considered in the cost model. Should the site be secured from DEECD there will be a cost associated with securing the site from further vandalism until a capital allocation can be achieved.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

There are no statutory notification requirements for the purchase of land. The Local Government Act (“the Act”) and the Best Practice Guidelines for the Sale, Exchange and Transfer of Land are silent on the requirements and procedures for purchasing land.

The ‘Reserve Funds’ Council Policy and the ‘Public Open Space Reserve Fund’ Management Procedure guide the use of funds for acquisition or open space developments from the Public Open Space Reserve Fund; there is no conflict with either.


Alignment to City Plan

The options presented in this report support the ‘Community Wellbeing’ strategic direction of City Plan by planning for an environment which supports healthy lifestyles and a connected, creative and strong community.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officers involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.


Risk Assessment

The acquisition of the ECA Centre and redevelopment has a high level of uncertainty as relating to project costs due to the nature of the building and the lack of information available on its state of repair and connection of internal services.

The site is also subject to high levels of vandalism as demonstrated by the recent arson attack on the former school buildings; prolonged negotiations increase the likelihood of damage to the ECA Centre.


Social Considerations

The area is currently subject to high levels of vandalism and anti-social behaviour; an expedient resolution to the ECA Centre ownership will enable the site to be adequately secured to enable redevelopment or demolition.


Human Rights Charter

This report has no impact on human rights or the Human Rights Charter.


Consultation and Communication

Following direction from Council, consultation will be undertaken with the Geelong Rugby Union Club and the Corio Cricket Club to determine the requirements for any temporary facilities, relocation and/or to work through a design for new facilities.


[Back to List]

9. Barwon Health North – Preferred Land Discussions on the Northern Arc Site

Portfolio:

Sport and Recreation – Cr Irvine

Source:

Leisure Services

A/General Manager:

Dean Frost

Index Reference:

Project: Northern ARC (Gateway) Project


Purpose

To advise Councillors of discussions with the Department of Health about their preferred site for the new Barwon Health North Medical Centre. The Department of Health have indicated that the Northern ARC precinct is their preferred site and plan to start construction in 2016. A Council decision is required to either support or decline the Department of Health’s proposal to construct a medical centre on the Northern ARC site to enable completion of the master plan.


Summary

Cr Fisher moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -

That:

  1. Council agree in principle, subject to satisfactory resolution of funding and staging issues, for the co-location of Barwon Health North on the Northern ARC site;

  2. Officers are directed to work with other levels of Government to develop a proposed staging and funding model for the implementation of the Master Plan. This model must optimise outcomes for Council and the community, and this will be used to inform Council’s final decision.


Cr Farrell left the meeting room at 8:56pm

Cr Farrell re-entered the meeting room at 8:58pm


Carried.


Background

The Northern ARC Precinct Master Plan is a jointly funded State Government and Council initiative. The Northern ARC site is located on the corner of Melbourne and Cox roads and is a highly visible location in Norlane. It was identified as a key development opportunity in the Corio Norlane Structure Plan (2012). The site currently provides the services of Waterworld Leisure Centre, Centenary Hall and Corio Library within this precinct. The master plan project will review the development of these current services and will consider the inclusion of health, arts and culture infrastructure. The final design is expected to be a visionary plan to guide renewal of the precinct facilities over the next 10 – 15 years to create a vibrant community hub that promotes strong connectivity, integration and is an iconic destination for leisure, recreation, cultural and community wellbeing activities.

A consultancy team led by TRACT Consultants are coordinating the Northern ARC Master Plan and to date have progressed to a draft preferred plan scenario for the site (see attachment 1.)

Findings to date have supported the site redevelopment and indentified size and location of facilities. Current and future community needs have been considered to ensure the development considers a long term view. Industry information from other similar developments has been used to assist in design and a number of design principles have been developed by the project consultants. A medical centre has been included in the draft master plan scenario to assess the possible co-location on the site, level of integration with other facilities, size of the building and car parking demand when overlaid with other precinct facilities and services. The development of a medical facility on the Northern ARC site requires Council approval before the master plan can be finalised.

The project design principles include:

  1. A hub of activity for locals and visitors that will engage with, and reach out to the surrounding local community and wider region. It will reinforce the site as a local landmark destination and a ‘beacon’ for civic pride and use.

  2. Co-located activities and uses within the site across the areas of arts, recreation, community and health, with opportunities for interaction between all of the uses.

  3. Provide flexible and adaptive internal and external public spaces that are multi-purpose and provide for events or activities of varying scales. These should be supported by programming of multiple events and activities through the day and night.

  4. A precinct that is a natural meeting and gathering place. It encourages formal and casual public engagement and association and provides a well-used and well-loved destination for all ages. Equitable and universal access for all ages and backgrounds.

  5. Easy, safe and enjoyable ways to get around the precinct on foot, which draws people into and through the precinct. This creates a permeable, safe, inviting and easily accessible hub for all people at all hours.

  6. Engaging community buildings, public realm open space and landscape that exhibits best-practice, high quality design, which is flexible, adaptive and represents a sense of place for the community.

  7. A sustainable plan for the future, in environmental, cultural, economic and social terms. A hub of activity that can be staged, funded and delivered in a manageable, sustainable and considered way over time.

  8. Access to and from the site, and through the site is safe, efficient and inviting. Public transport links, walking and cycling links and car parking that is easily accessed, and provides direct and universal access to all facilities and services. Car parking provision that meets the increased demands and supports business viability and growth.

The project has now progressed to a draft preferred master plan scenario but needs a decision from Council on whether a medical centre will be on the site or not before any further design planning can be finalised. Once this decision has been made the Northern ARC Master Plan report is expected to be presented to Council early 2015.


Discussion

The Department of Health have had several discussions with Council officers regarding the Northern ARC site being their preferred location for the development of a medical facility. They understand that there are a number of logistical issues that need to be finalised before this location can be considered and would like to start discussions with Council around these issues.

