council agenda - 27 march 2018 - geelong...attached is your agenda for the ordinary meeting of...

I:\GOVERNANCE\COUNCIL\2018\CCLAG\AG-MEMO 27 MAR.DOCX 1

CITY OF GREATER GEELONG

MEMORANDUM

Councillors

Chief Executive Officer

Directors

Tony Raven

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

TUESDAY, 27 MARCH 2018 AT 7.00PM

23 March 2018

Councillors: Attached is your Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday, 27 March at the Council Conference and Reception Centre, City Hall, Little Malop Street, Geelong, commencing at 7.00pm. Declaration of Conflict of Interest

It is a legislative requirement that any declaration of interest be recorded in the Minutes. If there is a Conflict of Interest in any item to be considered, the nature of the Conflict of Interest must be disclosed. Meal Arrangements

A meal will be provided at City Hall as per previous arrangements from 6.00p.m. Directors are asked to advise if any other officers are to attend. Kind regards TONY RAVEN CO ORDINATOR GOVERNANCE

GOVERNANCE & LEGAL SERVICES

AGENDA

ORDINARYORDINARYORDINARYORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCILMEETING OF COUNCILMEETING OF COUNCILMEETING OF COUNCIL

TuesTuesTuesTuesday, day, day, day, 27 27 27 27 MarchMarchMarchMarch 2018201820182018

To be held at the

Council Conference & Reception Centre City Hall, Little Malop Street, Geelong

commencing at 7.00pm

COUNCIL:

Cr B Harwood (Kardinia Ward)

Mayor

Cr S Asher (Bellarine Ward)

Cr J Mason (Bellarine Ward) Cr T Sullivan (Bellarine Ward) Cr E Kontelj (Brownbill Ward)

Cr S Mansfield (Brownbill Ward)

Cr P Murrihy (Brownbill Ward)

Cr R Nelson (Kardinia Ward)

Cr P Murnane (Kardinia Ward)

Cr A Aitken (Windermere Ward)

Cr K Grzybek (Windermere Ward)

Greater Geelong City Council 27 March 2018 Agenda for Ordinary Meeting INDEX Page 1

SECTION A - PROCEDURAL MATTERS

� Acknowledgement

Council acknowledges Wadawurrung Traditional Owners of this land and all Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander People who are part of the Greater Geelong community today.

� Apologies – Cr Sarah Mansfield (Maternity Leave)

� Confirmation of Minutes

� Ordinary Meeting held 27 February 2018.

� Special Meeting held on 27 February 2018.

� Special Meeting held on 13 March 2018.

� Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

� Question Time

� Petitions

SECTION B – REPORTS

1. Proposed Intensive Goat Farming and Milk Processing Plant at 240 ForestRoad South, Lara ........................................................................................................ 1-14

2. State Government of Victoria – Country Football and Netball Program ....................... 15-18

3. Planning Authorisations – Council to Staff ................................................................... 19-20

4. Contractual Matter (Confidential) ................................................................................ 21

5. Proposed Development (Confidential) ......................................................................... 22

6. Employment Matter (Confidential) ............................................................................... 23

7. Audit and Risk Committee Summary Report (Confidential) ......................................... 24

8. Tender T1770865 – Provision of Painting Services (Confidential) ............................... 25

Agenda items shaded above are confidential

SECTION C - ASSEMBLY OF COUNCIL

SECTION D - PLANNING DELEGATIONS

SECTION E - CONFIDENTIAL

Greater Geelong City Council 27 March 2018 Agenda for Ordinary Meeting SECTION B - REPORTS Page 1

1. RESPONSE TO PETITIONS RECEIVED IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSEDINTENSIVE GOAT FARMING AND MILK PROCESSING PLANT AT 240FOREST ROAD SOUTH, LARA

Source: Planning & Development Director: Kelvin Walsh

Index Reference: Proposed Nuchev Development – 240 Forest Road South, Lara

Purpose

Following receipt of petitions received at its meeting on 27 February 2018, Council has requested Officers’ advice addressing Council’s ability to make an application under section 87 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Act) to cancel planning permit 1204-2015 granted in respect of a proposed intensive goat farm and milk processing plant at 240 Forest Road South, Lara. Having considered all relevant matters, this report recommends that Council not proceed with such an application, and the reasons why.

Background

There has been significant community interest in planning permit 1204-2015 and the City is aware of the strong objections of a number of Lara residents in particular to the continuance of this permit. At its meeting on 27 February 2018, more than 200 community members attended the Council meeting to voice their concerns about the operation of an intensive goat farm and milk processing plant pursuant to planning permit 1204-2015.

Over the past weeks, the City has received more than 250 items of correspondence from community members expressing concern about planning permit 1204-2015, and requesting the intervention of Council. The community has also raised a broader range of questions in relation to planning permit 1204-2015, the intensive goat farm and the milk processing plant. The questions have generally been recorded in Attachment 2, together with the City’s response to those questions.

The Planning Permits and VCAT

1. Nuchev is an Australian-based company specialising in goat milk products, and morespecifically sells a range of goat infant formula products globally. Nuchev intendedto expand its Victorian operations across two separate sites in the City of GreaterGeelong, with a breeding facility already in operation outside this municipality.

2. Nuchev applied for two planning permits as follows:

a. Planning permit application 32-2015 for the proposed use of the land at 715Ballan Road, Moorabool for Intensive Animal Husbandry (Goat Farming),Associated Buildings and Works including Earthworks and CaretakersDwelling (Moorabool Operation).

b. Planning permit application 1204-2015 for the proposed use anddevelopment of the land at 240 Forest Road South, Lara for the use anddevelopment of Land for Intensive Animal Husbandry (Goat Farming), MilkProcessing Plant and Creation of an Access to a Road Zone 1 (LaraOperation).

3. Both planning permit applications were considered at a Planning Committee Meetingof Council on 25 July 2016.


4. With respect to the Lara Operation, notice of the application was undertaken asfollows:

a. A public notice was sent by Council to 252 owners/occupiers of neighbouringand nearby properties to the Lara Operation site (Attachment 3). Theapplication was described as:

USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND FOR INTENSIVE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY (GOAT FARMING), MILK PROCESSING PLANT AND CREATION OF AN ACCESS TO ROAD ZONE 1

b. According to a Statutory Declaration made by the permit applicant on 19October 2015, notices were erected at the proposed Lara Operation site on1 October 2015 and maintained in good condition for 14 days from that date.

c. A notice of the application was inserted in the City News section of theGeelong Independent and the Geelong Advertiser headed “Notice of anApplication for Planning Permit”. The notice appeared in one edition of thenewspapers (Attachment 4).

5. In response to the notices, 56 objections were received. An application was filed withthe Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) by two objectors regarding theproposed planning permit for the Lara Operation. That application was the subject ofa negotiated compulsory conference on 20 February 2017 following which a permitfor the Lara Operation was issued at the direction of VCAT. Of important note, VCATmade the statement that: “(b)ased on the information available to the Tribunal, (it)consider(ed) it (was) appropriate to make these orders.”

6. An application was also filed with VCAT regarding the Moorabool Operation whichwas heard over 13 hearing days. On 10 January 2018, VCAT handed down itsdecision, denying both the planning permit and the EPA works approval for theMoorabool Operation. VCAT described the Moorabool Operation as being “unique”and as being at an intensity that “does not currently exist in Victoria or elsewhere inAustralia.” and stated that the site in question was not incapable or unsuitable ofbeing used for intensive goat farming. Specifically, it said:

“We are unable to approve this proposal in its current form and intensity. However, our decision to refuse both applications should not be taken to mean that this site is completely unsuitable for use as a goat dairy. It may be that our key concerns are matters of detail able to be addressed so that this site can be used for this purpose albeit in a modified lesser format and intensity.”

The petitions and submissions to Council

7. At its meeting on Tuesday 27 February 2018, the following petitions were receivedby Council:

a. a petition of nearly 700 residents from around the Lara area: “opposing (thedevelopment at “240 Forest Road, Lara”) (sic) for the risk of Q Fever, publichealth, the close proximity to suburban developments, traffic, smell and theconfined cruel conditions provided for the goats.”

b. a Change.org petition containing approximately 1770 names from theGeelong area, Australia and world-wide requesting to: “stop the inhumanegoat farm and spread of Q virus to our children”


c. a Change.org petition containing approximately 2112 names from theGeelong area, Australia and world-wide requesting to: “(p)lease help andprotect the residents of Geelong and surrounds as well as other communitiesin the state from inappropriate intensive factory farms and ensure thatsuitable buffer zones are included and owned by the proponents and that thelifestyles, amenity and health of people is protected.”

These petitions were accompanied by a letter from Neil Longmore, Planning Lawyer, dated 20 February 2018 requesting Council make an application under section 87 of the Act to cancel the permit granted for the Lara Operation on three grounds. They are, as quoted:

d. “A material change of circumstances has arisen in that VCAT in Knol v. EPA& Greater Geelong City Council [2018] 33 extensively reviewed the identicalQ Fever risk management measures for a similar intensive goat breedingproposal by Nuchev at Moorabool and found them inadequate (the FirstBasis);

e. For a proposal with health implications for a large number of Lara residents,serious doubts exist as to whether the notice required under section 52 ofthe Act was adequate (the Second Basis); and

f. There are continuing disturbing suggestions circulating that unlawful pressuremay have been applied to the sole objector at the compulsory conference inLeonard v. Greater Geelong City Council [2017] VCAT 282 to induce thatperson to withdraw their objection, leading directly to the grant of the permitwhich foreclosed on all opportunities for a thorough independent VCATexamination of the risks of QFever. As the Tribunal was able to conduct aproper review of QFever risk management for the Moorabool facility leadingto a refusal to grant a permit, the conduct that resulted in consent orders inLeonard may well, at its most charitable, constitute a material mistake inrelation to the grant of the Lara permit under section 87(1)(c) of the Act, if notsomething more serious.” (the Third Basis)

(the Longmore Letter).

8. Technically, the petitions themselves make no request of Council to make anapplication under section 87 of the Act. Only the Longmore letter specifically makesthat request which Mr Longmore says is made “on behalf of No To Nuchev”, anunincorporated association. Despite the inconsistency between the Longmore Letterand the requests contained in the petitions submitted to Council, Officers have takenthe requests made in the Longmore Letter as representing the wishes of allpetitioners.

9. A further letter from AWH Tailored Logistics Solutions (AWH) dated 20 February2018 was also handed to Council at its 27 February 2018 meeting requesting Councilmake an application to VCAT under section 87 of the Act in respect of the LaraOperation. AWH is located at 250 Forest Road South, Lara and is directly adjacentto, and shares a 600 metre boundary with, the proposed Lara Operation site. Thegrounds upon which AWH make their request to Council are identical to the groundsoutlined in the Longmore Letter. Officers advise that AWH were notified of theapplication during the notice period. Council’s records show that AWH did not submitan objection at that time.


