j

Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 26 November 2019

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 the Council Conference and Reception Centre in City Hall, 57 Little Malop Street, Geelong.


  1. Youth Council Fourth Report 2019

  2. Amendment C394 Bellarine and Corio Bay Coastal Inundation Overlay – Consideration of Submissions 

  3. Our Heritage, Our Collection

  4. Kaufland Stores in Victoria Advisory Committee – 140-156 Colac Road, Highton

  5. Sale of Part of 137 Mercer Street, Geelong (Civic Accommodation Precinct)

  6. Small Business Friendly Council – Charter Agreement

  7. 2018-2019 Tourism Greater Geelong and the Bellarine Annual Report and Tourism Performance

  8. Contractual Matter (Confidential)

  9. Contractual Matter (Confidential)

  10. Contractual Matter (Confidential)


1. Youth Council Fourth Report 2019

Source:

Community Life - Connected Communities

Director:

Robyn Stevens

Portfolio:

Leadership and Governance


Purpose

  1. To note the fourth and final report to Council from the Youth Council Advisory Committee 2019.


Background

  1. Twelve local young people were elected to the first City of Greater Geelong Youth Council Advisory Committee (Youth Council), and during their 12-month term have served as the region's official 'youth voice'.

  2. Aged between 12 and 16, the Youth Councillors represent a spread of local towns and suburbs, with three representatives from each of the four Council wards - Bellarine, Brownbill, Kardinia and Windermere.

  3. Youth Council meets once a month at City Hall. The Junior Mayor presents the group's findings and recommendations to Council four times a year.

  4. Youth Council is also responsible for organising an annual youth summit.


Key Matters

  1. Junior Mayor, Josie Horne, will present the fourth and final of her Youth Council presentations of 2019 about Youth Council’s findings and recommendations as set out in the annual plan. Refer presentation (Attachment 2).

  2. The focus of the Junior Mayor’s fourth presentation is to highlight Youth Council achievements since September, to provide an overview of the Youth Summit and recent actions undertaken.

  3. The Councillor Connect Mentoring Program, connecting Youth Councillors with their respective Ward Councillors, has continued with young people and Councillors providing positive feedback.

Councillor Grzybek moved, Councillor Mansfield seconded -

  1. That Council note the fourth and final report to Council from the Youth Council Advisory Committee 2019.

Carried.


Attachment 1

Financial Implications

  1. Funding for the Youth Council program and activities has been allocated as part of Council’s annual budget process.


Community Engagement

  1. Youth Councillors have attended a number of Youth Drop In groups around Geelong to gain essential feedback from young people. The key engagement with Geelong youth was the Youth Summit on October 31.


Social Equity Considerations

  1. The Youth Council provides an opportunity for young people to contribute to and be included in civic life.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

  1. The activities of the Youth Council comply with the Committee's terms of reference.


Alignment to Council Plan

  1. The key priorities outlined in the annual plan align with Council Plan priorities of:

    1. Improved health and safety of our community – consult with the community on safety issues that are impacting them;

    2. A more inclusive and diverse community – further developing programs that support young people in our community;

    3. Effective environmental management – educating and assisting our community; and

    4. Organisational leadership, strategy and governance – communicating and engaging with the community.


Conflict of Interest

  1. No City officers or contractors who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a conflict of interest regarding the matter under consideration.


Risk Assessment

  1. The Committee will provide advice to Council on specific issues relating to young people in our community.


Environmental Implications

  1. There are no environmental implications.


[Back to List]

2. Amendment C394 Bellarine and Corio Bay Coastal Inundation Overlay – Consideration of Submissions 

Source:

Planning, Design & Development - Strategic Implementation

Director:

Gareth Smith

Portfolio:

Planning


Purpose

  1. To consider submissions to Amendment C394 and refer them to an Independent Panel.


Background

  1. Amendment C394 implements the Bellarine Peninsula - Corio Bay Local Coastal Hazard Assessment December 2015 which mapped areas from Breamlea to Point Wilson that will be impacted by sea level rise inundation.

  2. The Amendment includes planning scheme policy changes and applies a new Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO2) to properties identified as being subject to 0.8m sea level rise and a 1% AEP storm surge event as required by State Government policy.

  3. The amendment applies the LSIO2 to 1600 properties around the City’s coast including 1244 residential zoned properties of which 81 are vacant land.

  4. In 14 May 2019 Council resolved to support the public exhibition of the amendment. It was exhibited from 11 July 2019 to 12 August 2019 with notice being sent to almost 2000 owners and occupiers of land affected by the proposed overlay.

  5. A total of 43 submissions were received. Of these, 39 submissions objected and 4 submissions either supported, did not object or provided comments.


Key Matters

  1. Key issues raised in submissions include: impact on property values; insurance costs; valuation of land and rates; need for coastal protection works; floor levels and buildings heights; government agency submissions; criticism of technical basis; timeline of sea level rise projections; and requests to remove properties from the overlay.

  2. Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council must now either: change the Amendment as requested by submitters; refer submissions to a Panel; or abandon the Amendment or part of the Amendment.

  3. The City recommends referring submissions to a Panel and only recommend making two minor changes requested by the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning.

Councillor Sullivan moved, Councillor Kontelj seconded -

  1. That Council having considered all submissions to Amendment C394 resolves to:

    1. Request the Minister for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel under Part 5 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to consider all submissions;

    2. Refer all submissions to the Panel; and

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

Carried.


Attachment 1

Financial Implications

  1. Application of the overlay will not have any significant financial implications to Council with the exception of the usual costs associated with the planning scheme amendment process including Panel hearing fees and the cost of engaging an expert witness.


Community Engagement

  1. Community engagement occurred previously as part of “Our Coast” including community open house sessions and publishing of extensive information on the website. This includes the scientific reports, hazard assessments and inundation maps which form the basis of this amendment.

  2. Further opportunity for community input has occurred as part of the public exhibition of the planning scheme amendment. In the event that Council resolves to refer the submissions to an independent Panel, the submitters will be able to further present their case at a panel hearing.


Social Equity Considerations

  1. The amendment has positive economic and social benefits by identifying areas where planning permit assessment can reduce the risk of the harm from coastal erosion, flooding, sea level rise and storm surge.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

  1. The amendment is supported by the following State planning policies:

    1. Clause 13.01-2S Coastal inundation and erosion – the amendment achieves the policy objective “to plan for the potential coastal impacts of climate change”;

    2. Clause 13.03-1S Floodplain management – the amendment meets the relevant objective.

  2. The amendment supports and implements the following Local planning policies:

    1. Clause 21.05-4 Coastal environments with the objective: To protect, maintain and enhance the coast, estuaries and marine environment and to respect and manage coastal processes;

    2. Clause 21.05-5 Climate change which has the objective: “To plan for and adapt to the impacts of climate change”; and

    3. Clause 21.05-7 Flooding – has relevant objectives - to protect floodplains and to minimise the potential for damage and risks to public safety and property from flooding.


Alignment to Council Plan

  1. The proposed amendment aligns with the Council Plan strategic priorities of:

    1. Planned sustainable development – including the priority of improving the environmental performance of new developments, using planning controls; and

    2. Effective environmental management – including the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and protection of coastal areas.


Conflict of Interest

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


Risk Assessment

  1. There is a risk if Council, as the Planning Authority, does not act on the coastal inundation mapping it has available, that it may be liable if flooding occurs in the future and damages property. Council can reduce this risk by acting on the scientific based data it has available and applying the appropriate overlay.

  2. The overlay will help reduce risk of property damage as a result of sea level rise and coastal storm events by requiring a planning permit for new dwellings and other buildings and works. This will enable both Council as the Responsible Authority and the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority as the Floodplain Management Authority to apply adaptation measures such as raising building floor levels or building designs that allows periodic inundation to occur.


Environmental Implications

  1. The amendment will help manage the environmental hazard posed by future sea level rise.


Attachment 2

Background

Bellarine Peninsula - Corio Bay Local Coastal Hazard Assessment (Our Coast Project)

  1. Victorian Government policy requires all councils to plan for a 0.8 metre sea level rise by the year 2100. To help guide our plan, the Bellarine Peninsula – Corio Bay Local Coastal Hazard Assessment – Inundation Report was prepared and released in December 2015.

  2. The report was prepared as part of the Our Coast project. This project identified properties that will be subject to future flood events and sea level rise and is the basis for this amendment.

  3. The Our Coast project is a Victorian Government funded initiative and covers the area from Breamlea to Point Wilson. It expands on two previous climate change coastal research projects undertaken by the CSIRO and the Victorian Government (Future Coasts). The Our Coast assessment is known as a “3rd pass” assessment.

Amendment C394

  1. Amendment C394 includes a new Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO2) and local policy changes. The overlay will require a planning permit for new buildings and works on certain properties - as shown in the Overview Map in Attachment 3.

  2. The LSIO2 overlay will apply to 1600 coastal properties on the Bellarine Peninsula and Corio Bay including 1244 residential zoned properties of which 81 are vacant land.  Localities affected include Avalon, Lara, Corio, Geelong, East Geelong, Newcomb, Moolap, Leopold, Bellarine, Portarlington, Indented Head, St Leonards, Swan Bay, Ocean Grove, Wallington, Barwon Heads, Connewarre and Breamlea.

  3. The Point Lonsdale area was mapped as part of the Our Coast project but is not included in C394. The maps need to be revised to take into account new waterways under construction in The Point residential development. This area will be subject to a later planning scheme amendment.

Authorisation and Public Exhibition of Amendment C394

  1. On 14 May 2019 Council resolved to support the public exhibition of the amendment.

  2. The Minister’s delegate issued authorisation on 13 June 2019 subject to the following conditions:

    1. Reconcile the extent of overlap of the proposed LSIO mapping with existing flood provisions, in particular the Floodway Overlay mapping at Barwon Heads, Lake Connewarre and Reedy Lake.

    2. Include changes to the Schedule to Clause 72.03 to update the list of maps included in the scheme.

    3. Correct the LSIO-FO amendment maps to show “LSIO2”

  3. As a result of the first condition of the authorisation the overlay maps were revised to remove properties where the Floodway Overlay coincided with the proposed LSIO2 (mainly the rural fringe to Lake Connewarre, Reedy Lake and the Barwon River estuary).