Logistical issues include:

From initial discussions the proposed medical facility will provide services highlighted in the Health Services Planning Report in 2012. Barwon Health will operate the service and the facility will be called Barwon Health North. The current Barwon Health facility at Corio Village will remain in operation and no rehabilitation services or activity programs will be offered at Barwon Health North in stage 1. The Department of Health has indicated there may be a second stage that will expand Barwon Health North to a second storey, to include the services currently offered at the Corio Village site.

There is also a desire to integrate the health facility with the leisure centre once it has been redeveloped, providing a connected and holistic health and wellbeing hub for residents of the north.

The Northern ARC Master Plan process to date has determined that Barwon Health North can co-locate on the site in terms of building footprint and available car parking. A more detailed analysis on the benefit, implications and opportunities of having Barwon Health North on the site needs to be debated. The Department of Health have acknowledged there are other potential sites being considered, should the Northern ARC site not be achievable.

The full Northern ARC project is not funded in Councils long term financial plan. There is an allocation of $2.75 million committed with an aspiration to attract matching State funding of $2.5 million. This would provide $5 million to re-develop the dry facilities including gymnasium and program rooms.

Initial estimates from the consulting architect for the total Northern ARC project delivery are as follows:

Facility

Cost estimate

Funding position

New Waterworld

$40 million

$2.75 million committed

New Library

$6 million

$0

New Community Hall

$5 million

$0

Detailed design and civil works

$5 miilion

$0

Total

$56 million

$2.75 million

 

 

 

Barwon Health North medical centre

$28 million

Fully funded by State


Benefits of the Barwon Health North Proposal

Implications with the Barwon Health North Proposal

Opportunities with the Barwon Health Proposal

Negotiations of land purchase or lease will follow if it is determined that a medical centre can co-exist on the Northern ARC site and Council deems the proposal favourable. Any land sales or lease arrangements would be subjected to Council’s land purchasing process and include the Property Department in these discussions. The draft master plan scenario is promoting integration of the facilities so land sale may be problematic.


Environmental Implications

The Northern ARC Master Plan will design areas to be environmentally friendly as a community hub for meeting, activities and programs. The medical centre would need to follow these design principles if co-located on the site.


Financial Implications

The Northern ARC project is currently unfunded within councils 10 year capital expenditure and affordability plan. There is an allocation of $2.75 million over the next 3 years for the upgrade of the gymnasium and dry area program rooms at Waterworld.

The State Government has budgeted $28 million for the Barwon Health North Medical Centre to be built in the north of Geelong. This funding allocation includes $21 million for construction and the remainder for land purchase and equipment fit outs.

Funds could be leveraged through the State Government land purchase allocation if Barwon Health North was constructed on the Northern ARC site. This funding could be negotiated in lieu of land purchase to fund the full site schematic design stage and services. This allocation is estimated at $2 million.

Possible government funding for other facilities on the site is unclear at this point, as is Council’s long term financial commitment to full redevelopment of existing facilities on the site.

An estimated full costing of Northern ARC facilities (Council assets) by the project architect are as follows:

New Waterworld $40

New Library $6M

New Community Hall $5M

Detailed design and landscape including car parking $5M

Total Project Cost $56M

Land sales or lease options could provide additional funding or financial support to the construction stage of the project.

Possible government funding for other facilities on the site is unclear at this point, as is Council’s long term financial commitment to the full redevelopment of existing facilities on the site.

Potential loss of activities on the Waterworld site, due to medical centre construction in 2016 including loss of the waterslides revenue which generates $20,000 per annum.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Legal processes for transfer of land or leasing of land will need to be considered.

The land will need to be re-zoned for health facility use from the current recreational use.


Alignment to City Plan

The Master Plan development is in line with the City Plan strategies of Healthy Environments, and Connected, Creative and Strong Communities. The medical centre in the Northern Suburbs has support from G21 and the Barwon Health strategy for health services in the northern suburbs


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

There is no conflict of interest with this project.


Risk Assessment

Risk of information received by media before decisions are finalised.

Impact on existing services during construction phase will be significant without strong governance principles established for the precinct.


Social Considerations

A medical centre in the northern suburbs of Geelong has significant social and health benefits as detailed in the Barwon Health Service Plan.

The Barwon health North Centre would also impact on the Waterworld outdoor area until the Waterworld Centre is redeveloped.


Human Rights Charter

The development of Barwon Health North in the northern suburbs of Geelong recognises the Human Rights Charter with the inherent value of each person regardless of where they live, background or what they think or believe. The location of Barwon Health North supports the charter no matter where it is constructed in the northern suburbs.


Consultation and Communication

The Northern ARC Master Plan has included considerable community engagement to date. This includes development of the Northern ARC website, Waterworld user survey, Community survey, Corio Village Listening Post, Stakeholder scenario workshops and individual stakeholder meetings. The medical centre in the northern suburbs has been widely communicated to the community via local media, Barwon Health and State Government.


[Back to List]

10. State Government Climate Change Adaptation – Memorandum of Understanding – Exhibition Draft

Portfolio:

All Wards

Source:

City Services- Environment and Waste

A/General Manager:

Gary Van Driel

Index Reference:

Climate Change Adaptation


Purpose

To inform and seek approval from Council to submit a response to the State Governments request for comment on the draft Climate Change Adaptation Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).


Summary

Cr Ellis moved, Cr Richards seconded -

That Council approve and forward the proposed submission regarding the Draft Climate Change Adaptation MOU to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change.

Carried.


Background

The Minister for Environment and Climate Change has requested feedback on a Draft Climate Change Adaptation Memorandum of Understanding. The City of Greater Geelong is a lead Council in 3 Victorian Adaptation and Sustainability Partnership Program Grants. These include:

The MOU is particularly relevant to the Geelong Queenscliffe Coastal Risk Assessment and the responsibilities in relation to coastal climate change risks.

There are a range of stakeholders involved in the project including Department of Environment and Primary Industries, City of Greater Geelong, Borough of Queenscliffe, Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, Barwon Coast Foreshore Committee of Management and Bellarine Bayside Foreshore Committee of Management.

Improved clarity in relation to roles and responsibilities including legal and financial liabilities that may arise in the future as a result of coastal land use planning, adaptation planning, hazard assessments, engineering responses and options and coastal asset management, will benefit all stakeholders.