Key Issues

Principles

The cancellation of a planning permit by VCAT is a serious step which should not be taken lightly. Previous decisions at VCAT uphold the certainty of permits and the persons acting in accordance with them and highlight the reluctance to use cancellation proceedings as a forum to reopen debate about the decision to grant the permit in the first place. The City understands that VCAT must strike a balance between the unfairness to a permit holder which would result from the cancellation of a permit and the public interest in the cancellation. In Koutroubas & Ors v. Melton Shire Council [2002] VCAT 917, VCAT stated:

“..it must be acknowledged that according fairness to the permit holders itself satisfies a public interest. There is a legitimate public interest in the fair operation of the planning laws. There is a legitimate public interest in the preservation of vested rights and the operation of planning provisions in a way which promotes consistency and the ability of persons in the position of the permit holder to know where they stand.”

VCAT may cancel or amend a planning permit under section 87 of the Act if it considers that there has been, of relevance –

(i) A material misstatement or concealment of fact in relation to the application for the permit; or

(ii) Any material mistake in relation to the grant of the permit; or

(iii) Any material change of circumstances which has occurred since the grant of the permit or

(iv) Any failure to give notice in accordance with the Act.

Observations regarding the First Basis - material change of circumstances

The essence of the First Basis stated in the Longmore Letter was that the conclusion reached by VCAT in its decision regarding the Moorabool Operation should have also applied to the matter regarding the Lara Operation if that matter were properly heard and determined.

The Officers advise that VCAT decisions subsequent to a granting of a permit may constitute a ‘material change of circumstances’ in the exceptional case and only where the decision concerned is a guideline decision, rather than a decision which largely turns on its specific facts.

It is the Officers’ view that VCAT is unlikely to direct the cancellation of the planning permit for the Lara Operation site on this ground because:

o As noted above, VCAT was clear in its reasons for decision that the refusal ofthe planning permit relating to the Moorabool Operation did not mean that thesite was completely unsuitable for use as an intensive goat farm, stating that: “Itmay be that our key concerns are matters of detail able to be addressed so thatthis site can be used for this purpose albeit in a modified lesser form andintensity.”

o VCAT’s decision in respect of the Moorabool Operation was not a decision thatshould generally apply to other cases and was decided upon the particular facts


of the Moorabool Operation (“We are unable to approve this proposal in its current form and intensity”). Further, VCAT described the Moorabool Operation as “unique.” There is no comment made by VCAT as to the weight to be given to the decision in future cases.

Observations regarding the Second Basis – inadequate notice

The Officers have reservations that VCAT would cancel the permit on the basis of material misstatements in public notices because:

o The detail on the notice was adequately and sufficiently clear in regards to theuse and identification of the site. It is not the function of the notice to describein detail the permit being applied for. Previous VCAT decisions have indicatedthat the function of a notice is to alert people to the fact that an application hasbeen made and its general nature. The onus is on those given or seeing thenotice to investigate and ascertain if they are affected by the application andwhether they wish to lodge an objection.

o Officers believe that it could not be argued that notice was inadequate. 252notices were issued to both owners and occupiers of neighbouring and nearbyproperties. Two signs were placed on site and notices were placed in twonewspapers. The Officers believe this exceeds the requirements for noticeunder section 52 of the Act. Apart from the formal notice, the issue waspublicised through social media and newspaper articles.

Observations regarding the Third Basis – undue pressure

The essence of the Third Basis outlined in the Longmore Letter is that Mr Leonard, the sole objector at the VCAT Compulsory Conference regarding the planning permit for the Lara Operation site, may have had undue pressure applied to him. The allegation does not point out who allegedly applied pressure to Mr Leonard nor how the pressure was applied. It is impossible for the City to provide any further comment.

Be that as it may, the Officers do not believe that VCAT would cancel the planning permit for the Lara Operation site based on a material mistake in relation to the granting of that permit arising out of the way the compulsory conference was conducted based on the following facts:

o Mr Leonard volunteered to participate in the compulsory conference;

o The compulsory conference was overseen by a Tribunal appointed mediator;

o Mr Leonard reached a compromise with Council and Nuchev; and

o The Tribunal was satisfied that it was ‘appropriate to make [the] orders”.

Legal and other Costs

The Officers have been informed that the cost to the City to run the section 87 application to hearing at VCAT would be no less than $30,000. This does not include the cost of any expert witnesses that may be required. If the application fails and the City is ordered by VCAT to pay Nuchev’s legal costs, these are estimated at no less than $30,000. The City has been informed that such an application would also tie up considerable City resources.

If VCAT is persuaded to cancel the permit based on a material change of circumstances or misstatement or mistake, the City would be required to pay Nuchev and any other


“person who has incurred expenditure or liability for expenditure” compensation. This is impossible to quantify. Given that the Lara Operations permit was granted in February 2017, the costs that have been expended by others with “vested rights” in the planning permit could be considerable.

Conclusions

Taking all matters into account and on balance, the Officers recommend that Council not proceed with an application under section 87 of the Act in respect of the planning permit for the Lara Operation site.

If the petitioners include persons who objected to the grant of the permit, those persons are empowered by the Act to seek a cancellation of the planning permit at VCAT if they remain dissatisfied with Council’s decision provided they are able to satisfy the criteria set out in section 89 of the Act.

Recommendation

That Council:

1) not proceed with an application under section 87 of the Planning andEnvironment Act 1987 to cancel planning permit 1204-2015 at 240 Forest RoadSouth, Lara; and

2) write to N. Longmore, B. Baker and AWH Tailored Logistics Solutions advisingthem of the outcome of Council’s consideration of the petitions.


Attachment 1

Financial Implications

There are potentially significant financial implications to Council if it chooses to proceed with the section 87 application. Council would be liable for its own legal costs (which have been estimated conservatively at $30,000) and also potentially the costs of all other parties that become involved in the application. In addition, the Tribunal may seek an undertaking from Council to pay compensation. Given that the planning permit was issued in February 2017, Officers cannot determine what losses the permit applicant has incurred since that time which may be claimable against the Council should VCAT cancel the permit.

Community Engagement

Council consulted with the community in accordance with the requirements of the Act by providing direct notice to 252 owners/occupiers of neighbouring and nearby properties to the Lara Operation as part of the planning permit application process. In addition, relevant notices were erected at the Lara Operation site for 14 days and notice of the application was inserted in the City News section of the Geelong Independent and the Geelong Advertiser. In response to that notification, Council received 56 objections to the proposal from the community.

Social Equity Considerations

Concerns regarding community health and amenity have been raised by the community with Council through questions, letters and emails, petitions and submissions. The matters raised by the community were also considered in the application process for the planning permit for 240 Forest Road South, Lara.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The legal implications of making an application under section 87 have been set out in this report. In addition, the Council is subject to the model litigant guidelines in relation to any legal proceedings it participates in.

Alignment to City Plan

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest in the preparation of this report. This report has been authored by Council officers not involved in the original assessment and subsequent VCAT appeal process.

Risk Assessment

The risks of proceeding with an application under section 87 of the Act have been set out in this report. The risks associated with the planning permit were considered at the time of the permit application and subsequent VCAT compulsory conference.

Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications arising from Council’s decision to accept the recommendations that are the subject of this report.


ATTACHMENT 2

PROPOSED INTENSIVE GOAT FARMING AND MILK PROCESSING PLANT

240 FOREST ROAD SOUTH, LARA

ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

COUNCIL ADVICE

1. Historically, how successful have section 87 proceedings been at VCAT?

Section 87 applications are legal and technical in nature and each proceeding is basedon its own merits according to known legal tests. Accordingly, the number ofsuccessful/unsuccessful applications brought before VCAT in the past will have nobearing on the outcome of any future section 87 applications.

In any event, on our research, since 2000, there are no known applications where VCAThas heard and determined to cancel a permit under section 87.

LOCATION

2. Is the site properly zoned for an intensive goat farm and milk processing plant?

The site is zoned for farming, which aims to provide for the use of land for agriculture andencourages the retention of employment and population to support rural communities.

A goat farm and a milk processing plant are permitted uses in the Farming Zone,provided there is a planning permit issued for those uses and the permit holder meetsany conditions imposed through the permit.

Council as the responsible planning authority, is required to consider all applications for aplanning permit that are made to it, and this includes an assessment of the applicationagainst the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

3. The Lara Structure Plan clearly shows that the Industrial 2 Zone further to the

south is for potentially polluting industries. The buffer zone between is intended to

keep the township of Lara and its residents healthy. Is it reasonable to put a goat

farm here?

The Lara Structure Plan nominates 240 Forest Road South, Lara to be within an area tobe used as a buffer of ‘non-sensitive land uses’ between the Geelong Ring RoadEmployment Precinct and the Lara township.

The buffer nominated in the Lara Structure Plan does not preclude applications beingconsidered that are allowable in a Farming Zone.

The assessment of whether a goat farm is reasonable from a public health perspectivewas considered as part of the planning permit application, with advice sought from theVictorian Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). DHHS was satisfied, thatas long as the proposed risk management plan was implemented, there would be noincreased risk of Q Fever in the community from the use.

4. If this development goes ahead, doesn’t it set a precedent for industrial operations

to be placed on any farming zoned land in the City of Greater Geelong?


The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme sets out uses and activities that are allowed without a permit, that require a permit or that are prohibited on all land in Greater Geelong.

Any land use that requires a permit is assessed on a case by case basis, on its merits and consistent with the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. Accordingly, this development would not set a precedent for this type of use in a farming zone.

Broadly speaking, residential uses go into residential zones, industrial uses go into industrial zones, commercial uses go into commercial zones and farming uses into farming zones.

All planning permit applications are assessed on their suitability for the zone.

The use of a goat farm is defined in the planning scheme as “intensive animal husbandry”, with the use being more broadly included under “rural industry”. This use is considered appropriate in a farming zone with a planning permit.

Similarly, the land use “milk processing plant”, is defined as “rural industry”, and is considered appropriate in a farming zone with a planning permit.

It’s not uncommon for rural industry uses to be located in a farming zone.

5. How can an intensive farming and milk processing facility be approved for a

location so close to the residential area of Lara?

In considering the application for a planning permit, Council must take into account the zoning of the site and relevant planning policies.

A milk processing plant is required to be located at least 300 metres from land in a residential zone or education centre.

The location of a processing plant at 240 Forest Road South, Lara meets this required distance.

Council’s assessment of whether the land use was appropriate in terms of its location took into consideration matters such as odour, noise and traffic.

The conditions of the planning permit outline requirements in relation to Q Fever management, odour control, noise levels, delivery hours and hours of operation for management activities associated with the use.

6. Why isn’t the goat farm located somewhere else, like the Golden Plains Food

Production Precinct?

Council must respond to, and assess, each application it receives on its merits in line with the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, on the site it is being proposed on. Planning permits attach to the land which is the subject of the permit.

Council cannot direct an applicant that a particular land use would be better located somewhere else as part of assessing the planning permit application.

It is not mandatory that all intensive agricultural land uses in the region be located in the Golden Plains Food Production Precinct.


THE PROPOSAL

7. What is being proposed for the site?

The planning permit allows for use of the site for milk processing and goat farming.

The planning scheme definition for this use is “intensive animal husbandry” and “ruralindustry”.

A purpose-built building to house goats is proposed, measuring 214 metres by 139metres, with an open side and a height of 7.5 metres.

