QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES TO QUESTION TIME
TUESDAY, 28 AUGUST 2012
The following questions were addressed to the above meeting. Some questions were adequately responded to at the meeting, however others required a more detailed response in writing.
This document includes both verbal and written responses. In this instance, no written responses were provided as issues were adequately addressed at the meeting.
Gordon Hammet asked the following questions:
1) Why do you not refer this matter back to a development hearings panel to enable the principals of natural justice to occur, so that the objectors can argue and properly present their case that the Application be refused rather than be limited to a question?
2) Why do you not cancel the Council hearing and direct Council officers to proceed to deal with the objections by a procedure that enables them to be informed of all relevant facts and given adequate and proper time to prepare and argue their case as would be if the Development Panel Hearing process continued?
Peter Bettess responded that Council is the responsible authority and the development hearing panel acts under delegation from the Council. In this case, Council had a resolution to say it would not consider further applications until plans were received. Council cannot pre-determine its position on an application. The Common Law rules of Natural Justice are modified by the Planning and Environment Act.
A Servello asked questions in relation to Planning Application 528/2005/C:
1) The medical centre has grown from a local to a regional facility servicing an ever increasing population catchment, which is impacting on the amenity and quiet enjoyment of the area by local residents. It was recognised in the previous Council report that a development overlay for the site was necessary, which outlined the future extent of the development and how local amenity would be protected. This needed to be submitted before any further applications were considered. This has not happened and the site’s inclusion in a structure plan does not satisfy the condition. This condition was approved by Council, accepted by the applicant, and ignored by Council by accepting the application and the entire statutory process taking place. Therefore, I respectfully request that Council refuse to grant a permit on this ground.
Further, I request that no further permits be granted for expansion of this site until a masterplan is prepared for the site and the immediate area around it, engaging in a genuine process to consult, identify and then avoid unreasonable impacts through good design.
The previous application was recommended for refusal on the basis that it was inconsistent with the planning scheme and our objections were valid. These grounds are equally applicable to this application, which represents a further expansion on what was previously considered by the officer to be inappropriate.
Peter Bettess indicated the questions would be addressed during debate of the item.
2) How many amendments to an application is considered reasonable and at what point is a new and separate application submitted?
Peter Bettess responded that Council has to consider every application before it and is a matter of degree whether it is considered a new application or an amendment to the existing application.
3) The report outlines that there will be no issue with increases in traffic and flooding associated with the site. This appears to conflict with information outlined in the recently adopted Corio/Norlane Structure Plan. The Structure Plan outlines the severity of flooding in the area and high volume of traffic. There have been a number of local flooding events at the medical centre as a result of poor drainage and increased hard paved surface area for carparking. This has exacerbated flooding in the area on a number of occasions in recent years. In the context of flood overlay in the planning scheme it is unreasonable to suggest that further development will not drain or discharge from the site onto adjoining properties when there will be further intensity of development on the site?
Peter Bettess responded the question would be addressed during debate of the item.
C Miller asked further questions in relation to Planning Application 528/2005/C:
1) This planning application, if approved, will further entrench the ability for what was once a local medical centre, now a regional medical centre, to continue to expand with little regard to the adverse impacts on the adjoining local residential area. This is part of a series of incremental developments that over time having seen this facility grow with consequences for local residents. I note that the owner of this facility and applicant for development, is also a stakeholder of the recently adopted Corio/Norlane Structure Plan and is on several committees and question if thee is not a Conflict of Interest that arises out of what is contained within the structure plan and the current application for development and the aspirations of the owner for future development of the facility. If the responsible authority is not in a position to make this judgement I ask who is in a position to make this judgement?
Peter Bettess responded that there is no Conflict of Interest. The owner of the facility was involved in the process of the Structure Plan, but had no role in approving the content or any influence over the contents and, was afforded the same status as everyone else involved in the process.
2) I invite and ask the applicant of this planning development application and owner of the Corio Medical Centre to provide a list of all the current committees/boards that he sits on and is associated with and any former committees/boards that he was part of and had any association with and noted for the record?
The Mayor advised there is no obligation on the applicant to furnish that information.
3) The advertising sign erected at the proposed site was removed prior to the end of the statutory period. The Responsible Authority was notified. This is a breach of the statutory period and question why the statutory process was not reinstated and the notification period recommended?