Discussion

The proposed submission to the state government is as follows;

Council welcomes the Draft MOU to formalise a partnership between state government and local government to increase clarity of responsibilities in climate change adaptation and provide a framework for action by setting out:


Environmental Implications

The MOU may influence how the Victorian government and Council manage risks to Geelong’s coastline, including various adaptation responses to sea level rise and erosion. Council has significant environmental assets located on our coast which include internationally listed wetlands. Responsibilities for ongoing management and protection of these assets will need to be considered within the context of the MOU.


Financial Implications

The Draft MOU currently requires parties to recognise adaptation roles and responsibilities set out in Victorian Adaptation Plan and the Council of Australian Governments’ Select Council on Climate Change’s Statement of Common Understanding. Council will need to seek clarity in regard to the roles and responsibilities set out in these documents to clarify if there are any financial implications relevant to Council. The MOU will help to inform state and local policy development. An assessment of any recommendations that are developed from the MOU and any financial implications for Council will need to be considered.

No impact to budget.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The results of the MOU discussions may inform state and local government Policy development. The MOU explicitly states: “that this MOU is not intended to create any legally binding rights or obligations and will not be enforceable in a court of law in Australia.”

Alignment to City Plan

Sustainable Built and Natural Environment
One of our key partners listed in City Plan under the Sustainable Built and Natural Environment chapter is Federal and State Government Departments.

Challenges include:

A key strategy to implement actions within the Sustainable Built and Natural Environment chapter includes the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. A priority work area within this Strategy is Coastal Planning and includes the following actions:


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officer involved in the preparation of this report has a direct or indirect conflict of interest.


Risk Assessment

The Draft MOU currently requires parties to recognise adaptation roles and responsibilities set out in Victorian Adaptation Plan and the Council of Australian Governments’ Select Council on Climate Change’s Statement of Common Understanding. Council seeks clarity in regards to the roles and responsibilities set out in these documents to clarify if there are any risk implications relevant to Council. The MOU will help to inform state and local policy development. An assessment of any recommendations that are developed from the MOU and any legal implications for Council will need to be considered.


Social Considerations

There are no social considerations resulting in the recommendation in this report.


Human Rights Charter

There are no human rights charter issues resulting from the recommendation in this report.


Consultation and Communication

The Draft MOU will need to include details of consultation processes between the local government representative body, the Ministerial Advisory Committee and local government. This requirement has been included in the above submission.

Appendix 1

The Hon Ryan Smith MP

4 September 2014

Minister for Environment and Climate Change
PO Box 500
East Melbourne Victoria 8002

Doc No: 6379375


Dear Minister Smith

Re: Draft Climate Change Adaptation Memorandum of Understanding

Thankyou for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Climate Change Adaptation Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Officer comments in relation to this MOU are provided below. A resolution of Council will be sought in the coming weeks following which a formal response will be provided in relation to the draft MOU.

Officer comments relating to the draft MOU:

It is pleasing to see a Draft MOU seeking to formalise a partnership between state government and local government to increase clarity of responsibilities in climate change adaptation and provide a framework for action by setting out:

Yours sincerely

Signature of rodney Thomas
RODNEY THOMAS
MANAGER
ENVIRONMENT & WASTE SERVICES


Appendix 2

The Hon Ryan Smith MP

15 October 2014

Minister for Environment and Climate Change
PO Box 500
East Melbourne Victoria 8002

Doc No: 6379375



Dear Minister Smith

Re: Draft Climate Change Adaptation Memorandum of Understanding

Thankyou for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Climate Change Adaptation Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Officer comments have previously been provided in relation to the draft MOU, however the letter also stated that a formal Council position would be subsequently provided. Please find Councils formal response below.

Council response in relation to the draft MOU;

It is pleasing to see a Draft MOU seeking to formalise a partnership between state government and local government to increase clarity of responsibilities in climate change adaptation and provide a framework for action by setting out:

Yours sincerely

 

CR DARRYN LYONS
MAYOR



[Back to List]

11. Geelong Major Events Annual Report to Council 2013/2014

Portfolio:

Major Events & Tourism - Cr Nelson

Source:

Projects, Recreation & Central Geelong / Events, Central
Geelong and Waterfront

A/General Manager:

Dean Frost

Index Reference:

Subject: Events / Geelong Major Events


Purpose

The Geelong Major Events terms of reference requires an annual report to be presented to Council at the conclusion of the financial year. This report provides a summary of the activities supported by Geelong Major Events (GME) for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014.


Summary

Cr Nelson moved, Cr Harwood seconded -

That Council note the report detailing the activities of Geelong Major Events for the 2013/2014 period.


Carried.


Background

In August 1998 Council established a Section 86 Committee under the provisions of the Local Government Act, known as Geelong Major Events, as a means of stimulating and encouraging events within the municipality.

In line with the GME Terms of Reference, an annual report will be presented to Council at the conclusion of the financial year and quarterly or half yearly reports will be provided throughout the year. This report provides a summary of the activities supported by GME for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014.

GME support the development and improvement of hallmark, major and developing events whilst focusing its activities on a clearly defined strategic program.

GME has established and maintains strong links with the private sector, government and our communities to achieve high levels of stakeholder investment and activity required to realise the events potential of Geelong.


Discussion

Meetings

GME convened eleven ordinary meetings in the period between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2014.

Meetings are currently scheduled for the third Monday of each month commencing at 4.00pm and are generally held at City Hall. The meetings are open to the public and meeting dates are advertised in the Geelong Advertiser.