A milk processing plant is also proposed to be built which will have a maximum roofheight of 27 metres. This building includes four 13 metre high refrigerated milk silos anda connected office building.

8. Are the buildings too big and dominating for the site and the local area?

The buildings have been assessed against the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, whichincludes design and siting issues under the Farming Zone.

The planning scheme does not have prescriptive guidelines on the size of buildings in theFarming Zone.

A planning assessment, which considered the surrounding area, the location of thebuildings and proposed landscaping to provide a screen along the boundary, determinedthat the proposed buildings were reasonable for the site.

9. When will the goat farm and milk processing plant operate?

The conditions of the planning permit allow for:

• Management activities associated with the use to only occur between 4am and 11pm.

• Deliveries to and from the site to only occur between:

� 6am and 10pm, Monday to Saturday

� 7am and 6pm, Sunday

CONSULTATION

10. Was the Lara community notified about the original planning permit application for

240 Forest Road South, Lara?

Council wrote to 252 landowners and occupiers about the application, notices wereplaced in the City News section of the Geelong Independent and Saturday GeelongAdvertiser (as well as being made public on Council’s website) and two signs wereplaced on the site, one on Forest Road South and one on Broderick Road.

Local newspapers ran a number of articles about the application prior to any decisionbeing made.

56 people submitted objections to the planning application.

11. How could so many people be so unaware of the original planning application?


Public notification of the application complied with the Act.

There were a number of articles published in the local media about the proposal prior to the Council making a decision.

The number of objections submitted indicates that there was knowledge of the applications within the surrounding community.

12. Was the community consultation of the original planning application inadequate?

Community consultation was adequate and complied with the requirements of the Act.

The Act sets out how community consultation is to be undertaken. It states that noticemust be given to owners and occupiers of lots adjoining the land to which the applicationapplies.

The City’s consultation, including advertising and sending and displaying notices, wasundertaken in line with the requirements of the Act.

On Saturday 20 May 2015, Nuchev undertook its own community consultation, whichwas prior to lodging the application with Council.

Two open house events were held by Nuchev at the Lara Community Centre and AnakieCommunity House to share proposed plans and hear from the locals.

Local media coverage also raised community awareness of the application.

PLANNING APPLICATION ASSESSMENT

13. Did Council and the Administrators have all the information and experience

needed to make an informed decision on the Lara planning application?

The Administrators made a decision on the planning permit application for 240 ForestRoad South, Lara on 25 July 2016.

A detailed planning report was prepared by the City’s officers, with input from DHHS, theEnvironment Protection Authority (EPA) and others. This was provided to theAdministrators to inform their decision.

The report provided an assessment of the planning permit application in line with theGreater Geelong Planning Scheme. The Administrators had all of the relevant informationrequired for them to make a fully informed decision.

Objectors’ concerns, including the risk of Q Fever, were considered as part of the originalapplication and on review through a subsequent VCAT appeal process.

At a VCAT compulsory conference on 20 February 2017 it was agreed between allparties, including objectors, that the planning permit be granted with some variations tothe permit conditions.

These variations included a requirement that a risk management plan for Q Fever, tomitigate the risk and manage Q Fever if detected, must be approved by the EPA andDHHS prior to submission to Council.

Q FEVER RISK & MONITORING


14. Why don’t VCAT’s concerns about Q Fever risk management at Moorabool apply to

Lara?

A Works Approval from the EPA was required for the Moorabool operation as it proposed to accommodate more than 5,000 goats.

Given the proposed intensity of the Moorabool operation, the DHHS required an Infection Control Management Plan to be incorporated within the Q fever risk management plan under the EPA Works Approval.

It was determined through the VCAT hearing that the Works Approval would not have ongoing obligations once the farm was established and that no licence was required under the EPA. The only approval which had ongoing obligations would be the planning permit.

In making its decision the tribunal noted that the Moorabool site may well be appropriate for the proposed use but not at the proposed scale of 14,000 goats. VCAT’s decision regarding the Moorabool operation was made on facts specific to that operation.

VCAT’s decision does not set a precedent for other similar cases.

15. Is the Lara community being exposed to an unacceptable risk of Q Fever if the

Nuchev goat farm goes ahead?

The City relies on the expertise of the DHHS for management of disease such as Q Fever. The application was referred to the DHHS for its comment.

DHHS requested that the applicant prepare a revised Q Fever risk assessment for 240 Forest Road South, Lara.

A DHHS report concluded that if adopted “the risk management measures proposed are expected to ensure that the risk of operating on these sites presents, at worst, no higher risk of human infection in the surrounding area that the current background level within the state”.

The DHHS was satisfied that that there would be no increased risk of Q Fever in the community as long as the risk management plan was implemented.

16. How will the risk of Q Fever be managed on site?

A risk management plan is required to be submitted as a condition of the planning permit for the site at 240 Forest Road South, Lara.

The condition requires that the risk management plan must have been approved by the EPA and the DHHS before it’s submitted to Council.

As a condition of the planning permit, the applicant will be required to meet a range of risk management measures in order to ensure ongoing management of Q fever.

The condition on the planning permit also requires biannual reporting to Council on the implementation of the risk management plan.

17. Who will be monitoring Q Fever at the Lara goat farm?

A Q Fever risk management plan is required to be submitted to Council for endorsement as a condition of the planning permit.


The plan must be approved by the EPA and the DHHS.

The planning permit condition requires that the use must at all times be conducted in accordance with the endorsed risk management plan to the satisfaction of Council.

The condition on the planning permit also requires biannual reporting to Council on the implementation of the risk Q Fever management plan.

18. It is reported that Q Fever can be fatal to immune-suppressed residents and

vaccinations have high egg protein and are not recommended for children under

15. How can residents be confident they will be safe?

Council has relied on specialist advice from the DHHS in relation to the assessment of the Q fever risks associated with the planning permit.

The advice provided to Council from the DHHS, was that the department was satisfied that there would be no increased risk of Q Fever in the community as long as the risk management plan was implemented.

19. What happens if Q fever breaks out on the site?

Q Fever is a notifiable disease.

Any outbreak at the site would be reported to the DHHS and managed by the PrincipalMedical Adviser to the Chief Health Officer.

A DHHS Communicable Disease Officer would lead the investigation and Council wouldprovide assistance where required.

20. VCAT rejected the Moorabool proposal on the grounds of undue risk of potential

Q-fever transmission (and wastewater issues), why didn’t it reject the Lara goat

farm?

The Moorabool proposal was not rejected on the grounds of undue risk of potential Qfever.

An appeal was lodged at VCAT by objectors (a joint application which included sixobjectors) against Council’s decision to support the proposal for 240 Forest Road South,Lara.

At the VCAT compulsory conference on 20 February 2017 it was agreed between allparties (applicant, objector, residents and Council) that the planning permit be grantedwith some variations to the permit conditions.

The variations to the permit conditions strengthened the conditions to require that the QFever risk management plan must be approved by the EPA and DHHS prior tosubmission to Council.

AMENITY IMPACTS

21. Won’t the goat farm be smelly?

The planning permit requires that an odour model be submitted to and approved byCouncil prior to the operation commencing.

The odour model requires that odour does not impact on the residential area to the north.


Any odour must be contained within the surrounding land zoned Industrial, Special Use and Farming.

Council will investigate any alleged breaches and undertake enforcement of planning permit conditions as required.

22. Won’t the goat farm create too much traffic for the local roads?

The traffic generated by the goat farm is expected to be absorbed within the existing roadnetwork.

VicRoads, as the roads authority for Forest Road South, has provided conditions whichare included in the planning permit in relation to access to and from the site on ForestRoad South, including the provision of turning lanes.

Attachment 3

Attachment 4


2. STATE GOVERNMENT OF VICTORIA - COUNTRY FOOTBALL ANDNETBALL PROGRAM

Source: Community Life - Social Planning & Investment Director: Linda Quinn Index Reference: Sport & Recreation Grants & Funding - Incoming

Purpose

To seek Council endorsement to develop an application to the state government’s Country Football and Netball Program (CFNP).

Background

Each year, the state government allocates funding for sport and recreation projects through a number of grant programs.

The Country Football and Netball Funding Program (CFNP) aims to improve football and netball facilities in rural, regional and outer metropolitan areas through funding for infrastructure developments.

Applications opened on 24 January 2018 and must be submitted to Sport & Recreation Victoria (SRV) by 12 April 2018.

Key Issues

• Sport & Recreation Victoria has presented Councils with a second opportunity forfunding support which reflects the tight deadlines for submission.

• Following an assessment of the five (5) Expressions of Interests received, theupgrade to the Grovedale Football Netball Club change rooms, located at BurdooReserve Grovedale, is the recommended project for submission to SRV. This projecthas the greatest alignment to Council priorities and the CFNP funding criteria.

• As the recommended project is requesting a contribution of $100,000 from thefunding program, only one application will be submitted by Council.

• The total project cost is $390,000 and the project will require a Council contributionof $260,000, with the Grovedale Football Club contributing $30,000.

• This project has been given priority as it was able to demonstrate the need for thefacility upgrade in order to support female participation in football. The club hasrecently expanded to include four female teams in season 2018, and at present thefacility does not provide suitable change facilities to support continued growth inwomen’s participation.

• An assessment of the projects submitted identified this project as being most alignedwith the G21 and AFL Barwon Regional Strategy. Both strategies have beenendorsed by Council.

Recommendation

That Council:

1) endorses the development of a submission to Sport & Recreation Victoria’sCountry Football and Netball Program for the upgrade to the GrovedaleFootball Netball Club change rooms;

2) refers the proposed Council contribution of $260,000 to the 2018/19 Budget forconsideration. Noting that should this application be unsuccessful, Councilcontribution will not be required.


Attachment 1

Discussion

The Country Football and Netball Funding Program (CFNP)

The Country Football and Netball Funding Program (CFNP) opened on 24 January, 2018 and closes on 12 April, 2018. Only rural, regional and outer metropolitan councils can apply for the funding, so clubs and associations must submit an Expression of Interest on their projects to Council. The maximum grant amount available is $100,000 per Council. Council is eligible to submit up to three (3) applications that total the maximum funding amount. Information on the Country Football and Netball Program can be found at: http://sport.vic.gov.au/grants-and-funding/our-grants/country-football-and-netball-program. The CFNP guidelines are included at attachment 2.

Over the years, Council has submitted a number of applications to this fund for consideration. In the past five years, four out of five applications have been successful. The details of the last four successful applications are; 2014/15 Leopold Memorial Reserve – netball change rooms CFN - $100,000, External contributions - $600,000, Council - $455,000 2016/17 Anakie Reserve – unisex umpire change rooms CFN - $100,000, Council - $1.077M 2017/18 Winter Reserve – unisex change rooms CFN - $100,000, External contributions - $702,000, Council - $348,000 2018/19 (Round 1) Richmond Crescent Reserve – unisex umpire change rooms CFN - $100,000, Council - $331,000

Grovedale Football Netball Club Stage 1 Change Room Upgrade

The project that has been identified as the preferred application with greatest community benefit and chance of success is the Grovedale Football Netball Club Stage 1 change room upgrade

This project will deliver Stage 1 of the change room upgrade at Burdoo Reserve. The project will provide modern, welcoming and gender neutral change facilities. This facility upgrade will support 500+ participants currently engaged at the Club along with their growing female football membership base Female football at the Club has grown to include four teams in season 2018, and at present the facility does not provide suitable change facilities that can support this growth. This development will assist in delivering a facility that aligns with the AFL facility guidelines for unisex use and is supported by the G21 and AFL Barwon Regional Strategy which rates the current condition of the change facility as 3/10 (poor to very poor) .