  4. The amendment was exhibited from 11 July 2019 to 12 August 2019.

  5. Information was published on the C394 webpage including the amendment and supporting documents, Frequently Asked Questions and an interactive google map showing the extent of the overlay.

  6. Notices were sent to 1913 owners and occupiers of land affected, government authorities, coastal land managers and prescribed Ministers.

  7. Notices were placed in the following newspapers: the Geelong Independent on Friday 5 July 2019, the Geelong Advertiser Saturday 6 July 2019 and The Bellarine Times on Thursday 11 July 2019. A Government Gazette notice was published on 11 July 2019.


Discussion

  1. As a result of exhibition a total of 43 submissions were received. Of these 39 submissions objected and 4 submissions either supported, did not object or provided comments.

  2. A full summary of all the submissions is in Attachment 4, individual submitter names and addresses have been omitted for privacy reasons.

  3. The majority of submissions related to specific properties with the most submissions coming from St Leonards (11 submissions) followed by Portarlington (7), Indented Head (5) and Ocean Grove (4).

  4. The key issues raised in submissions can be grouped under the following themes:

    1. Impact on property values

    2. Insurance costs

    3. Valuation of land and rates

    4. Need for coastal protection works

    5. Floor levels and building heights

    6. Government agency submissions

    7. Criticism of technical basis

    8. Timeline of sea level rise projections

    9. Requests to remove properties from overlay

  5. A summary of the key themes and an officer response follows:

Impact on property values

  1. Eighteen submissions were received regarding the potential reduction in property values because of the overlay. Another seven submissions were received noting the potential impact on the future value, usability and resale of the property. Submissions also outlined difficultly to obtain financing for future purchases as the LSIO will be within the Section 32 contract of sale and higher construction costs associated with the redevelopment of properties due to the requirements of the LSIO.

  2. City Response:

  1. As outlined in the “Frequently asked questions” documentation exhibited with this amendment: designation of an area as ‘subject to inundation’ does not cause or change the likelihood of flooding but recognises the existing condition of land and its potential to be inundated in storm tide events and when sea levels rise. The value of any property is determined by the complex interplay of many different factors such as location, streetscape and amenity, and it is difficult to assign what effect if any, the identification of land as liable to flooding may have on the value of a property.

  2. Properties are not uniformly affected by flooding and this may depend upon the frequency or severity of flooding, any implications for development or redevelopment, historical flood events, etc.

  3. As stated in Flood Victoria 2018 “Most banks and lending institutions do not account for flood risks when assessing loan applications unless there is a very significant risk of flooding to the property”.

  4. Whilst the overlay is likely to require floor levels of new buildings to be constructed at a higher level than dwellings outside of a LSIO, the construction costs associated with these requirements are unlikely to be of a significant amount to prohibit future development. It is noted that many properties in the proposed LSIO are currently situated within Flood Prone Areas under the Building Regulations which require dwellings to be constructed at a higher level than dwellings outside of Flood Prone Areas.

Insurance costs

  1. Four submissions identified the potential increase in insurance premiums or difficulty to obtain insurance coverage because of properties now being within the LSIO.

City Response:

  1. Insurance premiums are likely to be based upon the latest available flood studies rather than Planning Scheme controls. The insurance industry has its own National Flood database where this information is obtained from.

Valuation of land and rates

  1. Six submissions linked a reduction in property values associated with the proposed amendment with impacts upon Council rates. The submitters propose that properties situated within the LSIO should be revalued with rate reductions in line with reduced property values.

  2. City Response:

  3. As stated above - the value of any property is determined by the complex interplay of many different factors such as location, streetscape and amenity, and it is difficult to assign what effect, if any, the identification of land liable to flooding may have on the value of a property.

  4. In previous instances where an independent planning panel has been asked to consider and report on submissions opposing the application of a flooding overlay, the issue of property devaluation has been considered and rejected by the panel (Reference: Stonington, 2018 Amendment C221 FAQs)

  5. Council rates are based upon the Capital Improved Value (CIV) of each property, with the valuation determined by the Valuer General of Victoria through contract valuers done in line with valuation best practice. Any changes in value are based upon market sales and any valuation changes are meant to reflect that.

Need for coastal protection works:

  1. Council received submissions stating that the planning scheme alone will not result in changes to reduce the impact of possible inundation. A total of ten submissions have raised questions and concerns with what measures could or should be undertaken to ensure the potential impact of sea level rise is mitigated, with suggestions generally  being for the construction of new or improved hard infrastructure such as sea walls.

  2. Others believe that finances should be provided to construct defences to protect foreshore properties and public infrastructure from the rising threat of climate change.

  3. One submitter believes there are more pressing projects such as surfacing of dirt roads in Portarlington which should be prioritised over an issue that may happen within the next 80 years.

  4. City Response:

  5. The proposed introduction of the LSIO intends to reduce the impact of possible inundation by requiring planning permission for certain buildings and works on properties that are subject to inundation and reducing the potential risk associated with sea level rise by the year 2100.

  6. The City has previously provided information in the form of a Frequently Asked Questions list which included information on the issue of undertaking protection works around the coast, as paraphrased below:

  7. The Our Coast project website does include descriptions of potential adaptation measures that could protect parts of the Bellarine and Corio Bay from sea level rise with examples including:

    1. Constructing a higher seawall at Ocean Grove

    2. Raising seaside roads at Portarlington

    3. Raising the railway line at Point Lonsdale

    4. Back flow valves on stormwater outlets at Barwon Heads.

  8. It is recognised that hard infrastructure (seawalls, etc.) could significantly change the nature of the coast (including amenity and access) and would not occur without significant community consultation.

  9. The aspect of Our Coast that is ready for implementation is the Local Coastal Hazard Assessment (LCHA) prepared by Cardno and the associated flood modelling and mapping of different sea level rise and storm event scenarios.

  10. This is the aspect that Amendment C394 is seeking to implement. In some cases the overlay mapping does take into account potential adaptation measures.

  11. For instance, the Our Coast hazard, mapping showed isolated pockets of land some distance from the coast at Barwon Heads (around Hitchcock Ave) as being inundated. This is due to sea water backing up the stormwater outlets under extreme tides and storm surge.

  12. However, it is anticipated that backflow valves on the stormwater outlets can be installed in the future to address this issue and as a result the overlay is not being applied to these properties.

  13. A number of sections within the Executive Summary of the “Our Coast Inundation Report” are considered to address questions raised by submitters in particular that the study identified and informed hazards in a wide context with the recommendation that the most at risk areas are investigated in terms of assets, both built and natural and determine and prioritise mitigation actions.

  14. In identifying the risk and mitigation assessments within the report, Council and other parties are able to prioritise the implementation of management actions to ensure best use of existing coastal management budgets, and provide information to gain external funding where possible.

Floor levels and building heights

  1. Some submissions were concerned that as a result of the proposed amendment requiring some buildings to be constructed at a higher floor level to accommodate potential inundation on a property, existing planning controls should be amended to accommodate any change.

  2. The submissions infer that as dwellings may be required to consider an additional floor height of 0.8 metres the maximum permissible building height (roof) of any building under other overlays should increase by 0.8 metres to circumvent the requirement of a planning permit.

  3. City response:

  4. The proposed change would require an amendment to overlays such as the DDO14 and DDO19 to increase the maximum building height with which no planning permit would be required from 7.5 metres in height above natural ground level to 8.3 metres.

  5. This change is not supported and is beyond the scope of the amendment C394.

  6. However, while overlays such as DDO14 do not allow additional building height to be added to take into account increased floor levels, this issue is provided for in the residential zones. For instance the General Residential Zone has the following provision at clause 32.08-10:

  7. “Building height if land is subject to inundation

    If the land is in a Special Building Overlay, Land Subject to Inundation Overlay or is land liable to inundation the maximum building height specified in the zone or schedule to the zone is the vertical distance from the minimum floor level determined by the relevant drainage authority or floodplain management authority to the roof or parapet at any point.”

Government agency submissions

  1. Submitter 3 (Barwon Water) has recommended support of the proposed amendment subject to a number of requested changes:

    1. Addition of the following permit exclusion: Buildings and works undertaken by a public authority relating to watercourse management, environmental improvements or infrastructure services.

    2. That a standard permit require the overflow relief gully (ORG) be 150mm above the flood level.

    3. Consideration be given to how the flood risk will impact the servicing requirements. For example, the relationship between flood risk and the infrastructure servicing the development which may be located beyond the boundaries of the property.

  2. Submitter 10 (Corangamite Catchment Management Authority) supports the Amendment and provides a six page submission providing background and relevant information (see Attachment 5). The CCMA states that it is supportive of Amendment C394 and will work closely with Council and other key stakeholders to ensure orderly planning outcomes are achieved.

  3. Submitter 15 (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP)) supports the amendment and suggests some minor wording improvements as follows:

    1. At Section 3.0 of the proposed LSIO2 Schedule relating to exemptions, DELWP suggests new wording: Works that have been granted consent under the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 or the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and are conducted by a Public Land Manager or Committee of Management appointed under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978.

    2. The first point to Section 5 of the proposed LSIO2 Schedule relating to decision guidelines be amended to read as follows: The views of the relevant Catchment Management Authority.

    City Response:

  4. The proposed suggested amendments sought by Barwon Water have been considered and no changes are recommended as a result. There are already a wide range of exemption under the state LSIO clause (44.04) and the LSIO schedule. For instance the following permit exemptions already apply at Clause 44.04:

  5. To the following works in accordance with plans prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:

  6. Another relevant exemption is proposed in the LSIO2:

  7. Works carried out by any water authority to maintain and replace infrastructure related to sewer and water supply.

  8. There are also a wide range of General Exemptions for permits for Buildings and Works at Clause 62.02 of the planning scheme.

  9. The proposed suggested amendments sought by DELWP are supported in full and a revised LSIO will be prepared showing the changes prior to a Panel hearing.

  10. The supportive comments of DELWP and the CCMA are significant, particularly as the CCMA will be the main referral authority for permit applications triggered by the LSIO2.  Council officers have worked closely with the CCMA and post exhibition conducted a joint site tour of areas on the Bellarine Peninsula affected by the overlay.

Criticism of technical basis

  1. Nine submissions questioned the technical information contained within the Our Coast Report, the methods used and the accuracy of this information and the meaning of inundation.