Strategic Outcomes

Key outcomes achieved for the year include:

Details of GME funding decisions for the period

During the period, GME provided a commitment of funding support to the following events:

Event Title

Event Date

Funding Committed
(Year One)

2014 - 2015 Bay Cycling Classic

January

$35,000

2016 - 2019 Southern University Games

July

$35,000

2013 - 2014 Day on the Green season

Sep to Mar

$30,000

2014 Motor City Music Festival

March

$45,000

2014 – 2016 Geelong Highland Gathering

March

$15,000

2014 Herald Sun Tour

February

$10,000

2014 Rugby Fever @ Simonds Stadium

February

$15,000

2014 & 2015 Victorian Lifesaving Championships

March

$10,000

2014 Wooden Boat Festival

March

$8,000

2014 M ~ M 2014 - Extreme Arts Festival

May

$50,000

2014 – 2016 National Celtic Festival

June

$40,000

2013 Australia vs Malaysia International Bowls

December

$15,000

2014 Australian Open Water Swimming Championships

February

$15,000

2014 Australian Open Squash Championships

April

$7,000

2014 The Importance of Being Ernest @ GPAC

August

$15,000

2014 Asian Cup Qualifier @ Simonds Stadium

February

$30,000

2014 – 2015 Word 4 Word Writers Festival

July

$50,000

2014 – 2016 Geelong Revival (Motorsport)

November

$130,000

2014 Extravaganza Food & Wine Festival

July

$5,000

2015 – 2017 Ironman 70.3 Festival

February

$150,000

2014 New Years Eve Fireworks Festival

December

$50,000

2015 International 14 Sailing World Championships

January

$30,000

2014 - 2019 A-League Soccer @ Simonds Stadium

TBA

$25,000

2015 Great Australian Beer Festival

February

$20,000

2015 School Sports Australia Football Championships

July

$10,000


Details of major events staged during the period:

During the period, the following GME supported major events were held in our region:

Event Title

Event Date

Funding provided

Estimated Economic Benefit

2013 Extravaganza Food & Wine Festival

July

$15,000

$162,702

Geelong Dance Classic

September

$5,000

$111,748

Australian Masters Games

October

$300,000

$11,027,595

Toast to the Coast

November

$30,000

$1,671,632

Geelong Revival (Motorsport)

November

$120,000

$3,199,205

Aust v Malaysia International Bowls Challenge

December

$15,000

$166,494

New Year’s Eve Pier Festival

December

$75,000

$934,748

Mitchelton Bay Cycling Classic 2014

January

$35,000

$2,352,570

Festival of Sails

January

$174,891

$14,566,462

Melges 24 Sailing World Championships

January

$30,000

$849,512

Great Australian Beer Festival

February

$10,000

$661,247

Jayco Herald Sun Tour

February

$10,000

$323,782

Super Rugby - Melbourne Rebels @ Simonds Stadium

February

$15,000

$507,628

Geelong Multi-Sport Festival (inc.Ironman 70.3)

February

$150,000

$2,368,000

**Asian Cup Soccer Qualifier @ Simonds Stadium

February

$nil

$858,867

Australian Open Water Junior Swimming Championships

February

$15,000

$858,884

Victorian Open Golf Championships

February

$70,000

$1,952,624

Pako Festa

February

$60,000

$5,429,487

Geelong Highland Gathering

March

$15,000

$319,309

* Wooden Boat Festival

March

$8,000

$1,200,000

Motor City Music Festival

March

$45,000

$652,714

Victorian Lifesaving Championships

March

$10,000

$446,118

Head of the Schoolgirls Regatta

March

$20,000

$2,544,792

* Sanitarium Weet-Bix Kids TRYathlon

March

$5,000

$340,000

Australian Open Junior Squash Championships

April

$7,000

$463,654

* Mouth to Mountain (M~M2014)

May

$50,000

$737,118

* National Celtic Festival

June

$40,000

$2,200,000

 

$56,906,892.00


*The Final post event evaluation has not been completed for this event, therefore the pre-event estimated economic benefit has been used for this report.
** Underwriting of $30,000 was committed for this event. The event was profitable and therefore did not claim the underwriting.


Environmental Implications

GME has adopted a methodology for assessing event funding applications and event evaluations. This methodology measures the triple bottom line effect; Economic Impact, Social Impact and Environmental Impact.

GME provides funding ($8k for 2013/2014 year) for a series of surveys to be undertaken at a variety of its supported events. Surveys are used to obtain benchmark data to measure a range of impacts and benefits of major events staged in this region.

Each GME funding application is assessed according to the methodology and a value is attributed to the perceived environmental benefit relative to the environmental negative impacts associated with the event.

Considerations of positive and negative impact include energy usage, use of renewable sources, water usage, waste and or recycling generated, traffic congestion, use of non-powered transport options, pollution, destruction or damage to natural environments, event legacies of new or reinvigorated nature and resources.

The environmental impact for each event is assessed and where appropriate, actions are identified to protect the environment.

Given the nature and variety of events staged within the Geelong region via GME support, some are environmentally friendly while others manage the environmental impacts as well as possible.

Council plays a leading role in working with external agencies and event organisers to ensure that environmental implications are appropriately managed. Where practicable, event organisers are encouraged to implement a variety of environmentally positive programs such as waste-wise and carbon offsets.

The events staged in this period implemented a range of programs to minimise their environmental impacts and to proactively provide positive legacies from their events. They included shuttle bus services to minimise traffic to and from the event, the use of recycled water for filling of traffic barriers and a carbon neutral tree planting program.


Financial Implications

GME paid $1,014,891 of sponsorship, underwriting and seed funding to 27 major events during the financial period, which was within the allocated budget.

The event expenditure estimated to be generated by the 27 events staged during the period July 1 2013 to June 30 2014 is estimated to be $56.9million. This event expenditure is estimated to support the equivalent of 455* full-time jobs in Greater Geelong and represents a return on investment for our community of 56.1

*EFT calculation is based on GOT accepted methodology and sourced from the Tourism Research & Impact Assessment for the Geelong Otway Region, Feb 2007.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Council established the GME committee in August 1998 pursuant to Section 86 of the Local Government Act. The Committee operates within a defined Terms of Reference and Instrument of Delegation adopted by Council.

Via its ‘Councillor Portfolios’ & ‘Committee Representation for 2013/14’, Council endorsed Cr Ron Nelson (Chair), Cr Darryn Lyons, Cr Bruce Harwood and Cr Kylie Fisher as the Councillor representatives on the GME Committee for the period 2013/2014. Cr John Irvine was confirmed as the substitute Councillor member.

In supporting major events, contractual relationships are entered into, generally based on a standard contract prepared by Council’s solicitors.