Should the funding submission to SRV be successful, Council will be expected to make a commitment to the project in the 2018-19 financial year. The minimum funding ratio for this program is $1.5 State: $1 Local.

2018-19 Budget – total Council contribution required $260,000.

Proposed income:

Funding Source Confirmed Amount

Country Football Netball Program N $100,000

Council contribution 2018/19 N $260,000

Grovedale Football Netball Club Y $30,000

Total income/total project cost $390,000


Following the state government opening the grant applications on 24 January, 2018 Council advertised and opened an Expression of Interest (EOI) which called on submissions from all football and netball clubs within the municipality. Football and netball clubs were contacted directly advising them of the new funding round. The EOI process ran from Friday 9 February, 2018 to Wednesday 21 February, 2018. Five (5) Expressions of Interest were received and evaluated.

During the evaluation process, EOIs were assessed against the CFNP Guidelines (Attachment 2) along with Council’s budget drivers and the Our Future Community Indicators. Alignment to supporting strategies such as the G21 AFL Barwon Strategy were also considered. Discussions were held with local SRV and AFL Barwon representatives to ensure both had a level of comfort with the proposal. The assessment of applications can be found at attachment 3.


The proposed project will support growth in female football across the municipality and within the Grovedale Football Netball Club. The current facility cannot accommodate female participation due to being outdated and not aligning with modern standards and expectations. This project will provide a gender neutral facility that is compliant and appropriate for females.


There are no legislative or legal ramifications associated with the adoption of this report.


The recommended project aligns to the City Plan’s priority of Community Wellbeing along with the City’s Clever and Creative vision through the Inclusive, Diverse, Healthy and Socially Connected Communities. This project will encourage healthy lifestyles and connected communities through active recreation and participation in sport.



No officer has any known indirect or direct conflict of interest in the preparation of this report.

Risk Assessment

There are no immediate risks associated with this report. A component of the project will entail relevant risk management and Occupational Health & Safety assessments.


There are no foreseeable environmental implications associated with this report. Environmentally sustainable design initiatives will be incorporated into the design where practicable.

Country Football and Netball Program

2016-2020

Guidelines

Attachment 2

Authorised and published by the Victorian Government, 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne.

© State of Victoria, January 2018

Accessibility

To receive this publication in an accessible format, please contact the Grants Information Line on 1300 366 356, using the National Relay Service 13 36 77 if required.

Available at www.sport.vic.gov.au/grants

(1607027)

Country Football and Netball Program –2016-2020

Message from the Minister for Sport, John Eren

The Victorian Government is proud to continue our partnership with funding partners the AFL, AFL Victoria and Netball Victoria through the Country Football and Netball Program. The program is aimed at helping country football and netball clubs, and clubs on the metropolitan fringe, who may be struggling with outdated, overused or non-compliant facilities. Grants of up to $100,000 are available for projects that improve facilities, including new or redeveloped change rooms, installation of improved turf, drainage and irrigation, new or upgraded netball courts or installation of sports lighting for courts or ovals. Better sport and recreation facilities go a long way to encouraging future football and netball players, coaches, officials and supporters of all abilities to participate in their local club and make it easier for the rest of the community to join in the fun and benefit from healthy and active lifestyles. Better sport and recreation facilities allow clubs to draw bigger crowds, bringing them vital revenue. Having modern facilities also helps clubs attract new players from near and afar. For many years, country football and netball clubs have been bringing people together to share their love of sport and community. I’m confident by working together we can bring new life to country football and netball, the heart and soul of regional Victoria. I look forward to seeing new and exciting projects benefitting even more Victorians as part of the Country Football and Netball Program. Hon John Eren MP Minister for Sport

Contents

Message from the Minister for Sport, John Eren .................................................................................... 3

1. About the Country Football and Netball Program............................................................................... 5

1.1 What is the Country Football and Netball Program? .............................................................................. 5

1.2 Why is the Victorian Government, the AFL, AFL Victoria and Netball Victoria funding these

grants? .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

2. Who can apply? ...................................................................................................................................... 5

3. What types of activities might be funded? .......................................................................................... 6

3.1 What will not be funded? ........................................................................................................................ 7

3.2 Past Performance ................................................................................................................................... 8

4. Partnership approach ............................................................................................................................ 9

5. What are the funding details? ............................................................................................................... 9

6. What is the application process? ....................................................................................................... 10

6.1. Process for clubs ................................................................................................................................. 10

6.2. Process for councils ............................................................................................................................ 10

7. How will applications be assessed? .................................................................................................. 11

7.1 Assessment Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 12

7.2 Information you will need to provide as part of your application .......................................................... 13

8. Conditions that apply to applications and funding ........................................................................... 14

8.1 Acknowledging the government’s support and promoting success ..................................................... 15

8.2 Payments .............................................................................................................................................. 16

9. Resources and additional information ............................................................................................... 16

Country Football Netball Program Guidelines Page 5

1. About the Country Football and Netball Program

1.1 What is the Country Football and Netball Program?

The Country Football and Netball Program provides funding to assist grassroots country football and netball clubs, associations and umpiring organisations to develop facilities in rural, regional and outer metropolitan locations.

1.2 Why is the Victorian Government, the AFL, AFL Victoria and Netball Victoria funding these grants?

The Country Football and Netball Program is a response to the Parliamentary Rural and Regional Services and Development Committee’s Inquiry into Country Football Report, tabled in State Parliament in December 2004.

Improving football and netball facilities in rural, regional and outer metropolitan areas will support the regional and rural way of life and ensure the sustainability of country football and netball into the future.

2. Who can apply?

Only rural, regional and outer metropolitan councils can apply directly to Sport and Recreation Victoria. Country football and netball clubs, associations and umpiring organisations can register their interest in applying for funding by submitting an Expression of Interest to their local council. Clubs and associations are advised to contact their local council about timelines for Expressions of Interest. Councils then review and select the Expressions of Interest they wish to endorse, and submit full applications to Sport and Recreation Victoria for consideration. Applications for the 2018-2019 funding round open on 24 January 2018. Applications close on 12 April 2018. Clubs and associations are encouraged to contact their council regarding local arrangements in accepting Expression of Interest.

Country Football Netball Program Guidelines

3. What types of activities might be funded?

Improving participation outcomes is a key objective of the program. Applications must clearly demonstrate how the project will improve participation outcomes. Specifically proposals should demonstrate how the project:

• will increase or maintain participation • encourages participation by females, juniors, people living in growth areas and

communities experiencing disadvantage • improves the health and wellbeing of the community • caters for non-traditional participants • collaborates with AFL Victoria, Netball Victoria or relevant peak bodies • encourages development of multi-use, shared and co-located facilities • improves or implements Environmentally Sustainable Design • applies or demonstrates principles of Universal Design.

Examples of potential projects include: • modifying existing football and netball facilities to improve usage and access such

as: o unisex change room facilities and amenities for players and umpires o multi-purpose meeting spaces catering for community and education

programs. • development or upgrading football and netball playing surfaces • development or upgrading of football or netball lighting. Smaller scale local level projects are encouraged and will be looked at favourably as part of this program. All project applications will be assessed against the Country Football and Netball Program eligibility and assessment criteria. Councils must discuss their project proposals with a Sport and Recreation Victoria representative before submitting applications. Other considerations: • councils must make timely contact with AFL Victoria and Netball Victoria

representatives to discuss project ideas, seek their input into the planning and design of facilities and participation/programming initiatives

• projects must meet the relevant standards (for example, lighting projects should comply with Australian standards for the respective sport and playing surface dimensions)

• councils should incorporate Universal Design principles and environmentally sustainable design into projects


• councils are encouraged to explore funding models that demonstrate stakeholder

commitment to the project • facilities planned in functional, self-contained stages are eligible

• projects on private land are eligible, but will be subject to the establishment of a

legally binding agreement between the organisation and local council to ensure ongoing public access. Such proposals should demonstrate evidence of a legally binding agreement

• projects on school land are eligible subject to a completed Community Joint Use Proposal (to the Department of Education and Training) which is completed by the applicant and the school. (Schools can access this document from the Department of Education and Training website.) Applicants must allow sufficient time to complete this document and obtain the necessary endorsement from the Department of Education and Training at both the regional office and central office

• proposals may include project management fees of up to 5 per cent of the total project cost

• councils wanting to undertake detailed Design and Construct projects are eligible. Councils will need to demonstrate appropriate levels of planning and are still required to submit schematic designs and costings with full applications.

3.1 What will not be funded?

The Country Football and Netball Program will not fund the following activities: • projects where contributions from funding partners are not confirmed

• facilities where tenants are not adhering to the Victorian Code of Conduct for

Community Sport

• requests for retrospective funding, where projects have commenced or are completed prior to receiving funding approval (includes, but is not limited to, construction, site clearing, earthworks and building works)

• projects that do not strongly meet the assessment and eligibility criteria

• projects that do not meet the objectives of the program • projects that do not meet the relevant Australian standards (for example, lighting

projects) • applications from organisations other than councils • the purchase of land


• projects that require ongoing funding or support other than the initial grant • routine or cyclical maintenance works to existing facilities

• facilities where little or no public access is available

• facilities designated for electronic gaming machine operations. In addition,

applications where the recipient organisation/s receive revenue from electronic gaming machines will generally be given a lower priority

• repair of facilities damaged by vandalism, fire or other natural disasters where the

damage should be covered by insurance

• requests for ongoing operational costs such as, but not limited to, salaries, electricity, water and other utilities

• requests for the purchase of recreation, entertainment, sporting, maintenance or any other equipment, community transport or any other type of vehicle

• upgrading or redeveloping kitchen facilities and/or toilet facilities, except as part of a larger project that meets the objectives of the funding program

• projects previously funded by Sport and Recreation Victoria, unless applicants can demonstrate additional or new uses resulting in increased or innovative participation/programming outcomes

• the replacement of like-for-like surfaces (for example, netball hard-court replaced with a similar hard-court surface) will not be considered a priority to receive funding unless it can be demonstrated that additional uses are proposed and/or a multi-purpose element is included. Exceptional circumstances may be considered where a safety and/or standard/compliance issue is evident

• projects that do not support the principles of Universal Design and Environmentally

Sustainable Design.

3.2 Past Performance

In finalising decisions on the allocation of funding for the Country Football and Netball Program, Sport and Recreation Victoria will review an applicant’s past performance and assess whether this is likely to have an impact on the successful delivery of a future project. Poor past performance will be taken into account when assessing applications and may be reason for projects not being supported. This assessment will include consideration of whether:

• organisations have taken the appropriate steps to implement any previous projects funded by Sport and Recreation Victoria (within appropriate timeframes)


• organisations have overdue projects funded by Sport and Recreation Victoria and whether they have requested a variation

• organisations have completed projects funded by Sport and Recreation Victoria

and whether they have submitted acquittal documentation.