  2. One submitter pointed out that the majority of the area from the south of Franzel Ave to the rear/south of Turner Court at Portarlington does not warrant inclusion in this proposed overlay. The submitters states the Portarlington Structure Plan (p,56) shows this area falls outside of any estimated future inundation risks.

  3. One submitter stated that the proposed amendment does not mention the Moolap Coastal Planning Framework.

  4. A submission raised whether the information obtained within the Our Coast Report utilised the contour intervals prior to the development of Swan View Estate or if the information was obtained from the finished floor levels from the survey company that subdivided the land within the estate.

  5. City Response:

  6. The data and accuracy of the information contained within the Bellarine Peninsula – Corio Bay Local Coastal Hazard Assessment – Inundation Report 2015 (the “Our Coast” report) is known as the third pass assessment with previous assessments undertaken by the CSIRO for the Commonwealth and State Governments starting in 2009.

  7. The Our Coast Report is considered to provide suitable informed and well researched information about the extent of coastal hazards and the impacts on the coastal environments subsequent risk and mitigation assessments.

  8. The information contained with the report has provided the City of Greater Geelong with sufficient information to provide the policy support required for the proposed implementation of the LSIO to affected properties.

  9. The amendment is based on modelling prepared by expert consultants that reflects state policy requirements. The process of measurements used within the Our Coast Report and survey heights used to perform this study have been undertaken within a tolerance that is an acceptable best practice used within the engineering industry.

  10. In relation to the Portarlington Structure Plan, at page 13 the Structure Plan states:

  11. Portarlington’s location on the Bellarine Peninsula makes it susceptible to climate change impacts, particularly those low-lying areas in the western and eastern parts of Portarlington. Council’s Climate Adaptation Strategy 2011 has led to the preparation of a 3rd Pass Local Coastal Hazard Assessment”.

    “This project builds on the State Government’s Coastal Inundation Dataset (2nd Pass Assessment). The project has a purpose to provide data sets and spatial mapping of Geelong’s coastline and potential future inundation as a result of sea level rise, storm surge and estuarine flooding”.

  12. The area of land within Turner Court and the land south of Franzel Avenue shown within Map No. 07 within the Portarlington Structure Plan is shown as land which is subject to Sea Level Rise in the year 2100 plus Storm Surge - see map below.

  13. In relation to the Moolap Coastal Planning Framework Plan, this Plan was informed by the modelling used to generate the LSIO extent and it notes that “these areas are significant but also vulnerable and predicted to be further impacted by climate change and sea level rise. Urban development in these sensitive areas is to be avoided and the environment will be prioritised”.

  14. In relation to the Swan View Estate, this is a multi-lot residential subdivision located at 189 Bluff Road St Leonards. Planning Permit 1071/2007 allowed the subdivision of the site and was issued on 23 December 2011. The proposed subdivision was for 102 residential allotments over 5 stages. The levels of land within the estate would be consistent with the levels associated with the third pass within the Our Coast Report.

Timing of sea level rise projections

  1. Twelve submissions raised issues with the timeline of the projected impact of sea level rise and inundation. Many of the submissions had an issue with the timeframe of predicted inundation at 2100 with the view that the evidence to support these levels was inaccurate and suggestions were made that the report should be updated every 15 to 20 years.

City Response:

  1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report 2007 (IPCC) projects sea-levels will rise by around 0.8 metres by the end of the century, and that larger rises cannot be ruled out. On the basis of the IPCC report, Victorian Government policy requires all councils to plan for a 0.8 metre sea level rise by the year 2100.

  2. In addition to the above, the Our Coast Report recommended that “this study is updated every 5-10 years to incorporate revised sea-level rise guidance and measured increases, monitoring findings to ensure better certainty in the inundation hazard assessments and review and consider coastal management changes where action has been taken and works carried out”.

  3. The primary role of the LSIO is to ensure buildings and works respond to existing and future inundation risks. Given a 50 year ‘Normal’ design life for new buildings (Handbook: Durability in Buildings including Plumbing Installations, ABCB, 2015) it is appropriate to consider the longer timeframe. Design responses can be varied depending on the scope of works proposed, e.g. lower floor levels for non-habitable/non-critical/temporary buildings.

  4. Modelling of natural hazards is a dynamic process and better information typically becomes available as time goes on. This does not mean the modelling work to date is invalid and should be disregarded.

Requests to remove properties from overlay

  1. The following properties/areas have made submissions requesting to be removed from the overlay:

    1. 22 Ord Street St Leonards

    2. 18 Ord Street St Leonards

    3. The area from the south of Franzel Ave to the rear / south of Turner Court

    4. 475 The Esplanade St Leonards

    5. 11 Manning Street St Leonards

    6. 15 Sproat Street Portarlington.

    City Response:

  2. Removal of properties from the overlay in the absence of alternative inundation modelling is not recommended.


Attachment 3 – Overview map of areas proposed for Land Subject to Inundation Overlay



Attachment 4 – Summary of Submissions

No.

Surname

First Name

Address

Suburb

Summary

1

Individual submitter

 

 

Highton

Objection

  • Owner of a property at Ord Street St Leonards and a request to remove the property from the overlay.

  • The time line date within the report is not sufficient, it is suggested it is reviewed in 20 years’ time.

  • Question as to what inundation of the property means as the property may be inundated?

  • Possible reduction in property value as a result of the overlay.

2

Individual submitter

 

 

Breamlea

Support

  • The accuracy of projections can currently be seen in Breamlea with the river mouth blocked and the wetlands flooding onto the road with parts of Horwood Drive covered with water.

3

Barwon Water

C/- Julia Stanley

55 Ryrie Street

Geelong

Support (with changes)

  • Barwon Water supports C394 however requests the following changes:

  • Addition of the following permit exclusion: Buildings and works undertaken by a public authority relating to watercourse management, environmental improvements or infrastructure services.

  • That a standard permit require the overflow relief gully (ORG) be 150mm above the flood level.

  • Consideration be given to how the flood risk will impact the servicing requirements. For example, the relationship between flood risk and the infrastructure servicing the development which may be located beyond the boundaries of the property.

4

Individual submitter

 

 

Portarlington

Objection

  • Addition actions should be planned and implemented to consider the increased vulnerability to extreme weather and flooding due to the impact of climate change.

  • Finances should be provided to construct defences to protect foreshore properties and public infrastructure from the risking threat of climate change.

  • Immediate proactive remediation works to reduce the likelihood of damage to properties and roads that are relatively low lying in the area now and in the future.

  • Council has a responsibility as the legal custodian of these beaches to protect community members from the damaging effects of climate change in the planning processes as well as remedial and effective construction of a range of defences against potential inundation.

5

Individual submitter

 

 

Bundoora

Objection

  • Property owner at Whiting Avenue Indented Head.

  • Potential impact upon property values / rates.

6

Individual submitter

 

 

Footscray

Objection

  • Property owner at Ord Street St Leonards.

  • The surveyed 0.8 metre sea level risk high water mark is not anticipated to reach beyond the front fence line by 2100.

  • The projected inundation would not affect current buildings on our land for a considerable time after 2100.

  • The setback from the fence line to the existing dwelling on the subject site is 9 metres.

  • Based upon the above points the property should not be included within the proposed amendment.

  • Potential decrease in property valuation which could have impacts upon current and future values.

7

Individual submitter

 

 

Portarlington

Objection

  • Other projects within Portarlington such as the surfacing of dirt roads should be prioritised over and issue that may happen within the next 80 years.

8

Individual submitter

 

 

St Leonards

Objection

  • The proposed amendment is planned to far in advance being the year 2100. If the evidence is more succinct such as within 25 years it would be more beneficial than the current projected 2100.

  • Devaluation of properties as a result of the amendment for properties on the Lower Bluff of St Leonards.

9

Individual submitter

 

 

St Leonards

Objection

  • The amendment is based upon a theory not established facts.

  • There is no way to predict whether in 80 years the oceans will rise or fall.

  • Devaluation of properties as a result of the amendment for properties on the Bellarine Peninsula and the Lower Bluff of St Leonards.

10

Corangamite Catchment Management Authority

Dr Geoff Taylor

64 Dennis Street

Colac

Support (with changes)

  • Corangamite CMA supports the implementation of Amendment C394 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme to:

    1. Amend Clause 21.05 to refer to the Bellarine Peninsula - Corio Bay Local Coastal Hazard Assessment and make minor policy changes;

    2. Introduce Schedule 2 to the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay titled “Coastal Inundation and Hazard” (LSIO2); and

    3. Apply the new LSIO2 to land identified as being inundated by the 1% AEP flood event plus 0.8 metre sea level rise.

11

Individual submitter

 

 

Portarlington

Objection

  • The majority of the area from the south of Franzel Ave to the rear / south of Turner Court does not warrant inclusion in this proposed overlay.

  • The Portarlington Structure Plan prepared by the City of Greater Geelong in March 2016 (page 56) shows this area falls outside of any estimated future inundation risks.

  • Based on the Portarlington Structure Plan and the inundation Report why is there a need to include Turner Court in the Inundation Overlay?

12

Individual submitter

 

 

Ocean Grove

Objection

  • A higher levy wall or rock wall should be constructed along Peers Crescent Ocean Grove from the boat ramp along Peers Crescent to where the land rises to a hill.

  • An overlay will not resolve issues, Council has a responsibility to create this levy bank / rock wall.

13

Individual submitter

 

 

Ocean Grove

Objection

  • Request the Council install rock walls or similar to minimise the effects of rising flood levels.

  • Concern of flooding Barwon Rive along Peers Crescent Ocean Grove.

  • Extend existing rock walls towards the caravan park area.

14

Individual submitter

 

 

Bulla

Objection

  • Property values may be affected by the overlay.

15

Dept. of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

Samantha Culver

Level 4, 30-38 Malop Street

Geelong

Support (with changes)

  • DELWP supports the proposed amendment, as it related to implementing recommendations of the Victorian Coastal Strategy and Clause 13.01-2S of the Planning Policy Framework and suggests some minor suggestions for improvement for Councils consideration.