Alignment to City Plan

In the City Plan 2013-2017, Council has identified Growing Our Economy as one of its four key strategic objectives. A key priority of City Plan is to see Greater Geelong as a leading city for tourism, arts, culture and events. The GME Strategy is identified in City Plan as being a key strategy that will assist Council in delivering Growing Our Economy priorities.

In addition, City Plan identifies its key partnerships in this area as including events related groups such as Victorian Major Events Company, Victorian Events Industry Council, along with event owners and operators. These key relationships are maintained and enhanced through the actions of the GME committee.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officers involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.


Risk Assessment

The management of risks associated with events is an important aspect to protect the community and Council’s assets. Particular attention is undertaken to identify potential risks with each event and ensure that the appropriate risk management treatments are in place.

Council via its Event Services Unit provides coordination and ongoing support of an Events Multi Agency Working Group (EMAWG) representing key approval bodies and agencies for events in the Geelong region. EMAWG meetings are held on the second Tuesday of each month.

All high risk major events are required to present event plans to the EMAWG. Feedback and advice is given to event organisers from the represented agencies and stakeholders on the working group.

The expertise within Council’s Risk Management unit is also drawn upon to support events as and when required.


Social Considerations

GME make a significant contribution to the social, environmental and economic well being of the community. The major events often provide a legacy for future events and community use such as redeveloped or newly constructed infrastructure.

The events staged within this period provided social benefits for the local community through participation and spectator opportunities with 19 of these major events (70%) offering free public access and entertainment for all ages.

The 27 major events were attended by a total estimated 420,000 participants and spectators attended during the year.


Human Rights Charter

Some major events include road closures to allow for the safe delivery of an activity on roads or restrict community access to public areas for limited periods of time.

An individual’s right to freely and securely participate in an event without the risk of injury to themselves or spectators is given the highest priority.

Public events provide significant benefits to the community and major events also provide significant economic benefit.

Strategies are in place to reduce the negative impact while enhancing the positive benefits to our community.

It is considered that any short-term negative impacts encountered by the hosting of these major events are justified and that all reasonable strategies have been put in place to mitigate or minimise the negative impacts wherever possible.


Consultation and Communication

All major events include various levels of consultation with a range of relevant parties, as deemed appropriate in each specific circumstance. Consultation may include key stakeholders, emergency services, businesses and residents in the vicinity of the event site, community groups, trader associations, tourism bodies and a variety of other groups or individuals which may be relevant to the event activity, location or impact.


[Back to List]

12. Sale of land Draper Street Ocean Grove - New notice of intention to sell land

Portfolio:

Finance – Cr Lyons (Mayor), Cr S Kontelj & Cr E Kontelj

Source:

Corporate Service – Property Management

A/General Manager:

Michael Kelly

Index Reference:

Land Sales


Purpose

The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Council republish a notice of intention to sell the land at 77-79 Draper Street, Ocean Grove.


Summary

Cr S Kontelj moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -

That Council in relation to the land at 77-79 Draper Street, Ocean Grove (“the land”), resolves:

  1. To republish notice of intention to sell the land under s189 of the Local Government Act (“the Act”) and that public notice of and the right of a person under s223 of the Act to make a submission in relation to the proposed sale be given in the Geelong Independent and the Geelong Advertiser;

  2. That the notice provide that it is intended to:

  3. To appoint the Submissions Review Panel to hear any submissions in relation to the proposed sale;

  4. That a report to Council be prepared on any submissions (if required), and on the expressions of interest process including the price of the land, the definition of the process, terms of reference and selection criteria and other relevant matters relating to the proposed sale.

  5. That in accordance with the requirements of the Best Practice Guideline for the Sale of Land, the reason for offering the land to a provider of supported accommodation for people with disabilities is to support the service in the local and wider community.

Lost.

Division Requested:
For: Crs S Kontelj, E Kontelj, Lyons, Harwood
Against: Crs Ansett, Nelson, Ellis, Fisher, Macdonald, Richards, Heagney, Farrell, Irvine


Cr Farrell moved, Cr Irvine seconded -

That Council in relation to the land at 77-79 Draper Street, Ocean Grove (“the land”), resolves:

  1. To republish notice of intention to sell the land under s189 of the Local Government Act (“the Act”) and that public notice of and the right of a person under s223 of the Act to make a submission in relation to the proposed sale be given in the Geelong Independent and the Geelong Advertiser;

  2. That the notice provide that it is intended to:

  3. To appoint the Submissions Review Panel to hear any submissions in relation to the proposed sale;

  4. That a report to Council be prepared on any submissions (if required), and on the expressions of interest process including the definition of the process, terms of reference and selection criteria and other relevant matters relating to the proposed sale;

  5. That in accordance with the requirements of the Best Practice Guideline for the Sale of Land, the reason for offering the land at nil consideration is to support and encourage the need for supported accommodation for people with disabilities in the local and wider community.

Carried.


Division Requested:
For: Crs Ansett, Nelson, Ellis, Fisher, Harwood, Macdonald, Richards, Heagney, Farrell, Irvine
Against: Crs S Kontelj, E Kontelj, Lyons


Background

The Council is the owner of land at 77 and 79 Draper Street and 128 and 130 Asbury Street, Ocean Grove. The land consists of 4 residential lots zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone which have been used for 2 netball courts and a club room previously occupied under licence from the Council to the Ocean Grove Sporting Club Incorporated (refer to Appendix 1).

At its meeting on 27 August 2013, Council resolved to give notice of its intention to sell the land at a price being not less than the certified valuation to be obtained, and this requirement was specified in the notice published under s189 of the Act.

Following the hearing of submissions by the Submissions Review Panel on 22 July 2014, Council resolved to sell the Asbury Street lots on the market and transfer without consideration the Draper Street lots for supported accommodation for people with disabilities.

The land is currently the subject of amendment C299 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme to rezone the land from PPRZ to General Residential Zone. The amendment has been adopted by the Council and is awaiting approval at which time the Asbury Street lots will be sold by auction.


Discussion

Advice dated 16 September 2014 received from Maddocks Lawyers indicates the change of intention by the Council to sell all the land at market value, as described in the existing notice, to selling two of the lots without consideration requires a fresh notice to be published. Reliance on the existing notice would deprive members of the public of the right to lodge a submission in respect of the intention to transfer two of the lots for nil consideration for the intended purpose.