4. Partnership approach

To strengthen the potential outcomes from the Country Football and Netball Program for communities, councils are required to engage Sport and Recreation Victoria, AFL Victoria and Netball Victoria as early as possible to develop proposals that strongly align with the fund. This includes engaging with Sport and Recreation Victoria, AFL Victoria and Netball Victoria in the development of a project, rather than just in the development of an application. Sport and Recreation Victoria will provide guidance on how project ideas or proposals align with the fund prior to developing an application. Once funded, projects are required to fulfil specific obligations to maintain funding commitments to projects. These obligations are outlined in the Funding Agreements. Project Managers are required to be familiar with these obligations.

5. What are the funding details?

Councils may be successful in receiving up to $100,000 per financial year. This can comprise of one large project seeking $100,000 or up to three smaller projects across different sites. Sport and Recreation Victoria funding towards total project costs (excluding GST) will be based on the following ratios:

Funding available Local government authority Funding Ratios

Up to $100,000***

Councils may be

successful in receiving the total maximum

funding of $100,000 consisting of up to three applications per financial

year.

Greater Dandenong, Kingston, Frankston*

SRV $1:$1 local

Mornington Peninsula, Nillumbik, Yarra Ranges, Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong

SRV $1.5:$1 local

Cardinia, Casey, Hume, Melton, Mitchell, Whittlesea, Wyndham

SRV $2:$1 local

Rural SRV $2:$1 local

Smaller projects that achieve the objectives of this program are encouraged and will be highly regarded.


6. What is the application process?

There are some important steps to consider before submitting an application to the Country Football and Netball Program.

6.1. Process for clubs

Only local councils are able to submit applications directly to Sport and Recreation Victoria. Clubs and organisations can seek to access this funding by completing an Expression of Interest for Community Organisations form and forward it to their respective council. Any clubs wishing to discuss a project should contact their local council who will provide further advice.

6.2. Process for councils Step 1: Check your eligibility Only councils can apply directly to Sport and Recreation Victoria for funding. Step 2: Councils should discuss their activity idea with Sport and Recreation Victoria, AFL Victoria and Netball Victoria representatives Step 3: Apply using Grants Online To apply, go to www.sport.vic.gov.au/grants Make sure you have the information you need to apply on hand, including required documents, and click on ‘Apply online’ to submit your application through Grants Online. You will receive an Application Number when you submit an application online. Please quote your Application Number in all correspondence relating to your application.

***Consideration will be given to claiming in-kind expenses to a maximum of 50 per cent of the total project cost.

*Clubs competing in leagues affiliated with AFL Victoria Country are eligible to apply.


7. How will applications be assessed?

A Country Football and Netball Program Steering Committee has been formed to oversee this program including the assessment of applications. The committee comprises representatives from Sport and Recreation Victoria, Regional Development Victoria, Australian Football League (AFL), AFL Victoria and Netball Victoria.

There are a number of common features in successful applications. Good applications are well planned, involve relevant stakeholder consultation and are clear about what they are aiming to achieve. Answering each of the Assessment Criteria questions will help applicants develop a more thorough project proposal. Grant applications will be assessed against the Country Football and Netball Program Assessment Criteria and the required documents set out in this section.

Applications must also provide all the relevant supporting documentation to secure grant funding. The application form asks for a description of the project, response to the assessment criteria and an explanation of the outcomes. For example, questions about project development, strategic justification, stakeholder engagement and participation outcomes are incorporated under the Assessment Criteria section. The percentage weightings allocated to each criterion represent the importance of the different weighting Sport and Recreation Victoria will use to assess project applications.

Submitting your application online through Grants Online ensures it is received by Sport and Recreation Victoria immediately and can be processed in the most efficient way. If you need assistance with applying online, please call the Grants Information Line on 1300 366 356 or email [email protected] between 8.30am – 5pm weekdays. All supporting documentation can be emailed to [email protected] copying in your Sport and Recreation Victoria representative. When you submit your application online using the grants online system you will receive an application number. Please quote your Application Number in the subject line of your email. Attach all documents to one email, zipping the files if required. You can also send attachments on a CD or USB, quoting your application number, to: Community Facilities Group Sport and Recreation Victoria Department of Health and Human Services GPO Box 4057 Melbourne, Victoria 3001.


7.1 Assessment Criteria

Project Development

30%

Clearly identify the project scope, methodology and how proposed outcomes will be completed within a prescribed timeframe.

Include site specific schematic plans (developed with stakeholder input including Sport and Recreation Victoria, Netball Victoria and AFL Victoria) and describe how safety, risk management, Universal Design Principles and Environmentally Sustainable Design has been incorporated into the proposed project.

Include evidence of project costing, quotations/internal cost estimates

Include confirmation of funding sources and contributions (both financial and in-kind) with evidence detailing level and type of in-kind contribution provided.

Include project costs provided by a certified quantity surveyor, tender price or independent qualified expert for projects with a total project cost of more than $500,000 (excluding GST).

Strategic Justification

20%

Why is this project required? Describe how it responds to identified community needs, issues and addresses a gap in local facilities.

Provide evidence of how the project is strategically supported by local or regional planning and/or AFL Victoria or Netball Victoria planning.

Stakeholder Engagement

10%

What are the outcomes of the consultation undertaken with project stakeholders including Sport and Recreation Victoria, AFL Victoria, Netball Victoria, clubs/leagues, associations, Regional Sports Assemblies and community groups.

Will the project be managed by an appropriately qualified team?

Participation Outcomes

40%

Describe how the project improves (or in certain cases maintains) participation in country football and netball. As a result of the project, what will be the additional participation and programming outcomes? Please provide support letters that clearly state how each partner will benefit from the project.

Describe any additional programming opportunities identified and planned


to increase (or in certain cases maintain) participation.

How does the project encourage the broadest possible community participation in football and netball activities, social connection and health and wellbeing.

Considers multi-use and improves the quality and range of football and netball opportunities.

Demonstrate how this project or the broader facility promotes gender equity through Council policies and facility management plans.

7.2 Information you will need to provide as part of your application

Please submit the following mandatory documentation with your application.

All applications � Site specific plan/aerial map showing location of proposed project � Schematic Plans (site specific) developed with AFL Victoria and Netball Victoria,

Sport and Recreation Victoria and stakeholder input (generic plans or plans from previous projects will not be accepted)

� Lighting Plans including lux charts that are site specific (for projects incorporating lighting)

� Quotes, internal cost estimates �

� Quantity survey, tender price or independent qualified expert report for projects only over $500,000 (excluding GST)

� Evidence of confirmation of funding sources (e.g. council report confirming contribution, letter from council CEO or club bank statements)

� Completed in-kind and voluntary labour support form (if applicable) � Letters of support from organisations that clearly indicate how the group will either

support or benefit from the project (as described in the ‘What’ section of the assessment criteria)

� Detailed Schedule of Use � Project Management Framework � Letters of support from organisations that clearly indicate how the group will either

support or benefit from the project (as described in the ‘What’ section of the

Assessment Criteria).

� Project Management Framework.

� Relevant sections of council reports/plans/strategies/community consultation to

support the project (please do not attach entire documents).

� Technical and/or Access Audits (where available).

� Completed Victorian Code of Conduct for Community Sport Form for Tenants from

all clubs that are tenants of the facility.

� A legally binding land-use agreement for projects located on private land.

� For those projects located on school land, a completed Joint Use Agreement, or a completed Community Joint Use Proposal to enter into a Community Joint Use


Agreement, plus a letter from the Department of Education and Training that indicates endorsement of the project at both the regional office and central office level

� Where applicable attach evidence that the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Aboriginal Heritage Planning Tool has been completed to determine if a Cultural Heritage Management Plan is required for the project. The Aboriginal Heritage Planning Tool can be accessed at www.dpc.vic.gov.au/index.php/aboriginal-affairs/aboriginal-affairs-overview

�

8. Conditions that apply to applications and funding

Successful applicants must enter into a Funding Agreement with Department of Health and Human Services. Funding Agreements establish the parties and outline their commitments and obligations to each other, as well as setting out the general funding terms and conditions. It is recommended that applications review the Department of Health and Human Services standard terms and conditions before applying. It is recommended that you view the terms and conditions available at www.sport.vic.gov.au

• A Schedule is required to be executed (signed) by both parties. The Schedule sets out the: – activity details – funding amounts – agreed actions and payments – reporting requirements – acknowledgement and publicity requirements – other activity specific requirements – notices.

• Funds must be spent on the project as described in the application and outlined in the Schedule, unless changes are agreed to in writing.

• Successful applicants will have 18 months to complete the project. • The facility tenant club(s) or association(s) are expected to adhere to the Victorian

Code of Conduct for Community Sport. The Victorian Code of Conduct for Community Sport – Forms for Tenants must be completed and signed by each facility tenant club and submitted with the Full Application to Sport and Recreation Victoria. Applications without this form will not be considered for funding. More information about the Victorian Code of Conduct for Community Sport can be obtained from www.sport.vic.gov.au/

• A request to vary the timing or scope of an approved project must be discussed with your Sport and Recreation Victoria representative before submitting your request or commencing new works. Variation approval is at Sport and Recreation Victoria’s discretion and may lead to a reduction or cancellation of the grant depending on the change in scope.

• Councils must inform the participating organisation(s), where applicable, of all funding arrangements and obligations in relation to the grant allocation. This includes ensuring the funded project does not commence prior to the endorsement of the Schedule.


• Councils are obliged to liaise with Sport and Recreation Victoria on the progress of funded projects, as requested throughout the life of projects as outlined in the Schedule.

• A local government officer must be designated to manage the project and provide information to the department according to the following key reporting requirements: – a Project Management Framework** must be completed and submitted with the

application for all projects – through a process of appropriate engagement in the governance of a project,

councils must secure Sport and Recreation Victoria’s endorsement of key documents such as schematic plans and architectural/planning briefs prior to work commencing. Projects must not commence or be tendered until endorsement is provided. Sport and Recreation Victoria may not make milestone payments if endorsement is not secured in a timely manner

– councils must provide project acquittal documentation as required – councils are expected to guarantee the cash flow payments towards works where

a community organisation is providing funding contributions for a project. • Successful applicants will be required to contribute information on activity outcomes

for use in outcomes reporting, program evaluation reviews or Department of Health and Human Services publications, 12 months after project acquittal.

**A Project Management Framework is a statement/spreadsheet that includes the name of the local government officer responsible for the project, project activities and project timelines. The Project Management Framework Fact Sheet, along with a basic Project Management Framework template, can be obtained from www.sport.vic.gov.au/grants

8.1 Acknowledging the Victorian Government’s support and promoting success

Successful applicants need to acknowledge the Victorian Government, the AFL, AFL Victoria and Netball Victoria’s support through the provision of a grant from the Country Football and Netball Program. Acknowledgement and publicity guidelines form part of the Funding Agreement and include the requirement that all activities acknowledge Victorian Government, the AFL, AFL Victoria and Netball Victoria’s support through logo presentation on any activity-related publications, media releases, promotional material and placement of a permanent Victorian Government endorsed sign/plaque at the site during construction and upon completed of infrastructure activities. The Minister for Sport is to be given the opportunity to participate in any formal activity associated with the progress or completion of a facility or to officially open or launch the project. Openings and launches of Country Football and Netball Program projects are to be coordinated through the Office of the Minister for Sport. Councils considering staging an opening or launch must give adequate notice.