Peter Bettess indicated that although advertising signage was removed before the end of the statutory period it should have no impact on people being informed to make their submissions.
Tony Ansett addressed Council in relation to Amendment C246:
1) I ask the Council to defer C246, Item 3, consideration and exhibition of Lara West Growth Area rezoning and precinct structure plan until after the Council election?
2) I ask that Council respect and honor the Lara Structure Plan of 2008. This Plan was to be reviewed in approximately 10 years, meaning a review of 2006-2008?
3) What transport strategy has been done to allow some 8,000 extra vehicles in Lara?
The Mayor noted the comments.
Lionel McWilliam asked questions in regard to VCAT re Truck Depot, 65 Old Melbourne Road, Lara:
1) Are Council going to affirm their objection to this inappropriate use of property in a rural living zone?
2) Can Council confirm trucking companies/owners of restriction in a rural living zone to these keeping of trucks on their properties?
Cr Granger responded that he had spoken earlier to Mr McWilliam, but since that time another piece of information had been received which Peter Bettess would comment on.
Peter Bettess responded that there are currently two actions before VCAT. Council has applied for an Enforcement Order to restrict activities on that property – the second is an appeal by the owners of the property against Council’s refusal of a permit. The owners’ solicitor has asked Council to withdraw the Enforcement Order and in return the owners will withdraw their action as the property is being considered for sale.
Mr Bettess added Council has not made a decision in regard to this request.
Mary Wallace asked:
1.a) Would Councillors note that, in my submission to the Ropeworks Panel in 2006, I included a count of pedestrians that was taken between 3:15 – 4:15pm on 3/3/06, a school day, and this pedestrian count comprised pedestrians crossing both ends of First Street and those walking along First Street and the total number of pedestrians was 49 plus 3 babies/toddlers in prams?
1.b) Would Councillors note that in successive years I did further comparative pedestrian counts, the total always comprising pedestrians crossing both ends of First Street and those walking along First Street within an hour’s duration?
2.a) Would Councillors note that in April 2008, in a meeting my husband and I had with Cr Abley about our concerns over proper process and pedestrian safety at First Street, Cr Abley raised going to the media and recommended a particular journalist at the Geelong Advertiser, Kerri-Ann Hobbs?
2.b) Would Councillors note that, in her Geelong Advertiser article on July 17th 2008, Kerri-Ann Hobbs misrepresented my pedestrian counts data and what I had told her about the pedestrian counts and I reiterate, my pedestrian counts comprised pedestrians crossing both ends of First Street as well as those walking along First Street within an hour’s duration?
2.c) Would Councillors note that I personally handed the same pedestrian counts data to Cr Abley in early July 2008, a couple of weeks before my husband and I handed Kerri-Ann Hobbs the pedestrian counts data?
3. Would Councillors note that I believe now that, even back in 2008, there were some in Council who were intent on discrediting me and this has continued up to the present?
The Mayor noted the comments.
Peter Moore addressed Council as follows:
1) How much has Council spent on legal fees – to courts, tribunals or any other Board, etc. in the past financial year. If possible, broken down by department or Councillor? What are standing legal advice fees?
2) Will Fyansford pub pokies VCAT appearance be capped as to how much money is spent?
Jeff Wall responded that Council would provide certain information, however was unable to guarantee the level of detail. Due to confidentiality, information regarding specific rates would not be provided.
A subsequent written response was provided by the
General Manager Corporate Services, in the following terms:
I refer to the abovementioned meeting and provide below a response to the questions submitted:
1.How much has the Council spent on legal fees – to courts, tribunals or any other board, etc - in the past financial year, if possible broken down by department or Councillor? What are standing legal advice fees?
Response: Provided below is a breakdown of legal services expenditure by each division for the 2011/12 financial year:
Corporate Services - $50,021;
Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong - $51,890;
Community Services - $108,406;
City Services - $121,272; and
Economic Development, Planning and Tourism - $323,791
Total - $655,381
The fees negotiated as part of Council’s contracts for the provision of legal services are commercial in confidence.
2. Will Fyansford Pub pokies VCAT appearance be capped as to how much money is spent?
Response: Council’s resolution at its meeting on 24 July 2012 to lodge an appeal did not cap appearance costs, however a reasonable estimate would be $30K.