It is therefore recommended that Council republish the notice.

Maddocks also advised that Council is free to transfer land without consideration.

A further report is also recommended on any submissions received following hearing by the Submissions Review Panel. The report is also to address the requirements of part A3 of the Council’s resolution of 22 July 2014 seeking advice on the expression of interest process for the sale of the Draper Street lots.


Environmental Implications

The environmental implications of properties to be sold are assessed as required.


Financial Implications

The transfer of the Draper Street lots without consideration will create a funding gap in Council 2014-15 budget.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Under the Local Government Best Practice Guideline for the Sale and Exchange of Land, the Council is required to -

Section 189 of the Local Government Act (“LG Act”) requires that Council obtain a certified valuation dated not more than six months prior to the sale of the land being the date of the contract of sale.


Alignment to City Plan

The recommendation supports the priority for Community Wellbeing in support of disability services in the community.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officers or contractors involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.


Risk Assessment

The risks associated with transfer of this land are able to be managed following normal management procedures and processes.


Social Considerations

The provision of supported accommodation in Ocean Grove for people with disabilities will ensure assess to specialised housing and support services.


Human Rights Charter

The subject of this report enhances the rights of people with disabilities in that it assists the provision if disability specific housing.


Consultation and Communication

The community will have the opportunity to provide input into the Council’s decision through the submissions process.


Appendix 1 - Aerial View of the Land Proposed to be Sold

Signature of rodney Thomas

[Back to List]

13. Mayors Fund Geelong

Portfolio:

Governance - Cr Lyons (Mayor)

Source:

Corporate Service - Customer Service & Councillor
Support

A/General Manager:

Michael Kelly

Index Reference

EMT Issues/Council Reports


Purpose

For the Mayor Cr Darryn Lyons to establish the Mayors’ Geelong Fund.


Summary

Cr Ansett moved, Cr S Kontelj seconded -

That Council:

  1. approve the establishment of the Mayors Geelong Fund as a means of inspiring and raising funds which contribute to the Greater Geelong community;

  2. adopt the Terms of Reference and Instrument of Delegation authority for the Mayors Geelong Fund as outlined in Appendix 1 of this report;

  3. publicly advertise seeking expressions of interest for Mayors Geelong Fund Community representatives.


Cr Nelson left the meeting room at 10:09pm

Cr Harwood left the meeting room at 10:10pm

Cr Harwood re-entered the meeting room at 10:12pm

Cr Nelson re-entered the meeting room at 10:13pm


Lost.


Division Requested:
For: Crs Ansett, S Kontelj, Nelson, E Kontelj, Lyons, Harwood
Against: Crs Ellis, Fisher, Macdonald, Richards, Heagney, Farrell, Irvine


Cr Harwood moved, Cr Nelson seconded –

That the report be deferred.


Lost.


Background

Following his election in 2013 the Mayor, Cr Darryn Lyons requested that a Mayoral Geelong Fund be established.

In years past, Mayors have chosen to stage Geelong Mayoral Gala events with the primary objective of raising funds to support the welfare of children in the region. Since 2011 two gala events were hosted by the City of Greater Geelong raising funds in support of local charities.

These events were planned and delivered by a dedicated team from the City of Greater Geelong. Given the scale and in-house resourcing requirements of the event, it was decided in 2013 that the Mayor would support an existing event (rather than a stand alone event) by partnering with the Victoria Police Blue Ribbon Foundation.

This was held on November 23, 2013 with Council contributing via way of ticket sales, free venue hire at the Geelong Arena as well as marketing and promotional support.
These events provided high impact and positive recognition for the city however competed with a significant number of other regional gala events and required extensive in-house financial planning, promotion and administration to occur.


Discussion

Why a Fund?

Whilst it is not compulsory it is now usual practice for City of Greater Geelong Mayors to adopt or launch charity appeals during their term of office. In the past an annual Mayor’s Ball has been held in aid of the Mayor’s chosen charity or other nominated charities. The success of these events is very much dependant on the help provided by volunteers or officers enlisted by the organisation during the course of their normal duties. Very careful judgment is required in who becomes the chosen charity and a significant amount of organisation is required on behalf of the city for these events to occur. At the end of each Mayoral event, all proceeds have been paid to the chosen charity/charities.

Whilst the motivations around these events has been admirable, they have occurred outside any formal charitable or fund framework therefore a more suitable longer term view of how Mayors of the City of Greater Geelong can approach charitable community fundraising efforts is required.

Charitable Fund Options

There are many current examples of Foundations which have provided ideas and inspiration for the Mayor in relation to community Foundations. Specific to the role and function of the Mayor is the very successful Melbourne Lord Mayors Charitable Foundation.

This Foundation which is in its 90th year aims at increasing life opportunities and promotes social inclusion through fundraising, partnerships and the distribution of grants. In 2012, this foundation provided grants of $9.2 million to over 500 charities. Charitable Foundations such as this may be appealing but they require legal structures be set up to hold funds and distribute those funds in line with the rules of the trust or foundation. Source: 2014 Lord Mayor Charitable Foundation.

A number of Melbourne metropolitan councils have established sub fund accounts auspiced by the Lord Mayors Charitable Foundation as a means of obtaining Tax concession charity capability and appropriate governance status.

A fund such as the Lord Mayors Charitable Foundation would require endorsement by the Australian Taxation Office and discussions with Philanthropy Australia suggests that establishing a similar model for the City of Greater Geelong would duplicate existing local social infrastructure and would not prove feasible.

According to Philanthropy Australia an alternative to setting up an exclusive Mayors Charitable Foundation is to find an existing Foundation, that we could contribute to in support of the Mayors cause and objectives via a named fund and without the costs and administrative requirements of setting up our own.

The Geelong Community Foundation, Give Where You Live and the Cotton On Foundation provide local examples:

The Geelong Community Foundation

Using investment earnings from the accumulation of substantial funds over time, grants are made by the Geelong Community Foundation to local charitable and community organisations. Members of the community form part of the decision making body of this Foundation and has the say in how funds are distributed.