  • Section 3.0 of the proposed Schedule 2 to Clause 44.04 Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, DELWP suggest that COGG replace the words “Works carried out under the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 or the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 that have had regard to the Bellarine Peninsula – Corio Bay Local Coastal Hazard Assessment and are conducted by a public land manager or a coastal committee under the Marine and Coastal Act 2018” with:

  • Works that have been granted consent under the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 or the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and are conducted by a Public Land Manager or Committee of Management appointed under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978.

  • The first point to Section 5 of the proposed Schedule 2 to Clause 44.04 Land Subject to Inundation Overlay be amended to read as follows: The views of the relevant Catchment Management Authority.

16

Individual submitter

 

 

Indented Head

Objection

  • No benefit based on the location of the property and the projected water overlays by 2100.

  • With the projected sea level rise of 0.8 metres or more access to the property will not be possible as it will be completely surrounded and inundated by water therefore unusable.

  • What is Council doing to ensure these properties can continue to be used beyond 2100.

17

Individual submitter

 

 

Rowsley

Objection

  • Concern with the proposed impact on land at Second Avenue St Leonards.

  • The objection is informed by The Victorian Coastal Strategy (VCS) 2008, the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 (The Act), Victoria’s Coast and Marine Environments under Projected Climate Change.

  • The potential negative impact on 1,614 properties such as: devaluation of property, impact on future property sales, impact on planning permits, impact on building and or structural changes to properties, increased insurance costs, increased premiums, restrictive conditions or the inability of some properties to obtain instance coverage.

  • Potential impact on economic development and tourism in the area.

  • Coastal climate change impacts should be well informed, well researched and provide conclusive evidence and rational for COGG to support a significant policy change.

  • The proposed amendment contains a lack of evidence informing the decision including the apparent risk.

  • The Act (Section 11) outlines evidence-based decision making as a guiding principle for making an informed decision on policy of this nature.

  • The Act (Section 13) also outlines that risk management and regulatory approaches should be appropriate to the risk involved.

  • The level of uncertainty and the lack of recent / available data presented in the report.

  • The need for further work before providing a conclusive assessment.

  • Lack of solid research behind the proposed overlay.

  • Question as to what the City of Greater Geelong is currently doing to prevent these issues which may not require the LSIO2 to be implemented on some properties in St Leonards Lake Reserve and Salt Lake.

  • A comparable report “Victoria’s Coast and Marine Environments under Projected Climate Change: Impacts, Research Gaps and Priorities 2018’ while there is much known about the general extent and likely impacts of climate change, there are major gaps in knowledge, especially relating to coastal regions.

  • Lack of community consultation in the form of hard copy information supplied to affected residents and ratepayers.

  • The report identifies limitations with the inundation assessments due to the nature of the differing coastal environments.

18

Individual submitter

 

 

Indented Head

Objection

  • Inaccuracy of the flood study to project 80 years into the future is not a true or precise report.

  • Survey heights used to perform this study have flaws as the tolerances for the heights taken are not accurate due to the process used to measure.

  • Decreased property values.

  • Difficultly in obtain financing for future purchases as the LSIO will be within the Section 32 contract of sale.

  • Higher insurance premiums.

  • Council should have made adequate provisions to protect the foreshore from rising sea levels and 1 in 100 year flooding.

19

Individual submitter

 

 

Barwon Heads

Objection

  • Minimal possible impact on the northern boundary which does not affect existing buildings or possibly any new buildings.

  • The amendment is based on a possible sea level rise of 80cm over the next 80 years with insufficient evidence to support this claim.

  • Decreased property values.

  • Higher insurance premiums.

20

Individual submitter

 

 

Cremorne

Objection

  • Owner of property on Lelean Street, Ocean Grove.

  • Requesting the alignment of the overlay be adjusted to remove the Lelean Street property.

21

Individual submitter

 

 

Portarlington

Objection

  • The amendment will render the property worthless.

  • Council should plan for the future with rock walls or plantings.

  • Changes to land rates.

  • The sea levels may not rise to the predicted levels and property owners will be left with the overlay.

22

Individual submitter

 

 

St Leonards

Objection

  • No objection to the proposed increase of 0.8 metres in floor levels of future buildings, however the maximum allowable building height (roof) of any building under the overlay be increase by 0.8 metres to circumvent the otherwise possible requirement of a planning permit over a building permit for double storey buildings thus removing a totally unnecessary procedure and expense to the building process.

23

Individual submitter

 

 

Gisborne

Objection

  • Objection to the inclusion of the property at Lelean Street Ocean Grove within the LSIO2 Overlay.

  • The floor level set by the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority was a condition placed on the property when it was redeveloped in 2007/2008.

  • The allotment was filled to a height above the flood level at the time and therefore should be excluded from the plan “Proposed Land Subject to Inundation Overlay” LSIO2.

24

Individual submitter

 

 

Taylors Lakes

Objection

  • Property owners on The Esplanade St Leonards.

  • The property is right on the edge of the overlay at most approximately only 5-10% the site is impacted by potential future flooding, and thus the property should be removed from the overlay.

  • Impact on the land value of the property.

  • Potential to impact the ability of the property to be redeveloped and result in higher construction cost.

25

Individual submitter

 

 

Glenroy

Objection

  • Potential impact on the future value, usability and resale of the property.

  • The overlay appears to impact on quarter of the property at Manning Street St Leonards.

26

Individual submitter

 

 

Drysdale

Support

  • Support for adapting planning matters in light of future climate change and predicted sea water level rises.

  • Suggestion that COGG should sign up to the “Climate Emergency” movement.

  • COGG should also take steps to update and amend building regulations so that renovations and future builds, both commercial buildings and private homes are built to withstand stronger more frequent storms.

27

Individual submitter

 

 

Point Lonsdale

Objection

  • What are Council doing to protect the affected properties other than prepare reports about what is expected to happen?

  • Impact to the value of all affected properties. Properties should be revalued, and rates immediately adjusted in line with this reduced value.

28

Individual submitter

 

 

Cloisters

Square PO

Objection

  • As the proposal required minimum levels as an outcome of the LSIO, the LSIO should also incorporate provisions which specifically preclude rejection of development proposal which may result in a size and scale which is not consistent with development currently in a locality.

  • Part of the review process should be the revisiting of previous management plan actions to determine which actions have and have not been undertaken and why, their effectiveness and any implementation issues experienced by local managers.

29

Individual submitter

 

 

St Leonards

Objection

  • Concerns regarding how the information that form the report applicable to this particular subject site was ascertained?

  • Was the information obtained from the contour intervals prior to the development of Swan View Estate or was this information obtained from the finished floor levels from the survey company that subdivided the land in question?

  • Plan 74LSIO-FO suggests contours, which are usually + or – 25cm, shown prior to any fill placed during constructions which would make any assessment flawed.

  • Potential impact on valuation of property.

  • Potential for changes to insurance premiums for flood damage, even as a result of a storm.

30

Individual submitter

 

 

Moolap

Objection

  • The inundation level line appears somewhat arbitrary on the neighbouring properties.

  • Are there any inundation mitigating measures planned for the area and whether this can make an impact on the proposed amendment?

  • The proposed amendment does not mention the Moolap Coastal Planning Framework.

31

Individual submitter

 

 

Indented Head

Objection

  • There is a water outlet between 234 and 235 The Esplanade, Indented Head and the road at this location cambers away from the shoreline.

  • The road should be raised on the south side with recycled plastic stabilisers and removing gutters to produce a better flow pattern for any flood waters.

32

Individual submitter

 

 

Highton

Objection

  • The amendment does not seek to protect property.

  • Impact upon property valuation.

  • Not plans of how COGG may mitigate the properties to be protected.

  • Raising properties by 0.8 metres will result in difficulties with accessing and servicing sites.

  • Question as to will rates money or other taxes be used to fund mitigation works?

33

Individual submitter

 

 

Alfredton

 Objection

  • Property owner on Point Richards Road, Portarlington.

  • Potential property devaluation.

34

Individual submitter

 

 

Geelong

Objection

  • Potential property devaluation / changes to property rates.

  • The report should be updated evert 15 years as opposed to the forecasting currently proposed within the report.

35

Individual submitter

 

 

Tullamarine

Objection

  • No evidence of sea levels rising by any margin of significance.

36

Individual submitter

 

 

Indented Head

Objection

The amendment is totally unnecessary.

37

Individual submitter

 

 

Portarlington

Objection

  • The level of sea water rise by the year 2100 is an assumption.

  • COGG should protect the foreshore through the construction of sea walls in key areas.

38

Individual submitter

 

 

Ocean Grove

Objection

  • Land at Peers Crescent which was filled up over 300mm above the depth provided by the Bellarine Council 30 years ago.

  • No mention of preventative infrastructure such as one way flood gates or drains or possible sea walls to protect residents and Council.

39

Individual submitter

 

 

Harkness

Objection

  • Owners of property on Sean Parade St Leonards.

  • Query as to why the property listed as part of further inundation when Council resources show the property is not affected by the flooding of the inundation overlay and is not mentioned within detailed reports?

  • Land subject to inundation will be listed within the Section 32 and could impact future building permits on the land.

  • Possible impact upon property values / the ability to sell the property in the future.

40

Individual submitter

 

 

Portarlington

Objection

  • Removal of the property from the overlay as the boundary of the overlay only includes a small part of the land.

  • Sand / shell grit as a result of dredging activities for the ferry has resulted in greater damage then from tides (erosion) and blocked stormwater drains.

41

Individual submitter

 

 

St Leonards

Objection

  • A more exact nature of the issue could be achieved.

  • The arbitrary nature of selection of properties in my street whereby approximately half a metre of my property to be included in the amendment whilst others are excluded.

  • Devaluation of property.

  • 80 years is to long can the information be reviewed every 20 years.

  • Request that the property is excluded from the amendment given that neighbouring properties which are located the exact same distance from the sea are excluded.

42

Individual submitter

 

 

St Leonards

Objection

  • Changing the planning scheme alone will not result in changes to reducing the impact of possible inundation.

  • The methodology used is vague rather than based on validated scientific evidence.

  • The amendment is an easier way for Council to avoid responsibility for not placing priority on ensuring coastal areas are protected from rising sea levels and other factions that contribute to climate change have not been addressed.

  • Council will benefit from the amendment by increased revenue for planning permit applications with no obligation to do anything else towards protecting the coastline.

  • Impact upon property prices.

  • A rate reduction should be charged by the council to compensate for the reduction in the value of the land and the buildings for the properties identified in the report.