These guidelines have recently been updated to reflect current expectations of Victorian Government recognition. Acknowledgement and Publicity Guidelines can be found at www.sport.vic.gov.au.

8.2 Payments

Upfront payments for funded projects may be made if/when: • a Funding Agreement has been signed by both parties and any special conditions

have been met • grant recipients provide reports as required, or otherwise demonstrate that the

activity is progressing as expected • other terms and conditions of funding continue to be met.

For all grants at least 10 per cent of the total funding is paid in arrears on evidence of satisfactory completion of the activity.

9. Resources and additional information

Further information in relation to each of the following items can be found at www.sport.vic.gov.au/grants and select Country Football and Netball Program. Environmentally Sustainable Design Proposals are encouraged to incorporate Environmentally Sustainable Design initiatives in project designs. Competitive Neutrality Policy Under the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Competition Principles Agreement, Victoria is obliged to apply the COAG Competitive Neutrality Policy. Capital Replacement Planning

A Capital Replacement Plan is a tool that can help you plan for the maintenance and eventual replacement of facilities. The development of a capital replacement plan is now a standard condition for many Sport and Recreation Victoria grants where facilities need to be periodically replaced or renewed.

Voluntary Labour and In-kind Support

Consideration will be given to claiming in-kind expenses to a maximum of 50 per cent of the total project cost.


Schedule of Use

A Schedule of Use is a list of all the sport and recreation activities, highlighting the extent to which the proposed facility development will be used. The schedule summarises the type and duration of the activity over a period of time and is a valuable tool to measure participation outcomes. Councils can use the Schedule of Use as provided or adapt and/or provide their own. Victorian Code of Conduct for Community Sport

The facility tenant club(s) are expected to adhere to the Victorian Code of Conduct for Community Sport or related state sporting association code of conduct. Further information can be obtained from www.sport.vic.gov.au/integrity-in-sport/victorian-code-of-conduct-for-community-sport

SunSmart Online Shade Audit Tool

This online tool helps determine whether existing shade at a site is adequate and provides practical recommendations to improve both built and natural shade. For more information www.sunsmart.com.au/shade-audit/ Healthy Choices: policy guidelines for sport and recreation centres. Guidelines to help sport and recreation centres establish policies that promote health and wellbeing.

Planning Guides

Sport and Recreation Victoria (in collaboration with industry stakeholders) has developed a series of planning guides for sport and recreation facility development which include: • Female Sports Infrastructure Guidelines • Community Sporting Facility Lighting Guide • Artificial Grass for Sport Guide • Design for Everyone Guide Copies of these planning guides can be found at www.sport.vic.gov.au/grants The AFL has developed a Preferred Facilities Requirement document to provide guidance in the development of football facilities. The AFL Preferred Facilities Requirements can be found at www.aflvic.com.au/facility-resources/ Netball Victoria has developed a range of documents to provide guidance on compliance and standards. These documents can be found at vic.netball.com.au/support/facility-development/


Design for Everyone Guide The guide is a resource that uses the principles of Universal Design to provide users with an

understanding of how to apply the philosophy of Universal Design during the design and

construction phases of a new building or the redevelopment of a current facility.

The concept of Universal Design is to simplify life for everyone by making the built environment

more usable to as many users as possible.

This document can be found at sport.vic.gov.au/design-for-everyone-guide

Assessment - Grant Submissions CFN 2018/19Alignment to Our Future Community indicators

Applicant Pro

jec

t d

es

cri

pti

on

To

tal

pro

jec

t c

os

t

To

tal

req

ue

st

fro

m p

rog

ram

To

tal

req

ue

st

fro

m C

ou

nc

il

To

tal

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n f

rom

ap

pli

ca

tio

n

Do

es

ap

pli

ca

nt

me

et

pre

-

eli

gib

ilit

y c

rite

ria

Ha

s t

he

pro

jec

t s

co

pe

be

en

cle

arl

y o

utl

ine

d

Ha

s t

he

bu

dg

et

be

en

cle

arl

y

ou

tlin

ed

Are

pla

ns

pro

vid

ed

wit

h

ap

pli

ca

tio

n

Is a

QS

pro

vid

ed

wit

h t

he

pro

jec

t

Do

es

th

e p

roje

ct

ad

dre

ss

iss

ue

s o

f s

afe

ty a

nd

un

ive

rsa

l

de

sig

n

Ha

ve

sta

ke

ho

lde

rs b

ee

n

en

ga

ge

d

Is t

he

pro

jec

t s

tra

teg

ica

lly

su

pp

ort

ed

Do

es

th

e p

roje

ct

res

ult

in

pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n o

utc

om

es

To

tal

Sc

ore

Affordability

Asset

Management

Business

Improvement &

Innovation

Business

Urgency

Economic

Development

Environment &

Sustainability Social Benefit Strategy Pro

sp

ero

us

Co

nn

ec

ted

Cre

ati

ve

De

sig

ne

d f

or

Pe

op

le

Su

sta

ina

ble

an

d R

es

ilie

nt

Comments Recommendation

Geelong Amateur Football

Netball Club

Upgrade to

floodlighting on

second oval to

100lux $210,000 $100,000 $80,000 $30,000 Yes Yes 5 10 2 4 4 8 7 40

Cost estimates are

only indicitive - not

completed by

independent QS.

Club contribution of

$30k

Addition to

Council's existing

asset base No impact None Unknown No impact

Increased provision

of infrastructure at

recreational

facilities. Potential

increases in

participation

Yes. G21 AFL

Barwon Strategy Som

ew

hat

Som

ew

hat

No

Som

ew

hat

No

This project is to upgrade

lights on second oval.

Club already has

adequate lighting on no.1

oval for games etc.

Standard Allocation

would indicate that clubs

need to fund this type of

project

Not recommended for

submission

Anakie Football Netball Club

Upgrade to

floodlighting on

main oval $45,793 $0 $25,000 $0 Yes Yes 6 4 6 9 5 8 7 45

Basic cost estimate

provided only

Addition to

Council's existing

asset base No impact None Unknown No impact

Maintain

participation in

junior football

Yes - G21 AFL

Barwon Som

ew

hat

Yes

Yes

Som

ew

hat

Som

ew

hat

Fair Play Strategy and

Standard Allocation will

recommend that local

level floodlighting needs

to be funded by tenanting

clubs

Not recommended for

submission

Ocean Grove Collendina

Cobras Junior Football Club

Floodlight

upgrade $147,000 $100,000 $47,000 $0 Yes Yes 9 10 10 2 8 5 5 49

QS provided

however no

contribution from

applicant

Addition to

Council's existing

asset base No impact No impact Unknown No impact

Maintain

participation in

junior football

Yes - G21 AFL

Barwon Som

ew

hat

Yes

Yes

Som

ew

hat

Som

ew

hat






clubs

Not recommended for

submission

Bell Park Football Club re

Sport and Recreation Club

BELREC

Floodlight

upgrade $284,000 $100,000 $184,000 $0 Yes Yes 9 10 10 4 8 7 7 55

QS provided

however no

contribution from

applicant

Addition to

Council's existing

asset base No impact No impact Unknown No impact

Potential increases

in participation,

upgrade of

outdated asset,

connections with

the development of

an all abilities team

Yes - G21 AFL

Barwon. Rates

poorly Som

ew

hat

Yes

Yes

Som

ew

hat

Som

ew

hat






clubs

Not recommended for

submission

Leopold Football Netball Club AFL Goal posts $8,200 No No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Does not meet

eligibility criteria -

equipment grant Ineligible

Grovedale Football Netball

Club

Development of

away change

room $390,000 $100,000 $260,000 $30,000 Yes Yes 9 10 9 9 9 10 10 66

Stage 1 change

facility upgrade

Addition to

Council's existing

asset base

Participation

outcomes, better

access to facilities

enhance Council's

reputation

Urgency relates to

non-compliant

change rooms for

females

If successful, job

opportunities

available through

construction

process No impact

Upgrade os

outdated asset

which is not

welcoming or

compliant with

female use

Yes - G21 AFL

Barwon. Rates

porly 3 out of 10 in

strategy Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Som

ew

hat

This project aligns

strategically and to

Council priorities. It has

the highest assessment

score and greatest

chance of succecss

through SRV

Recommended for

submision

Alignment to CoGG Budget DriversSRV criteria

Scale: 0 = No justification, 5 = limited justification provided 10 = Clear justification provided Attachment 3


3. PLANNING AUTHORISATIONS – COUNCIL TO STAFF

Source: Governance & Legal Services Executive Manager: Rebecca Leonard Index Reference: Delegations

Purpose

To appoint Council officers as authorised officers under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the P&EA).

Background

Council officers are appointed as authorised officers to exercise statutory powers under various Acts and Regulations. Appointments as authorised officers are to individual staff members.

The P&EA regulates enforcement and is reliant on authorised officers acting on behalf of the Responsible Authority (Council).

Key Issues

• Where there is a specific power within an Act, Council should appoint authorised officers pursuant to that Act. This is the case for the P&EA.

• Planning staff members have recently been employed by Council and are required to be authorised under the P&EA.

• Attachment 2 sets out the Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation under the P&EA and lists the staff members to whom this authorisation applies (the instrument).

Recommendation

In the exercise of the powers conferred by section 224 of the Local Government Act 1989 and the other legislation referred to in the attached instrument, Greater Geelong City Council (Council) RESOLVES THAT THE -

1) members of Council staff referred to in the instrument be appointed and authorised as set out in the instrument;

2) instrument comes into force immediately upon the common seal of Council being affixed to the instrument, and remains in force until Council determines to vary or revoke it;

3) instrument be sealed.


Attachment 1


There are no financial implications arising from the subject of this report.


Relevant Council managers have been consulted regarding this recommended appointment and authorisation.


There are no social equity implications arising from the subject of this report.


The recommended appointment and authorisation of these staff members complies with the relevant provisions of the P&EA and the Local Government Act 1989.


The recommended appointments and authorisations of these staff members supports the delivery of Council planning services.


No Council 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

There are no significant or high risks associated with the subject of this report.


There are no environmental implications arising from the subject of this report.

S11A. Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation (Planning and Environment Act 1987) December 2017 Update

Maddocks Delegations and Authorisations

S11A. Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation (Planning and Environment Act 1987)

Greater Geelong City Council

Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation

(Planning and Environment Act 1987 only)

S11A. Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation (Planning and Environment Act 1987) December 2017 Update page 1

Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation (Planning and Environment Act 1987)

In this instrument "officers" means -

Francis Wong - Town Planner Rowan Farmer - Senior Statutory Planner Mitchell Etherton - Customer Service Town Planner

By this instrument of appointment and authorisation Greater Geelong City Council -

1. under section 147(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 - appoints the officers to be authorised officers for the purposes of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the regulations made under that Act; and

2. under section 232 of the Local Government Act 1989 authorises the officers generally to institute proceedings for offences against the Acts and regulations described in this instrument.