This Foundation has assets of approximately $16 million and in 2013 provided grants to 45 agencies worth $656,000 with causes involving welfare, environment, sport and arts. Source: 2012/2013 Geelong Community Foundation Annual Report.

Give Where You Live

Give Where You Live raises funds and allocates them on an annual basis via three major grant programs, each addressing symptoms and causes of disadvantage. In 2013, the contributions received via workplace giving, corporate donations, campaigns and appeals provided $1.371 million distributed via grant allocations. Source: Give Where You Live.

The Cotton On Foundation

The Cotton On Foundation began in 2007 with one staff member and has since grown to 25 staff in 2014 working on local, National and international philanthropic projects.

The Cotton On Foundation has generated significant returns for social impact investment projects from Unite Geelong water sales and Run Geelong events such as the redevelopment of the Geelong Hospital Children’s Ward as a significant local example. Source: Cotton On Foundation.

Charitable trusts such as the examples provided above are legal structures set up to hold funds and distribute those funds according to the rules of the trust or foundation. In order to be endorsed, the entity must have a charitable purpose.

Under Australian Tax law the structure of these charities which is complex provides tax deductibility or Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status. It is important to understand that the restrictions in relation to establishing the above foundations, the purpose or objectives of each of these foundations are stated in their relevant constitution or trust deed and obtaining DGR status are restrictive.

Auspicing or the creation of sub fund accounts can be established for Mayors’ using local Foundations but cannot be used to achieve something which is not otherwise permitted. This has proven problematic as Mayors have identified other purposes for which fundraising can be used for purposes beneficial to the community than those offered through existing foundations or models.

Mayors Geelong Fund - An alternative

As a result of the restrictive nature of the above methods it is proposed that the Mayor’s Geelong Fund be established by the City of Greater Geelong with Mayor Darryn Lyons being acknowledged as the founder.

The purpose of the Mayors Geelong Fund is to build capital and community partnerships in support of the current and future Mayors’ identified projects. The fund may be used for:


Legal Framework

The Mayors Geelong Fund is separate to the existing community grants scheme run by the City of Greater Geelong.

The Mayors Geelong Fund Special Committee will be established by Council with delegated responsibilities under section 86 of the Local Government Act (1989) to directly manage the Mayor’s Geelong Fund on behalf of Council.

The Instrument of Delegation clearly defines the power and responsibility of a section 86 Committee of Management, and Council, including:

Community representatives shall be appointed by publically calling for interested representatives.

Overall the establishment of the Mayor’s Geelong Fund using this method encourages the principles for ensuring good governance and provides and important framework for community involvement. It is important to note that:

The Committee is recommended to:

Establishment of a Mayors Geelong Fund Special Committee would require direct support of an internal project team. Comprising City of Greater Geelong officers the project team would report to the Special Committee and provide administrative support to the Committee.

The project Team would assist with promotion of the fund, fundraising efforts and with organising feature events like the Geelong Mayoral Ball should one be requested, approved and staged by the City of Greater Geelong.

Income into the Mayor’s Geelong fund is to be paid into the nominated City of Greater Geelong account and generally to be received via non tax deductible bequests, donors and individuals.

To support the Mayor’s Geelong Fund it is also proposed the City of Greater Geelong in partnership with private sector organizations consider undertaking commercial arrangements which generate funds for the Mayoral Charitable Fund through profit share arrangements. Income opportunities for the Mayors Geelong Fund will subject to separate Council reports.

It is proposed that the Mayor identifies and makes appropriate application request to the Special Committee for the release of funds for appropriate use. The Committee must assess the request and determine whether it meets the specific use and conditions set out by a donor or the provisions set out within the fund.

Councillors should be aware that all allocations paid out of the Mayor’s Geelong Fund are ultimately a decision made by the section 86 Committee (under Instrument of Delegation) and whereby there are sufficient funds for allocation.

The next steps are to:


Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications relevant to this report.


Financial Implications

Income and payments from the Mayors Charitable fund will be managed by the section 86 Special Committee under a governance structure similar to that undertaken by Geelong Major Events.

Income and payments will be managed within the City of Greater Geelong financial accounting system within separate cost centres created for the purposes of identifying income and payments by various means.

Whilst the City of Greater Geelong is classified as a not for profit organisation, the establishment of the Mayors Geelong Fund precludes donors from receiving tax deductible gift status.

The City may not contribute to the Mayors Geelong Fund from its annual budget.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Section 86 of the Local Government Act requires Council to appoint members of the Special Committee and to approve the delegation. A further report will be submitted to Council to appoint the members and approve the delegation once nominations are received for the Special Committee.


Alignment to City Plan

How We Do Business and Community Well Being.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officer involved in the preparation of this report has a direct or indirect interest.


Risk Assessment

The principle risk considered and associated with this project can be addressed through the diligence required for such a Fund and the appointment of a section 86 Committee and Instrument of Delegation which ensures good governance.


Social Considerations

Council has a responsibility to ensure that services provided to the community are equitable, accessible and that resources are used efficiently to meet the needs of the community.


Human Rights Charter

This report takes in consideration the key principles of freedom, equality, respect and dignity. The program is designed to have a positive impact on community participation.


Consultation and Communication

The development and implementation of a communications strategy will need to be developed and promoted to key stakeholders.


[Back to List]

14. Variation to Council Meeting Timetable

Portfolio:

Governance - Cr Lyons (Mayor)

Source:

Corporate Services - Administration & Governance

A/General Manager:

Michael Kelly

Index Reference:

Council Governance


Purpose

The purpose of this report is to address a varied Council Meeting timetable over the Christmas & New Year period.


Summary

Cr Harwood moved, Cr Richards seconded -

That:

  1. for the months of December 2014 and January 2015 the Council Meeting timetable be varied as follows:

    1. The final Ordinary Council Meeting in 2014 be held on Tuesday 9 December;

    2. Ordinary Council Meetings scheduled for Tuesday 23 December 2014 and 13 January 2015 not proceed;

    3. The first Councillor Briefing in 2015 be held on 20 January followed by an Ordinary Council Meeting on Tuesday 27 January;

  2. if deemed necessary, the Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the Mayor, be authorised to call a Special Meeting of Council during this period.