43

Individual submitter

 

 

Essendon

Objection

  • Disagreement with the contents of the report regarding the prediction of a 0.8 metre sea level rise in 80 years



Attachment 5 – Corangamite CMA Submission in support of Amendment C394

Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6

[Back to List]

3. Our Heritage, Our Collection

Source:

Economy, Investment & Attraction / Arts & Culture

Director:

Brett Luxford

Portfolio:

Arts, Culture and Heritage


Purpose

  1. To seek Council’s approval to place the draft ‘Our Heritage, Our Collection’ - strategic report, which provides a focus on the City’s movable heritage objects, artworks and artefacts, on public exhibition to receive feedback.


Background

  1. The City of Greater Geelong is the owner of a heritage collection of major national, state and local significance. It is made up of more than 12,000 heritage objects, artefacts and artworks, with an estimated value of nearly $28 million.

  2. Spread across numerous locations throughout the municipality, the collection is incredibly diverse and reflects Geelong’s history as a vibrant and progressive City.


Key Matters

  1. The City’s heritage collection faces many challenges that prevent appropriate care and community access.

  2. Challenges include a clearly unified approach to Geelong’s heritage collections and appropriate resourcing and these prevent many objects and stories from being cared for and accessed by the community.

  3. Council has a key role to play in the collection, storage, maintenance, interpretation and display of items that reflect the heritage of the region.

  4. The draft ‘Our Heritage, Our Collection’ report (Attachment 2) highlights that there needs to be greater diversity in the collection and recommends to diversify the collection through acquisitions that reflect the unique character of Geelong. 

  5. The report also recommends to work with the First Nation’s peoples in the region, the Wadawurrung, to support collections and exhibitions.

  6. The report has a range of recommendations that will enhance our approach and help preserve and acknowledge our heritage.These recommendations are:

    1. Policy - Council to develop and adopt a Collection Policy for the whole collection;

    2. Resourcing - Provide appropriate resourcing to oversee the collection;

    3. Care - Care for the collection through industry standard collection storage facilities;

    4. Access - Provide greater access to the collection through additional displays, online collections, public programs and pop-up displays across the municipality;

    5. Specialised Services - Provide appropriate budget for specialised services to care for and maintain the collection;

    6. Acquisitions - Continue to maintain existing collection strengths but also build the diversity of the collection through acquisitions that reflect the unique character of Geelong.

Councillor Aitken moved, Councillor Kontelj seconded -

  1. That Council:

    1. Note the findings contained in the draft ‘Our Heritage, Our Collection’ strategic report on the use and management of the City of Greater Geelong’s heritage collection; and

    2. Approve the release of the draft ‘Our Heritage, Our Collection’ strategic report for public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days to receive comment and feedback.

    3. Note the report identifies a number of collectables are lost. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to encourage members of or families associated with the Geelong community to hand in any objects they believe were owned by the City of Greater Geelong and its former legal entities. Each item handed in is to be assessed if its retention will contribute to the Collection Catalogue of Council.

Carried.


Attachment 1

Financial Implications

  1. The value of the heritage collection is already significant and further work needs to be undertaken to properly value the collection.

  2. There will be financial implications from the adoption of this report, however these will need to be assessed on a case by case basis, as each recommendation is pursued and a business case presented to Council through future budgets.


Community Engagement

  1. The research and development of this report has thoroughly engaged internal and external stakeholders.

    1. Internal: The strategic report, in particular the strategies, collection statement and recommendations has been developed through two internal workshops. These were hosted on 27 August and 1 October 2019.Attendees were sourced from Property and Procurement, Media and Communications, Planning, Arts & Culture, Central Geelong & Waterfront and Geelong Major Events. Additional internal consultation has been undertaken across departments in the organisation that have a role to play in heritage matters.

    2. External:The Community Heritage Advisory Committee has been briefed and the project will be presented to the Committee. A Community Workshop was held on Thursday 12 September 2019. This included a diversity of individuals from across the municipality. The contribution from these groups helped to create the Collection Statement and Priorities and the Recommendations.

    3. An online survey through ‘Geelong Have Your Say’ was conducted.This was available between 2 to 27 September 2019. There were 32 contributions to the survey from a wide cross-section of the community and these insights helped to create the Collection Statement and Priorities and the Recommendations.

  2. Benchmarking with other municipalities in Victoria and with the peak museums body Australian Museums and Galleries Association (Victoria) (AMAGA) was also undertaken. This benchmarking was completed through phone interviews with City of Ballarat, City of Bendigo, City of Port Phillip and City of Maribyrnong.

  3. These municipalities were chosen because they were heavily involved in a similar process and had either completed strategic reports (Bendigo, 2017), heritage strategy (Ballarat, 2017), a Council Collections Policy (Port Phillip 2017) or were in the process of creating a strategy to deal with heritage collections (Maribyrnong, in prep). Consultation with AMAGA was conducted via numerous phone interviews and email correspondence to understand the role that Council’s must play in caring for collections.


Social Equity Considerations

  1. Many social equity considerations have been important for this report and the collection strategies proposed. These include both access to the collection and creating diversity in the collection. These two areas are details in Collection Priorities 2 & 4:

    1. Collection Priority 2: Access & Showcase (See Report pp.38-39). Providing access to the collection for all groups is captured in this priority. This will be achieved by more public programs, exhibitions and displays. As well as object-based-learning and also more pop-up displays around the municipality. Through this we hope to address social inequity in the City; and

    2. Collection Priority 4: Diversity & Reflection (See Report pp.42). From both internal and external engagement there was an overwhelming need for greater diversity in the collection objects and greater reflection on the many people that inhabit Geelong.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

  1. The strategic report complies with the relevant national and state legislation and there are no apparent legal ramifications or any impacts in relation to the Human Rights Charter.


Alignment to Council Plan

  1. This report aligns with Council Plan strategies:

    1. Vibrant Art and Culture;

    2. Growing Our Tourism and Events;

    3. Informed Social Infrastructure and Planning, in particular with regards to asset management and accessible community infrastructure; and

    4. Organisational Leadership, Strategy and Governance, to proactively manage our assets.


Conflict of Interest

  1. No officer involved in the preparation of this report has any identified conflict of interest.


Risk Assessment

  1. The proposals in the strategic report mitigate against risk for the City. Collection Priority 1: Significance & Care (See Report pp.36, see also Challenges pp.32-33) is intended to resolve many issues of risk that face the City, as many collections are not currently being appropriately cared for.


Environmental Implications

  1. There are no environmental implications that have been identified as a result of this report.

Councillor Murnane declared a Conflict of Interest and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 8:28pm.


[Back to List]

4. Kaufland Stores in Victoria Advisory Committee - 140-156 Colac Road, Highton

Source:

Planning, Design & Development - Strategic Implementation

Director:

Gareth Smith

Portfolio:

Planning


Purpose

  1. To seek Council support for a submission to be made to the Kaufland Stores in Victoria Advisory Committee for the site at 140-156 Colac Road, Highton.


Background

  1. Kaufland Australia Pty Ltd requested the Minister for Planning change the planning scheme provisions that apply to the land at 140-156 Colac Road, Highton to facilitate the development of a supermarket-based store.

  2. The Minister decided to refer the proposal to the Kaufland Stores in Victoria Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee will provide independent advice to the Minister on relevant planning matters associated with the location, development and use. The City is not the planning authority for this Amendment.

  3. The proposal was on public exhibition from 14 October 2019 to 12 November 2019 and Council officers lodged a “holding” submission to the Advisory Committee advising of a formal submission following the resolution of this report. An Advisory Committee hearing is scheduled to commence on 11 December 2019.

  4. The site is located opposite the Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre on Colac Road (see map in Attachment 2). The development plans are shown in Attachment 3.

  5. The proposed Amendment consists of a Specific Controls Overlay (SCO) to be applied to the land which is in the Residential Growth Zone (see map in Attachment 4) together with an Incorporated Document.

  6. The total proposed building area is 6,892 sqm containing 3,781sqm of supermarket floor area, a 319sqm bottle shop, 470sqm of proposed tenancies and mall area.


Key Matters

  1. A submission has been drafted (Attachment 5), which supports the proposal ‘in principle’ subject to significant site constraint, layout and access issues being addressed including:

    1. The Amendment should include rezoning of the site to Commercial 1 Zone;

    2. The Incorporated Document should be strengthened with additional conditions;

    3. The flood prone nature of the site needs to be properly considered;

    4. Vehicle access arrangements from Colac Road and South Valley Road need further discussion with Regional Roads Victoria and Council officers;

    5. The urban design and layout of the site needs to be reconsidered.

  2. Subject to Council endorsement, the City will present the issues raised in this report to the Advisory Committee hearing in December 2019.

Councillor Nelson moved, Councillor Harwood seconded -

  1. That Council:

    1. Do not support in principle the proposed development and use of the land at 140-156 Colac Road, Highton for a Kaufland Store, subject to a number of matters being addressed as outlined in the submission in Attachment 5;

    2. Subject to any amendment required as a result of 10.1 immediately lodge a formal submission generally as outlined in Attachment 5 to the Kaufland Stores in Victoria Advisory Committee; and

    3. Appear at the Kaufland Stores in Victoria Advisory Committee public hearing to present Council’s submission.

Carried.


Division Requested:

For: Councillors Nelson, Harwood, Sullivan, Grzybek, Kontelj, Murnane, Mansfield, Murrihy, Aitken


Attachment 1

Financial Implications

  1. There are no financial implications to Council as a result of this report.


Community Engagement

  1. This is a State Government process and a public exhibition period inviting submissions was conducted from 14 October 2019 to 12 November 2019.


Social Equity Considerations

  1. The proposal will have social impacts but is not considered to relate to any particular social equity considerations.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

  1. Planning policy has been outlined in the planning report prepared by Kaufland’s appointed consultants.

  2. The draft submission in Attachment 5 includes planning policy related comments including a submission that if the development of the site for retail is to be supported the land should be rezoned to the Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z). The Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) is not the appropriate zone for a large retail proposal of this nature. If developed in the RGZ then the 6,000sqm floor space will sit outside the cap for the Waurn Ponds Sub Regional Activity Centre and outside the Retail Centre Hierarchy. The purpose of the RGZ is not for non-residential uses of this scale.