It is declared that this instrument -

(a) comes into force immediately upon its execution; (b) remains in force until varied or revoked.

This instrument is authorised by a resolution of the Greater Geelong City Council on 27 March 2018.

THE COMMON SEAL of GREATER )

GEELONG CITY COUNCIL was affixed )

hereto in the presence of: )

_______________________________________

Mayor

_______________________________________


Date:


4. CONTRACTUAL MATTER

Source: Finance & Strategy Director: Peter Anderson

Recommendation

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.


5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Source: Finance and Strategy Director: Peter Anderson

Recommendation

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


6. EMPLOYMENT MATTER

Source: People and Organisation Development Executive Manager: Andrew Keen

Recommendation

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


7. AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE SUMMARY REPORT

Source: Governance and Legal Services Executive Manager: Rebecca Leonard Index Reference: Audit - CG - Internal

Recommendation

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


8. T1770865 - PROVISION OF PAINTING SERVICES

Source: Finance and Strategy Director: Peter Anderson Index Reference: Tender T1770865

Recommendation

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.

Greater Geelong City Council 27 March 2018 Agenda for Ordinary Meeting SECTION C – ASSEMBLY OF COUNCIL Page 26

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCIL RECORD

Chief Executive Officer: Kelvin Spiller Source: Governance and Legal Services

Summary

• Section 80A (2) of the Local Government Act 1989 requires the record of an Assembly of Council be reported to the next practicable Ordinary Meeting of Council.

• A record of Assembly of Council meeting(s) is attached as an Appendix to this report.

Recommendation

That the information be received.

RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES OF COUNCIL (Council Meeting 27 March 2018)

Assembly Details

Councillors

Officer Attendees

Agenda Items Conflict of Interest

Disclosures

Council Briefing 6 March 2018

Cr Harwood (Mayor), Crs

Aitken, Asher, Grzybek,

Kontelj, Mason, Murrihy,

Murnane, Nelson, Sullivan

K Spiller (CEO) L Quinn (DIR) B Luxford (DIR) G Wilson-Browne (DIR) K Walsh (DIR) P Anderson (DIR) A Keen (EXEC MGR) R Leonard (EXEC MGR) G Russell (MGR) V Shelton (MGR) J Brown (CO ORD) J Thomas (SNR ADV TO MAYOR & CEO) L Raimondo (OFF) M Macgugan (OFF) T Raven (CO ORD) L Sherwell (OFF) J Malone (CO ORD) T Ellis (MGR) R Stevens (MGR) J Van Slageren (MGR)

• Approval of the Domestic Animal Management Plan 2018-2021

• Revocation of Flood Prone Area Designation of New Lots at Armstrong Estate – Stages 22, 24, 25 & 39

• Revocation of Flood Prone Area Designation of New Lots at Warralily, Stage 70

• Ghazeepore Road, Waurn Ponds – Proposed Road Widening and Footpath Construction SRC353 – Intention to Declare

• Nil.

Budget Briefing No 2 7 March 2018



Mason, Murrihy, Nelson,

Sullivan

K Spiller (CEO) B Luxford (DIR) G Wilson-Browne (DIR) K Walsh (DIR) L Quinn (DIR) P Anderson (DIR) A Keen (EXEC MGR) R Leonard (EXEC MGR) M Kelly (MGR) K Fulton (CO ORD) F Reidy (MGR) R Stevens (MGR) K Paton (MGR) G Russell (MGR) M Kuhn (MGR) S Parker (CO ORD)

• 2018-2019 Budget

• Cr Grzybek declared a

Conflict in relation to the Lara Soccer Club and left the meeting prior to discussion.

• Cr Nelson declared a

Conflict in relation to the Geelong Gallery Archibald Prize and left the meeting prior to discussion.

V Shelton (MGR) S Boer (MGR) S Broadbent (MGR) T Hellsten (MGR) M Szymczak (A/MGR) T Kirwood (MGR) S Sodomaco (MGR)

Council Briefing 20 March 2018



Kontelj, Mason, Murrihy,

Murnane, Nelson, Sullivan

K Spiller (CEO) L Quinn (DIR) B Luxford (DIR) G Wilson-Browne (DIR) K Walsh (DIR) P Anderson (DIR) A Keen (EXEC MGR) R Leonard (EXEC MGR) G Russell (MGR) J Van Slageren (MGR) I Hicks (MGR) J Giacchi (General Counsel) V Shelton (MGR) K Paton (MGR) J Brown (CO ORD) K Ivens (Snr Advisor to Mayor & CEO) B Szymczak (Snr Communications Adv) T Raven (CO ORD) L Sherwell (OFF) J Van Slageren (MGR)

• State Government of Victoria – Country Football and Netball Program

• Sale of Former Geelong Post Office

• Planning Authorisations – Council to Staff • Contractual Matter (Confidential)

• Proposed Development (Confidential)

• Audit and Risk Committee Summary Report (Confidential)

• Tender T1770865 – Provision of Paining Services (Confidential)

• Nil

Budget Briefing No 3 21 March 2018

K Spiller (CEO) L Quinn (DIR) B Luxford (DIR) G Wilson-Browne (DIR) K Walsh (DIR) P Anderson (DIR) A Keen (EXEC MGR) R Leonard (EXEC MGR) M Kelly (MGR) K Fulton (CO ORD) F Reidy (MGR)

• 2018-2019 Budget

• Cr Murrihy declared a

Conflict in the Geelong Racing Club and left the meeting room prior to discussion.

• Cr Nelson declared a Conflict in the Geelong Art Gallery and left the meeting room prior to discussion.

R Stevens (MGR) G Russell (MGR) M Kuhn (MGR) R Pedretti (MGR) R Smith (MGR) I Hicks (MGR) J Brown (CO ORD) P Dorling (MONITOR)

Greater Geelong City Council 27 March 2018 Agenda for Ordinary Meeting SECTION D – PLANNING DELEGATIONS Page 27

PLANNING DELEGATIONS

Source: Planning & Development - City Development Director: Kelvin Walsh Index Reference: Delegation

Summary

• Section 98 of the Local Government Act 1989 and section 188 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 empower Council to delegate its powers, duties and functions under relevant legislation to members of Council staff.

• Council may also delegate to committees comprising Councillors and staff or a combination of both, pursuant to sections 86 and 87 of the Local Government Act and section 188 of the Planning and Environment Act.

• At its meeting on 13 March 2007 Council established a Planning Committee and a Development Hearings Panel with delegated powers to determine upon any development applications which have been the subject of an objection or in circumstances where officers have recommended refusal of the application.

• At its meeting on 23 September 2008 Council adopted a recommendation to allow Officers (restricted to Manager, Coordinator and Team Leader level) the ability to consider and approve applications with five or less objections.

• The appendix to this report contains a schedule of all applications determined under these delegations.

Recommendation

That the information be received.

App Number Location Application Type Decision Date Description Authority Description

PP-695-2017 209 Melaluka Road, LEOPOLD VIC

3224

Development and Use of a Childcare Centre and a

Medical Centre

16/2/2018 Refusal to Grant a

Planning Permit

Development Hearings

Panel

PP-867-2017 89A Skene Street, NEWTOWN VIC

3220

Use of the land for Medical Centre (Skin Clinic),

Partial Demolition, Building and Works to Alter and

Extend an Existing Building, Business Identification

Signage and a Reduction in the Standard Car

Parking Requirements

16/2/2018 NOD - DHP -

Planning Permit

Development Hearings

Panel

PP-1031-2017 114 South Valley Road, HIGHTON

VIC 3216

Buildings and Works Associated with the

Construction of Ten (10) Dwellings, a Ten (10) Lot

Subdivision, Reduction of Visitor Car Parking and

Creation of Access to a Road Zone Category 1

19-Feb-2018 NOD - Delegate Objectors - 3

PP-1080-2017 42 Francis Street, BELMONT VIC

3216

Buildings and Works for the Construction of Three

(3) Dwellings and Three (3) Lot Subdivision


PP-1149-2017 1 Emmy Court, GROVEDALE VIC

3216

Construction of a Second Dwelling and Two (2) Lot

Subdivision


PP-1190-2017 149 Whitehorse Road, MOOLAP

VIC 3224

Buildings and Works Associated with a

Telecommunications Facility


PP-306-2017 28 Ivy Street, NEWCOMB VIC 3219 Development of the Land for Two Dwellings and

Two (2) Lot Subdivision


PP-534-2017 9 Scarlett Street, GEELONG WEST

VIC 3218

Buildings and Works Associated with the

Construction of Three Dwellings and a Four Lot

Subdivision


PP-646-2017 13 Acacia Court, OCEAN GROVE

VIC 3226

Construction of a Second Dwelling and a Two (2)

Lot Subdivision


PP-847-2017 18 Ballater Avenue, NEWTOWN VIC

3220

Buildings and Works for the Construction of Two

(2) Dwellings and a Two (2) Lot Subdivision


Planning Decisions Report - February 2018

Greater Geelong City Council 27 March 2018 Agenda for Ordinary Meeting SECTION E - CONFIDENTIAL Page 1

4. OFFER TO PURCHASE COUNCIL LAND – CROWN ALLOTMENT 56C -

Source: Finance & Strategy Director: Peter Anderson Index Reference: Osborne House

The information contained within this report is provided on the basis that it is

confidential to Council in accordance with section 89(2)(d) of the Local

Government Act 1989 as it contains contractual matters.

The release of this information to any other person would constitute a breach of the Local Government Act 1989.

Status Contents of this report are confidential until advised otherwise by the

Chief Executive Officer.

Purpose

To respond to an offer to purchase Council land and to seek Council consent to the commencement of a process to change the use of and realise an increased value of the former Corio Shire Depot site in Osborne Park via master planning, rezoning and eventual disposal.

Background

Osborne Park originally comprised an area of approx. 80ha. The former Shire of Corio obtained title to Osborne House in 1937 and to the stables and coach houses in 1948.

The Shire of Corio established its Depot Operations on Crown Allotment 56C within the land it acquired. The City of Greater Geelong acquired title to the former Shire of Corio land upon amalgamation in 1994 and is the owner of Crown Allotments 56A, B and C (see map attached). Council is also the designated manager of the adjacent Crown Land.

The David Hamilton Group is in the process of acquiring the land adjoining Crown Allotment 56C (formerly known as the Powerhouse site) and will settle on the unconditional contract in March 2018 (according to advice from the Hamilton Group).

The Hamilton Group through a subsidiary company has made an offer to purchase Crown Allotments 56 A, B and C from the Council (map attached shows subject allotments).

Key Issues

1. Council properties within the precinct are Crown Allotments 56A, 56B and 56C.These properties are currently zoned Public Purposes – Local Government and assuch have low value relative to adjacent industrial properties and limited applicableuses and/or redevelopment opportunities.