Cr Fisher left the meeting room at 10:43pm


Carried.


Background

Under the current meeting cycle, Council Meetings are scheduled to be held on 9 and 23 December 2014, and on 13 and 27 January 2015, with Councillor Briefings scheduled on the alternate Tuesdays.


Discussion

During and prior to the current term of Council, the Meeting schedule has been varied during December and January to recognise the Christmas/New Year holiday period.
Due to the demands placed on Council business at this time of year, it is proposed that the final Council Meeting be held on 9 December 2014 to enable the Minutes and relevant decisions to be implemented prior to Christmas.

In accordance with the current Meeting schedule, the first Meetings in 2015 fall on 13 and 27 January. Past experience indicates that January is the quietest month in terms of general Council activities. It is therefore proposed that the first Meeting in the New Year be held on Tuesday 27 January 2015.

Over the past nine years, a similar schedule has been approved and the need to call a Special Meeting has not arisen.


Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications associated with this report.


Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with this report.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The Local Government Act 1989 allows Council to determine Council Meeting dates, as appropriate. Council has authorised the Chief Executive Officer (in consultation with the Mayor) to vary meetings around public holidays.


Alignment to City Plan

In accordance with our strategic objective ‘How We Do Business’, we have provided a transparent process for the review and variation of Council’s Meeting schedule during the Christmas and New Year period.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officer involved in the preparation of this report has an interest in relation to the information provided.


Risk Assessment

Variations to suit needs can be implemented by the Chief Executive Officer in consultation with the Mayor of the day.


Social Considerations

There are no social considerations likely to arise from this report.


Human Rights Charter

We have taken into consideration all Human Rights as part of the drafting process of this report, none of which apply.


Consultation and Communication

The variation in the Meeting schedule will be advertised through City News and on Council’s website. The media will also be informed of the variation.


[Back to List]

15. Road Naming - Unnamed laneway, Highton to Garrard Lane, Highton

Portfolio:

Governance - Cr Lyons (Mayor)

Source:

Corporate Services - Financial Services

A/General Manager:

Michael Kelly

Index Reference:

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


Purpose

To seek approval to name an unnamed laneway in Highton to Garrard Lane, Highton.


Summary

Cr Nelson moved, Cr Harwood seconded -

That Council approves the naming of the “unnamed laneway, Highton” to “Garrard Lane, Highton”.


Cr Fisher re-entered the meeting room at 10:45pm.


Carried.


Background

Council is the responsible authority for naming and renaming roadways under the Local Government Act 1989.

A letter was received from the owner of a property located on Barwon Boulevard requesting Council name the unnamed laneway to the rear of the properties known as 94-114 Barwon Boulevard, Highton.

Letters have been sent to all affected property owners and residents advising them of Council’s proposal to name the unnamed laneway to Garrard Lane, Highton.


Discussion

The properties abutting this laneway have a steep incline from Barwon Boulevard to their property access point. This hampers large deliveries and emergency services. Access to the laneway is via Highrise Court, Highton. The unnamed laneway is currently utilised by residents as the main vehicular access point with some residents also utilising this laneway for their waste collection.

It is proposed to name the unnamed laneway to Garrard Lane, Highton. The name “Garrard” was suggested to Council by a property owner, in honour of the late Richard “Dick” Garrard who was a successful Geelong Olympian. Mr Garrard lived in one of the properties abutting the unnamed laneway for many years.

Mr Garrard was a successful sport wrestler and represented Australia in four consecutive Commonwealth Games and three Olympic Games. In his thirty year career which spanned from 1926–1956, he lost nine of his 525 bouts, making him Australia’s most successful sport wrestler. Mr Garrard was also an accomplished volunteer surf lifesaver. He has also been recognised at the Legends Plaza at Kardinia Park.

Mr Garrard’s family have approved naming this laneway after him. The suggested naming complies with the requirements of the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010.
The proposed naming was advertised in the Independent newspaper on 8 August 2014 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 9 August 2014. One submission was received from an affected property owner in favour of this proposal.


Environmental Implications

There are no environmental issues arising from this report.


Financial Implications

The approximate cost to Council is $900. This includes advertising, notification to authorities and street signage.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

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


Alignment to City Plan

The proposal aligns to City Plan with the encouragement of Community Wellbeing.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

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


Risk Assessment

If an emergency situation occurred, Council’s proposal to name this unnamed laneway could minimise the risk of failure in being able to access a property in a timely manner.


Social Considerations

The naming of this laneway will allow for easy access and identification for the public and emergency services.


Human Rights Charter

It is the right of every resident and property 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 has been sent to all adjoining property owners and residents advising them of the proposed naming and invited submissions.

The proposal was also advertised in the Independent newspaper on 8 August 2014 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 9 August 2014.

The proposal was published on Council’s Geelong Australia website for 30 days as per the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010.

One submission was received. This submission was from an affected property owner and is in favour of the proposal.

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 naming.


Appendix 1

Map of proposed naming of unnamed laneway to Garrard Lane, Highton

[Back to List]

16. Proposed Development

Portfolio:

Major Projects - Cr Macdonald

Source:

Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong

General Manager:

Dean Frost

Index Reference:

Project: Geelong Convention & Exhibition Centre


Cr Harwood moved, Cr Heagney seconded -

That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (e) of the Local Government Act 1989, this matter be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.

Carried.


[Back to List]

17. Land Sales 2014-2015 - Quarterly Progress Report

Portfolio:

Finance – Cr Lyons (Mayor), Cr S Kontelj & Cr E Kontelj

Source:

Corporate Services - Property Management

A/General Manager:

Michael Kelly

Index Reference

Sale of Land


Cr Harwood moved, Cr Heagney seconded -

That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (h) of the Local Government Act 1989, this matter be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.


Carried.


[Back to List]

18. Audit Advisory Committee Summary Repot

Portfolio:

Governance – Cr Lyons (Mayor)

Source:

Corporate Internal Auditor and Ombudsman

Chief Executive Officer:

Gillian Miles

Index Reference

Audit CG - Internal


Cr Harwood moved, Cr Heagney seconded -

That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (h) of the Local Government Act 1989, this matter be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.


Carried.


[Back to List]

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