Alignment to Council Plan

  1. This is a State Government process and aligns to Council Plan Priority 8 – A Thriving and Sustainable Economy including “Attracting new investments to the region”.


Conflict of Interest

  1. No City officers involved in the preparation of this report have any direct or indirect interest in the matter to which this report relates.


Risk Assessment

  1. The draft submission in Attachment 5 highlights the potential risks and issues associated with the amendment.


Environmental Implications

  1. Environmental impacts are still being assessed. There is no Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) report exhibited with the proposal but it does have some elements including roof top solar panels. This issue will be further investigated and is commented on in the draft submission in Attachment 5.


Attachment 2

Background

  1. An Information Sheet (Oct 2019) prepared by DELWP describes what is proposed as follows:

  2. “The supermarket chain Kaufland Australia Pty Ltd has asked for the planning provisions that apply to 140-156 Colac Road, Highton to be changed so that it can build a supermarket on the site, including packaged liquor sales, several speciality shops and car parking.”

  3. “The Minister for Planning has appointed an advisory committee to consider Kaufland’s proposal to develop supermarkets in various locations around Victoria. The advisory committee will consider the planning merits of the proposal for a supermarket in Highton and will provide recommendations on whether the proposed changes to the planning scheme are suitable.”

  4. “The site is on the northern side of Colac Road and west of South Valley Road. The proposed store site is opposite the Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre. Access is proposed from both Colac Road and South Valley Road.”

  5. “Under the proposal, the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme would be amended by applying specific controls to the site and inserting an incorporated document into the schedules to Clauses 45.12 and 72.04. The incorporated document will set out the conditions that will apply to the use and development of the site.”

  6. The planning tool proposed is a Specific Controls Overlay which would cover the area shown in the map in Attachment 4.

  7. A planning assessment (by Kaufland’s consultants Planning and Property Partners) describes the proposed Kaufland store as comprising the following elements:

    1. Use and development of the site for a 6,892 sqm building containing the following:

      1. 3,781sqm of supermarket floor area.

      2. 319sqm bottle shop.

      3. 470sqm of proposed tenancies and mall area.

      4. Associated inhouse facilities including 1,500sqm back of house facilities, services, customer amenities and administration.

      5. 182sqm of loading area.

      6. 26 bicycle spaces (comprising 12 staff spaces and 14 customer spaces).

    2. A total of 436 car parking spaces to be allocated as follows:

      1. 407 standard spaces.

      2. 2 electric spaces (with charging stations).

      3. 9 accessible spaces.

      4. 12 family spaces.

      5. 6 senior spaces.

  8. According to the Planning Assessment the Kaufland store will involve employment generation in the order of 80-100 ongoing jobs.

  9. The built form and layout is described in the Planning Assessment as follows:

  10. “the proposed development adopts a built form that is generally reflective of the ALDI supermarket and convenience restaurants to the east and scale that is moderated by its proximity to the Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre to the south. The built form and scale of the proposed development is akin to the nearby bulky goods and restricted retail operations, including the Bunning’s store and Officeworks to the southwest, and the adjacent Leisurelink Aquatic & Recreation Centre.

    The building will be single storey building with a predominant height in the order of 8-9 metres, with a maximum height of 11 metres to the feature parapet at the south east corner of the building”

  11. The complete set of plans and documents can be viewed online at engage.vic.gov.au/kaufland-advisory-committee

  12. A selection of the proposed development plans for the site are Attachment 3.

  13. City comments on the proposal are contained in the draft submission in Attachment 5 with the summary of the City’s position below:

Summary of the City’s Position

  1. The City recognises and supports the need for more competition in the retail market in Victoria and Geelong particularly in the supermarket sector. We support new businesses seeking sites and establishing in Greater Geelong provided they are in appropriate locations.

  2. The City’s retails policy directs new retail development to be located in existing or planned activity centres as a first preference and then edge of centre if no sites are available. Beyond that out of centre can be considered provided certain criteria are met and there is a net community benefit.

  3. The proposed site on Colac Road, Highton could be considered edge of centre particularly if the Waurn Ponds Activity Centre boundary is enlarged (as proposed by Amendment C393) to include existing retail uses (e.g. APCO, McDonalds) on the north of Colac Rd next to the site.

  4. The City acknowledges the difficulty for new supermarket retailers entering the market in Geelong to find suitable sites either in or on the edge of existing activity centres.

  5. The City considers this is one of the few sites available that is close to an existing Sub Regional Activity Centre that would be suitable for a large format supermarket such as Kaufland.

  6. However, the site and proposal has a number of constraints, layout and access issues that need to be addressed.

  7. On this basis, the City supports in principle the proposed development and use of the land at 140-156 Colac Road, Highton for a Kaufland Store, subject to significant site constraint, layout and access issues being addressed including:

    1. The Amendment should include rezoning of the site to Commercial 1 Zone to bring it under the Waurn Ponds Activity Centre floorspace cap;

    2. The Incorporated Document should be strengthened with additional conditions;

    3. The flood prone nature of the site needs to be properly considered;

    4. Vehicle access arrangements from Colac Road and South Valley Road needs further discussion with Regional Roads Victoria and Council officers;

    5. The urban design and layout of the site needs to be reconsidered, in particular:

      1. Bringing built form closer to Colac Road to improve the interface;

      2. Reduce the extent of ‘cut’ into the slope;

      3. A landscaped car parking area with stormwater treatment, canopy cover and other ESD principles.


Attachment 3 – Development plans from State Government website









Attachment 4 – Proposed Specific Controls Overlay



Attachment 5 – Draft Content of Council Submission to Advisory Committee

City of Greater Geelong Submission to the Kaufland Stores in Victoria Advisory Committee, 26 November 2019

To: Government Land Standing Advisory Committee

Dear Sir/Madam,

The City of Greater Geelong provides the following submission on the Kaufland Store proposal for land at 140-156 Colac Road, Highton. This submission was endorsed by Council at its meeting of 26 November 2019.

Summary of the City’s Position

The City recognises and supports the need for more competition in the retail market in Victoria and Geelong particularly in the supermarket sector. We support new businesses seeking sites and establishing in Greater Geelong provided they are in appropriate locations.

The City’s retails policy directs new retail development to be located in existing or planned activity centres as a first preference and then edge of centre if no sites are available. Beyond that out of centre can be considered provided certain criteria are met and there is a net community benefit.

The proposed site on Colac Road, Highton could be considered edge of centre particularly if the Waurn Ponds Activity Centre boundary is enlarged (as proposed by Amendment C393) to include existing retail uses (e.g. APCO, McDonalds) on the north of Colac Rd next to the site.

The City acknowledges the difficulty for new supermarket retailers entering the market in Geelong to find suitable sites either in or on the edge of existing activity centres.

The City considers this is one of the few sites available that is close to an existing Sub Regional Activity Centre that would be suitable for a large format supermarket such as Kaufland.

However, the site and proposal have a number of constraints, layout and access issues that need to be addressed.

On this basis, the City supports ‘in principle’ the proposed development and use of the land at 140-156 Colac Road, Highton for a Kaufland Store, subject to significant site constraint, layout and access issues being addressed including:

Comments on technical aspects

The City has had limited time to properly review the proposal and related specialist technical reports. Some initial technical comments are provided below and may be expanded upon at the Advisory Committee Hearing in December.

Strategic Planning Comments

Planning controls

The City submits that if the development of the site for retail is to be supported the land should be rezoned to the Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z). The Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) is not the appropriate zone for a large retail proposal of this nature. If developed in the RGZ then the 6,000sqm floor space will sit outside the cap for the Waurn Ponds Sub Regional Activity Centre and outside the Retail Centre Hierarchy. The purpose of the RGZ is not for non-residential uses of this scale. Allowing such a large retail development in the RGZ in a nominated Increased Housing Diversity Area (IHDA) could set a precedent for future non-residential developments in other IHDAs and Key Development Areas (KDA) such as the vacant RGZ1 land west of the Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre.

Edge of centre or out of centre?

Under current planning scheme provisions it could be argued that the site is an out of centre development. Given that Colac Road is a significant barrier between the Kaufland site and the Waurn Ponds Sub Regional Activity Centre and that the site does not integrate at all with surrounding land it could be argued that that it is not edge of centre.

However, under the new retail strategy (currently subject to Planning Scheme Amendment C393) the City proposes to expand the Waurn Ponds Activity Centre boundary to include the Apco/McDonalds land east of the Kaufland site. On this basis it could be considered the development is edge of centre.

Economic impact and retail hierarchy

The new Retail Strategy says there is demand for retail floor space over the life of the document to 2036. This is confirmed in the Expert Evidence Statement provided by SGS Economics (14 Oct 2019) to the C393 Panel hearing. The Retail Strategy finds there will be sufficient shop retail floorspace demand at Waurn Ponds by 2026.

If the site were included in the Waurn Ponds Activity Centre, the Kaufland Store would not take the size of the centre above 60,000m2 which is the new size in the hierarchy for a sub- regional centre (as proposed in C393).

The Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) estimates impacts on existing centres to all be less than 10%. However the EIA does not assess the impact on the future Armstrong Creek Town Centre which is a flaw – the 2006 Retail Strategy explicitly calls for this assessment.

Adjoining land uses and connectivity

There is no consideration of connectivity to the adjoining established commercial uses (albeit zoned RGZ2) or the shopping centre opposite.

There is no consideration of the balance land or the broader area that the City is currently considering for rezoning and potentially a Design and Development Overlay. The City is currently assessing a planning scheme amendment application to rezone the Vic Roads land west of the site and east of the Ring Road from Farming to General Residential Zone.

Statutory Planning Comments

The City’s statutory planners have reviewed the proposed Incorporated Document and provided some initial comments on the proposed conditions. These are shown in track changes version in Appendix 1 to this submission.

Urban Design Comments

The City’s urban designers have reviewed the proposal and provided a response in Appendix 2 to this submission.

The diagram below shows recommendations, from an urban design perspective, for site layout improvements for the proposal.

Key considerations are:

Site layo8ut recommendations

Flooding and Drainage Comments

The documentation presented is fairly typical for a major development of this type in that it considers the site in isolation and attempts to shape the land to fit a ‘standard’ outcome.

Key points and preliminary comments are:

Map of the 1% AEP flood extent

Traffic Engineering Comments

Council officer have reviewed the Traffic Impact Assessment by Onemile grid and make the following initial comments which required further discussion with Regional Roads Victoria.

Colac Road

Colac Road is an arterial road in Road Zone 1 (RDZ1) and managed by Regional Roads Victoria who will need to make its decisions on access to and from the site. Council officer’s initial comments on Colac Road related issues are as follows:

South Valley Road

South Valley Road is also an arterial road in Road Zone 1 (RDZ1) and managed by Regional Roads Victoria. Council officer comments on South Valley Road access are as follows:

Car Park Design


Appendix 1 – Suggested Changes to Incorporated Document (Without Prejudice)

Kaufland Incorporated Document - page 1 of 7

Kaufland Incorporated Document - page 2 of 7

Kaufland Incorporated Document - page 3 of 7

Kaufland Incorporated Document - page 4 of 7

Kaufland Incorporated Document - page 5 of 7

Kaufland Incorporated Document - page 6 of 7

Kaufland Incorporated Document - page 7 of 7

Appendix 2 – Urban Design Response



Councillor Murnane re-entered the meeting room at 8:51pm.


[Back to List]

5. Sale of Part of 137 Mercer Street, Geelong (Civic Accommodation Precinct)

Source:

Customer & Corporate Services - Civic Accommodation

Director:

Michael Dugina

Portfolio:

Finance


Purpose

  1. To seek Council approval for the City to sell part of a property located at 137 Mercer Street, Geelong (shown as Lot 2 on Attachment 2 proposed plan of subdivision PS834010W) following completion of the statutory advertising process.


Background

  1. The City acquired the land at 137 Mercer Street in 2008 and in 2018 confirmed the land as the site for its consolidated civic accommodation building and new precinct.

  2. Council’s selected development proposal for its new civic accommodation precinct requires the subdivision of the Mercer Street land in accordance with the plan (Attachment 2).

  3. Council advertised its intention to sell the proposed Lot 2 on the plan of subdivision in the Geelong Advertiser on Saturday 12 October 2019. Council will consolidate properties to be purchased on Bayley Street and some Crown Land adjoining the Mercer Street site to create the proposed Lot 1.  The purchase of the relevant Crown Land is in the process of being effected.

  4. No public submissions have been received in relation to the proposed sale of Lot 2 and Council approval is now sought for the sale to Quintessential Equity 047 Pty Ltd (QE).


Key Matters

  1. Council advertised its intent to sell part of the land at 137 Mercer Street, Geelong in the Geelong Advertiser on 12 October 2019. The period for public submissions to the proposed sale expired on 11 November 2019.  As at 11 November 2019 no public submissions were received. 

  2. The market valuation of the land to be sold is $7.5m according to an independent valuation obtained. The land is to be sold to QE or its nominee for not less than the independent valuation.

  3. After reconfiguration of the site Council will own 4,998m2 of land in the precinct.  Originally Council owned 4,565m2.

  4. As no submissions have been received, Council’s approval for the proposed sale is now sought.

Councillor Aitken moved, Councillor Murnane seconded -

  1. That Council:

    1. Note that no submissions have been received in relation to the proposed sale of part of the land at 137 Mercer Street, Geelong;

    2. Approve the sale of the land to Quintessential Equity 047 Pty Ltd (or its nominee) for an amount not less than its independent market valuation; and

    3. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign the Contract of Sale and any other documentation required to facilitate the sale of the land to Quintessential Equity 047 Pty Ltd (or its nominee).

Carried.


Attachment 1

Financial Implications

  1. The sale of the property will form part of Council’s Civic Accommodation Precinct. The land will only be sold in order to reconfigure the development parcel to realise the best value and approved design outcome for Council.


Community Engagement

  1. Any person has had an opportunity to make a written submission on the proposed sale under the notice of intention to sell land.   No submissions have been received within the statutory period allowed.


Social Equity Considerations

  1. There are no social equity issues associated with this matter.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

  1. Section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 requires that Council must obtain a valuation of the property from a suitably qualified property valuer which is made not more than 6 months prior to the sale and give public notice of its intention to sell the land and consider any submissions received.

  2. Notice of its intention to sell the land has been advertised and no submissions have been received in relation to the proposed sale.

  3. There are no human rights ramifications to the proposal.


Alignment to Council Plan

  1. The sale of this property will assist the City in achieving the optimum outcome for its new civic precinct and is required to ensure a proactive approach to management of assets, including land holdings.


Conflict of Interest

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


Risk Assessment

  1. There are no notable risks associated with implementation of the recommendations.


Environmental Implications

  1. There are no environmental implications to this proposal.


Attachment 2

Bayley Street through to Mercer Street and Corio Street- proposed lot 1 (4996 metres squared), proposed lot 2 (1677 metres squared)
[Back to List]

6. Small Business Friendly Council - Charter Agreement

Source:

Economy, Investment & Attraction - Economic Development & Events

Director:

Brett Luxford

Portfolio:

Economic Development


Purpose

  1. To seek Council endorsement to sign the Small Business Friendly Council Charter Agreement for the City of Greater Geelong to be recognised as a Small Business Friendly Council.


Background

  1. The Small Business Friendly Council (SBFC) initiative has been developed by the Victorian Small Business Council (VSBC) in partnership with local Councils to provide small business with the support they need to run their businesses.

  2. The Small Business Friendly Charter outlines  shared goals  for both the VSBC and participating local Councils in working to create a fair and competitive trading environment for small businesses.

  3. When signing the Charter Agreement local councils are pledging to:

    1. Work towards paying small business within 30 days;

    2. Support local businesses in managing the impacts of infrastructure projects;

    3. Streamline the approval process when starting a business; and

    4. Help set up and support local business networks.


Key Matters

  1. Small businesses represent over 90% of the businesses in the Geelong region and are a critical component in driving the Geelong economy.

  2. The City currently delivers numerous activities to support small business and has programs in place to ensure we are able to deliver on most of the requirements within the Charter.

  3. The City is working towards streamlining the payment system to meet the requirement of paying small business within 30 days.

Councillor Sullivan moved, Councillor Murrihy seconded -

  1. That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign the Small Business Friendly Council Charter Agreement for the City of Greater Geelong to be recognised as a Small Business Friendly Council.

Carried.


Attachment 1

Financial Implications

  1. There are no new financial implications to being recognised as a Small Business Friendly Council.The only financial implication is that we will commit to paying invoices for small business within 30 days.


Community Engagement

  1. During the development of the Better Approvals process, the City engaged with the business community to determine their requirements and challenges. This resulted in changes to the City’s website and the establishment of a business concierge service.

  2. The City has delivered the Small Business Festival for the last nine years, which involves engaging with numerous business and business organisations and the events delivered are driven by feedback from participants to the festival.


Social Equity Considerations

  1. This initiative will support small businesses across the municipality.Small business is a major employer in Australia and many small businesses provide employment for those that are entering or re-entering the workforce.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

  1. There are no legal implications in committing to the Charter and becoming a recognised Small Business Friendly Council.

  2. In order to support the 30 day payment terms the City will need to review the current supplier payment terms policy, as well as the systems and process to support this requirement of the Small Business Friendly Council Charter Agreement.


Alignment to Council Plan

  1. Being recognised as a Small Business Friendly Council aligns with a ‘Thriving and Sustainable Economy’ as it identifies supporting and promoting local business, markets and products as a priority action.


Conflict of Interest

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


Risk Assessment

  1. The primary risk in signing the Charter Agreement is the ability for the City to pay small business within 30 days. This risk is reduced, due to the current digital transformation project and a focus on improving the current financial systems and processes.


Environmental Implications

  1. There are no environmental implications in signing the Small Business Friendly Council Charter Agreement.


[Back to List]

7. 2018-2019 Tourism Greater Geelong and the Bellarine (TGGB) Annual Report and Tourism Performancd

Source:

Economy, Investment & Attraction - Tourism

Director:

Brett Luxford

Portfolio:

Tourism and Events


Purpose

  1. To provide Council with an update on the progress and performance of Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Inc (TGGB) and local visitor economy, as per the 2018-19 Annual Report recently adopted at TGGB’s Annual General Meeting on 24 October 2019.


Background

  1. The City of Greater Geelong has long recognised the importance of the visitor economy in strengthening and diversifying the economic base of the municipality since 1993. The City has supported the tourism sector through a formal partnership with the industry via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 2017-18 – 2020-21.

  2. As per the MOU, TGGB’s Visitor Economy Strategy 2017-18 – 2020-21 sets the vision, opportunities and priorities relating to Promotion, Development and Leadership. An Annual Action Plan is developed and implemented to guide the activities of the organisation that corresponds to the results the 2018-19 Annual Report (Attachment 3).


Key Matters

  1. TGGB has continued to lead a strong and coordinated tourism industry with a united and compelling voice during 2018-19 supported with:

    1. Avalon Airport launching international flights in November 2018 with Air Asia;

    2. Realisation of the Geelong City Deal which has seen funding secured for the development of the Geelong Convention and Exhibition Centre, Central Geelong Revitalisation, Queenscliff Ferry Terminal and Geelong Safe Harbour Development;

    3. Five State funded grants secured to support programs that enhanced industry capability and promotion of the region which included international student initiatives through Study Geelong, digital augmentation of the Bollards, Destination Accessible and branding of regions;

    4. A comprehensive and successful Action Plan that delivered on the three key pillars of Promotion, Development and Leadership.

  2. From 2017-18 to 2018-2019, visitation has grown 12.5% to 5.9 million accounting for 5.5 million room nights worth $1.1 billion to the local economy and supporting 7,500 jobs.

  3. The visitor economy is expected to continue to grow strongly over the next 10 years with an additional 1.5 million visitors forecast to be attracted to the region by 2027.

Councillor Murrihy moved, Councillor Sullivan seconded -

  1. That Council notes the progress and performance of the Regional Tourism Board - Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Inc. and local visitor economy as per the 2018-19 Annual Report. 

Carried.


Attachment 1

Financial Implications

  1. Funding for Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine (TGGB) is agreed via Council’s annual budget process. As per the MOU 2017-18 – 2020-21, Council funds the staffing and administration costs with further specific budget lines for Business Events and Visitor Services functions.

  2. The City’s financial contribution to TGGB for 2018-2019 was $2.037 million relating to Tourism administration $1,257,630 Visitor Information Centres $389,792 and Business Events Geelong $390,047.

  3. TGGB’s operating result (Council, State Government and Industry) was $3.529 million with non-Council revenue of $1.491 million to support the Annual Action Plan.

  4. State Government funding of $275,000 to TGGB is subject to a formal contract and is specifically directed towards the implementation of the Annual Action Plan. Other non-Council revenue is received via tourism business memberships and partnerships, grants, industry buy-in to marketing and development programs.


Community Engagement

  1. TGGB has invested significantly in the development and implementation of an enhanced digital footprint that engages with both industry and visitors to our region. A dedicated industry engagement program has been initiated that includes weekly newsletters to industry and face-to-face meetings with Industry Engagement Officers.

  2. TGGB develops community, visitor and tourism industry engagement actions for individual projects to ensure that projects are developed with evidence-based research.

  3. From a consumer facing front TGGB engage regularly with a Facebook audience of over 23,000 people and attracted over 160 thousand visitors to visitgeelongbellarine.com.au. 76% of traffic was generated through organic search (not paid).

  4. As of 30 June 2019, TGGB recorded 597 tourism business memberships with a target of 635 by 30 June 2020.

  5. As a recognised Regional Tourism Board, TGGB participate in and engage with Visit Victoria, Regional Development Victoria, Victorian Tourism Industry Council, Tourism Australia and relevant State and Federal Government departments.


Social Equity Considerations

  1. The visitor economy contributes $1.1 billion to the local economy and employs over 7,500 people in a diverse range of jobs across the region in the tourism and hospitality sector. During 2018-19, jobs grew by 28% due to the strength of the visitor economy.

  2. TGGB has been a key driver in the development of the Destination Accessible program with the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (AFDO), which focuses on building capability of tourism businesses in the region to cater for community and visitors with a disability. During 2018-19 103 tourism businesses completed 1 on 1 mentoring in the program to improve accessibility in the region.

  3. TGGB has led the continued development of Study Geelong to engage closely and ensure over 4,000 international students are fully connected into our community through student activities, ambassador programs and professional mentoring.

  4. The social impacts of tourism have been well documented and will continue to play a major role in guiding the future developments of the region and activities of TGGB.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

  1. There are no policy, legal or statutory implications resulting from this report.

  2. The partnership arrangement between Council and the tourism industry via Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Inc. is consistent with Council’s Tourism Policy.

  3. As an Incorporated Association the TGGB Inc. complies with the legislation and management principles that govern incorporated associations in Victoria namely the Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012. The Annual Return has been lodged with Consumer Affairs Victoria to record the Annual General Meeting held on 24 October 2019.


Alignment to Council Plan

  1. Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine’s 2018-19 Annual Report aligns directly to Strategic Priority 9. Growing our Tourism and Events. The results and activities from the 2018-19 Annual Report align directly with the key priorities of this Strategic Priority and deliver on the measures of success reported in Council’s Annual Report.


Conflict of Interest

  1. No City officers or Contractors involved in the activities of this report have a direct or indirect interest.


Risk Assessment

  1. TGGB plays a pivotal role in advocating on tourism related issues and opportunities in a variety of settings and at different levels of Government.

  2. Without an organised and united approach, the tourism industry would most likely suffer or remain stagnant. The partnership allows for long term planning to be adopted in cooperation with the tourism industry and neighbouring Regional Tourism Boards.

  3. During 2018-19 the TGGB Tourism Development Plan was finalised to guide advocacy efforts and prioritise projects that will meet visitor expectations, service future demand and ensure the visitor economy in Greater Geelong and The Bellarine reaches its full potential.

  4. TGGB has continued to evolve its corporate risk profiling in cooperation with the City and the TGGB Board to ensure that risks are identified, analysed and evaluated to either control or eliminate risks. This has included a TGGB Board Governance Evaluator process which is conducted by external governance consultants.


Environmental Implications

  1. TGGB continues to implement and support accreditation programs Earth Check and City Switch.Earth Check is a program aimed at reducing the impact of tourism related activities on the environment and includes training and incentives for those who participate and meet the prescribed benchmarks and standards.

  2. TGGB received a 5-star rating from City Switch for the business’s environmental standards and usage in 2019.


Discussion

  1. The local visitor economy has grown significantly since the commencement of Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine (TGGB) in 2014 which includes the municipalities of City of Greater Geelong, Borough of Queenscliffe and Golden Plains Shire (southern end).

  2. Prior to 2014, the City of Greater Geelong supported Geelong Otway Tourism since 1993 which included the municipalities of City of Greater Geelong, Borough of Queenscliffe and Golden Plains Shire (southern end), Surf Coast Shire and Colac Otway Shire.

  3. Currently, Victoria is undergoing a comprehensive Regional Tourism Review by State Government focused on five key themes of strengthening our tourism offering, making the most of our marketing spending, supporting industry, enhancing Regional Tourism Boards and a better coordinating effort. TGGB on behalf of the region has been fully engaged in the review which will include recommendations in early 2020.Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine has been seen as an exemplar of Regional Tourism throughout this review with reference to the five key themes.

  4. During the Regional Tourism Review consultation period, TGGB conducted a five-year review of operations and tourism performance to demonstrate achievements. Since 2014:

    1. Those directly employed through the visitor economy grew 89% to 7,551 in 2019;

    2. Visitation has grown 56% to 5.9 million;

    3. Nights spent in the region has grown 67% to 5.5 million;

    4. Visitor spend has grown 84% to be now worth $1.1 billion to the local economy.

  5. The last year has been no different for our region which has shown continued growth at double digit rates across all visitor metrics. Notably international visitation has grown 11% in the last year alone to 63,000 overnight visitors and 209,000-day visitors spending over $100 million in the region thanks in part to the launch of international flights from Avalon Airport late 2018.

  6. Primarily a destination favoured by the Western source markets of the UK, USA and NZ, during 2018-19, the region went through a market shift where China is now the dominant source market for inbound visitation with India and Malaysia also increasing significantly. It is thanks to the incredible work of the Avalon Airport team and the support of governments and communities, we now have global travellers arriving directly into our region via Air Asia and in the future, Viet Jet.

  7. This past year has also seen the commencement of the Geelong City Deal developments which includes the Geelong Convention and Exhibition Centre combined with the Central Geelong Revitalisation, Queenscliff Ferry Terminal and Geelong Safe Harbour Development.

  8. Directly, TGGB secured five State funded grants to support programs that enhanced industry capability and promotion of the region. These grants supported international student initiatives through Study Geelong, digital augmentation of the Bollards, accessibility planning and development of local businesses and destination brand narratives for the sub-regions.

  9. In February TGGB also released the 2019 - 2022 Tourism Development Plan which identifies the next wave of major initiatives and development needs that will grow tourism in the region from current levels of 5.9 million visitors, $1.1 billion and 7,551 jobs to 7.5 million visitors, $1.7 billion and 11,572 jobs by 2027.

  10. TGGBs annual action plan is centred around the three key pillars of Promotion, Development and Leadership. The following points outline specific highlights from the delivery of the 2018-19 TGGB Action Plan.

  11. Promotion – Build the brand of Geelong and The Bellarine as a visitor destination to increase awareness, foster positive sentiment and grow demand:

    1. 160,189 unique sessions to the consumer facing website visitgeelongbellarine.com.au;

    2. 800 new images added to visual content assets;

    3. 76% of traffic to the consumer website was through organic search (not paid advertising);

    4. 25 businesses represented through TGGB international marketing programs which included 8 new participating businesses;

    5. Through the touring route partnership of Great Southern Touring Route and Go Beyond Melbourne, the region was represented at 8 trade shows across 16 countries in front of 1,300 international trade representatives;

    6. Achieved an estimated $1.5 million in media exposure through TGGB’s Public Relations and media program;

    7. 12,424 people visited participating businesses through TGGBs visiting friends and relatives’ program ‘Wander Geelong and The Bellarine’;

    8. 8 new Study Geelong student ambassadors inducted, and 8 international student events held;

    9. 28 conference lead referrals delivered to properties via Business Events Geelong;

    10. $7.8 million in estimated economic benefit delivered through Business Events Geelong sourced business opportunities; and

    11. The Visitor services network participated in 19 pop-up events servicing approximately 21,000 visitors in addition to servicing 176,455 visitors at Visitor Information Centre’s.

  12. Development – Enrich the visitor experience by supporting and sustaining a high performing tourism industry that exceeds visitor expectations:

    1. Conducted 18 training workshops focused on marketing, business development and accessibility training with an average of 42 registrations per session;

    2. 103-member businesses completed one-on-one mentoring as part of the Destination Accessible program with Australian Federation of Disability Organisation;

    3. Completed four of the six sub-region brand narratives including You Yangs region, northern Bellarine Peninsula, Urban Geelong and Queenscliff & Point Lonsdale in the last financial year;

    4. Determined a Tourism Sentiment index rating of 56 which translated to over 95,000 online conversations regarding the region were of a highly positive and enthusiastic nature;

    5. Released the 2019-22 Tourism Development Strategy for the Greater Geelong and the Bellarine region identifying priority projects needed to support and sustain the growth of the local visitor economy over the next 10 years.

  13. Leadership – Lead a strong and coordinated tourism industry with a united and compelling voice:

    1. 597-member businesses with a 91% membership retention post renewal;

    2. Membership engagement of 90% achieved which included 80 new member business on-site visits conducted in 2018-19;

    3. Tourism partnerships maintained at 29 business across Platinum, Gold and Silver levels with Avalon Airport secured as Platinum Partner;

    4. Continued support received from existing municipal and State Government partnerships.


[Back to List]

8. Contractual matter

Source:

Customer & Corporate Services

Director:

Michael Dugina

Portfolio:

Finance


Councillor Kontelj moved, Councillor Aitken seconded -

That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1989, this contractual 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]

9. Contractual matter

Source:

Customer & Corporate Services

Director:

Michael Dugina

Portfolio:

Finance


Councillor Sullivan moved, Councillor Nelson seconded -

That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1989, this contractual 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]

10. Contractual matter

Source:

Customer & Corporate Services

Director:

Michael Dugina

Portfolio:

Finance


Councillor Nelson moved, Councillor Murrihy seconded -

That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1989, this contractual 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