2. A number of existing planning instruments impact on the future use anddevelopment of the area between Mackey and Swinburne Street, including theaforementioned allotments. The existing Port of Geelong Development Strategyfor example is being reviewed during this year, there was an adopted City MasterPlan for Osborne House (2007) but this marina based plan was effectivelyabandoned in 2011 and there is a Port of Geelong Infrastructure and Investmentplan which was adopted by Council in 2013.


More recently the Federal Mills Master Plan was created and adopted by Council in 2017. All of these existing plans and reports should be considered in any new plans for the precinct.

3. Notwithstanding current status of the land the Hamilton Group via a subsidiary company (Pivot City Innovation Group) has put forward the following offers to Council to purchase the land as described:

3.1. $2,600,000 for purchase of Crown Allotment 56C being the former Shire of Corio Depot site. The condition of the purchase would be settlement the later of 12 months from date of contract signing or upon the rezoning of the land to Comprehensive Development Zone.

3.2. $6,700,000 for purchase of all the land comprising Crown Allotments 56A, 56B and 56C. Essentially this is Osborne House and associated buildings including the Stables and includes the former Depot site. Again settlement is offered the later of 12 months from signing the contract or upon completion of the rezoning of the land to comprehensive development zone. Under the offer the purchaser would seek to have access to the site to commence mould clean up prior to settlement. The purchaser would also seek to have a role in the rezoning process as the adjoining landowner.

The Hamilton Group has presented to Council on their vision for the precinct. Since the presentation a further meeting with Group representatives has been held to discuss their offer and intentions. Following the recent meeting the email shown as Attachment 3 has been received (refer attachment).

4. Council planners are not opposed to seeing a comprehensive development zone apply to the land subject to completion of the master planning, identification of potential end uses, consideration of previous studies and the involvement in that exercise of all interested parties in the master plan process (e.g.; Geelong Ports).

5. The sale of Osborne House, Stables and the former Depot land has been the subject of various Council reports and deliberations over the years. The site has been underutilised since its occupancy for municipal purposes. The care and management of the site has largely fallen to various community groups over the years who have dedicated themselves to the preservation of the assets and the use of the buildings for community purposes (e.g.; Friends Group, Geelong Memorial Brass Band, Vietnam Veterans Assoc, Rotary Club, etc.).

6. Council’s maintenance of the assets has not been what it should have been. Currently the House and Stables (registered on the Victorian Heritage Register) have been subject to roof leakages and have been inundated with mould and are in the process of a significant clean up operation. This work together with the clean up of artefacts is likely to cost in the order of $1.5 to $2m when complete.

7. Although no firm estimates of restoration costs are to hand the restoration of the House and Stables has previously been estimated to cost between $1m and $2m however more accurate estimates will need to be established.

8. It is suggested that until the restoration costs are known and the future possible uses of the House and Stables at least is clearer that Council retain the House and Stable assets and the land surrounding it forming part of Crown Allotments 56A and 56B.

9. In any case the sale of the heritage assets would likely attract some opposition from those in the community that highly value these buildings as part of Geelong’s rich history. There would need to be a strong business case to allay some of the opposition from these groups and such a business case has not been developed as yet.


10. In relation to Crown Allotment 56C however it is considered that this asset is not required for its original purpose and is surplus to Council requirements at this time and could eventually be sold. The rezoning of this asset to comprehensive development zone would increase its value however and any sale should assume a rezoning. Preliminary advice from Council’s valuer is that if the site was to be rezoned the current offer to purchase would be less than its market value (valuer suggests the site would be worth $3m now). The valuation of the property should be the minimum amount Council should accept for any eventual sale.

11. It is not surprising given the unknowns about the property (future use, zoning, etc) the current offer from Pivot City Innovation Group falls short of the amount required however no negotiation has been entered into. Recent discussions suggest the $3m value would be attainable from the Group subject to rezoning.

12. The current value of the land is unlikely to go down however, particularly as public awareness grows of the future development aspirations within the precinct.

13. The current configuration of the block (56C) does reduce the value of the other allotments. Consequently there is value in considering a method of future reconfiguration and eventual disposal of the site as part of the eventual implementation of an integrated development precinct.

By subdividing or realigning boundaries to create a more attractive development parcel it may be possible to increase the value of all allotments thus also increasing the value of 56C. Any rezoning of the site would need to be preceded by a master plan of the site (and presumably adjoining land) so it is clear as to what future uses may be applied to any Comprehensive Development Zone or alternate zone.

14. The parties most interested in eventually acquiring the site will probably be those with an interest in adjoining land. This will presumably be either the Hamilton Group or an eventual occupant/purchaser of Crown Allotments 56A and 56B. Consequently in the absence of a master plan identifying future uses it is considered premature to sell 56C in its current configuration to the Hamilton Group. Sale at this point may also compromise future use and/or development of the Osborne House property.

A Way Forward.

15. It is considered beneficial to publicly plan the future use and development of the entire precinct rather than deal with sections separately and deny the public the opportunity to see and consider the bigger picture.

16. Discussions have been held with the Hamilton Group about undertaking a master plan with them and others over the whole precinct. The Hamilton Group has indicated that whilst they would be willing to participate in this public process they would need some surety on the eventual acquisition of the Council property being Crown Allotment 56C or at least access to their land via the Council land.

17. The Hamilton Group is concerned about publicising their intentions. They see risk in eventually not being able to obtain the land off Council for development as per their plans and/or for access to the western end of their development. They also see the risk of having to pay Council a much higher price for the land given their view that their plans will have in fact contributed to the increased value.

18. There are advantages in supporting the development of the new Innovation Precinct. Apart from the obvious increased economic development there will be additional “smart” jobs created, the reputation of Geelong as a high tech, clever and creative, City would be enhanced and the precinct should emerge as a sought after location for smart industries and as an attractive publicly accessible waterfront location linked better connected to the City Centre.


19. The reasons why the Hamilton Group want Crown Allotment 56C are two-fold. Firstly allotment 56C, with the public lots of Osborne House and Stables, forms the western entrance to their new visionary precinct and offers development opportunity for them. Secondly the land is important for the development of any ancillary uses that might require alternative access to the more industrial entrance they intend to create off Mackey Street. The Council land is their only real option for this access and would prevent attempts to organise vehicle access along the foreshore (which is also under Council management and would likely be rejected).

20. It is suggested that the following strategy provides a way this matter can be advanced whilst protecting both Council’s interest and addressing the concerns of the Hamilton Group.

21. Council offer its support to the creation of the new Innovation Precinct by:

21.1. Retaining Crown Allotment 56C at this stage and in association with the Hamilton Group and other interested stakeholders undertake a master plan for the precinct. This plan would also need to consider future uses of Osborne House and Stables area as well as foreshore areas under management. The Plan would engage with and involve important stakeholders such as the Port of Geelong and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.

21.2. In order to get this public master plan process underway Council agree with the Hamilton Group (or its nominee) to publicly advertise its intention to lease 56C to the Group or its nominee for up to 5 years and as part of the lease include a provision allowing the first right of refusal over the purchase of Crown Allotment 56C as it may be reconfigured should Council eventually resolve to sell the site within the next 5 years.

21.3. The agreement to provide for Council to go to the open market on any eventual sale and the first right of refusal would be based on Council achieving the highest and best value based on the market response or at least its certified valuation (whichever was higher). Subject to discussion with the Hamilton Group the lease area might also include the former caretaker’s cottage (on Stables lot) which they may like to upgrade for use as a café. This building is currently derelict and not in any use.

21.4. The lease and the express condition offering the first right of refusal would be subject to public advertisement that would see Council invite public submissions on the proposal. Consideration as to final tenure and amount payable to Council would need to be negotiated before finalisation of the advertised intent (a valuation would be obtained to assess rent and an additional amount added for the acquisition right).

22. If Council or the Hamilton Group was not willing or able to agree to undertake the process as outlined above or as a result of consideration of public submissions decided to abandon the process it is suggested that:

22.1. Council advise Hamilton Group that it would offer no objection to the Group planning its new Innovation Precinct on its land assuming access may eventually be made available from Mackey Street through existing Council property (either new road or right of way easement to be created along northern boundary of Allotments 56 A, B and C) notwithstanding that Council gives no obligation on its behalf to construct or make the land available for this purpose at this stage. This northern boundary is heavily encumbered with existing easements and a right of way would be appropriate along this alignment.


22.2. A planning undertaking such as this would be included in written advice to the Hamilton Group as joint owner and presumably could be ratified when and if Council considered the master plan created by the Group as part of the application to develop and/or rezone as the case may be. Whilst this would be one way of supporting the future development it would not be as positive as the lease of 56C and former caretaker’s cottage. Provision of access may also reduce the perceived need for the Group to include 56C in the development plan thus reducing its need to eventually purchase the allotment from Council.

22.3. Prior to completion of the Hamilton Group’s more private master plan it would be expected that Council would have undertaken a public process to ascertain future uses for all of the allotments under its ownership (56A, B and C) and would presumably consider uses that would complement the use and development of the adjoining land.

This process would only allow the public consideration of the Council land however without the knowledge of what was planned on the neighbouring parcel/s. Once an application for development approval was made Council would then be in a position to bring the parts together.

23. The abovementioned processes seek to support the future development of the proposed innovation precinct, preserve and enhance the value of the Council asset whilst addressing the main concern put forward by the Hamilton Group.

24. Short of agreeing to sell the land now to the Hamilton Group or a nominee of the Group by private sale there appears to be nothing more Council can do for them to reassure them than the process outlined here.

25. Should Council ultimately decide to sell Crown Allotment 56C (after master planning completed and the site rezoned) the process that will follow would be:

25.1. A public advertisement be placed giving at least 4 weeks’ notice of the Council’s intention to dispose of Crown Allotment 56C – see attached plan showing title boundaries. This public notice would disclose the terms of the intended sale. (e.g.; sale by expression of interest and criteria to be considered).

25.2. Consider any public submissions before any final resolution to sell the land


Recommendation

That Council:

1) Thanks the Pivot Innovation Group (Group) for their offer to purchase land from Council and advise the Group that Council is not willing to sell all or any of the sites at this stage.

2) Notes that Crown Allotment 56C will be offered for lease to the Group (or its nominee), subject to the requirements of the Local Government Act 1989 as amended, for a period of up to 5 years and:

a) The lease will include a condition giving first right of refusal to purchase Crown Allotment 56C;

b) A valuation will be obtained to ascertain the rent payable in respect of Crown Allotment 56C;

c) Any first right of refusal would provide for purchase of Crown Allotment 56C at market value or Council valuation at the time of sale, whichever is the higher;

d) The terms of the lease acknowledge that Council is under no obligation to sell the site to the Group; and

e) Any lease over Crown Allotment 56C granted to the Group would be contingent upon the Group (or its nominee) sponsoring, on terms approved by the Chief Executive Officer, a public master planning project over the precinct area to allow full public consideration of the future use and development of all land within the precinct (to include Council properties and land under management).

3) Subject to paragraph 2 above, endorses the commencement of a public master planning process for the precinct, including Crown Allotments 56A-C, the terms of reference for the master plan to be approved by the Chief Executive Officer.


Attachment 1


There is no impact on the current budget as provision can been made for any master plan contribution from funds originally set aside for the clean-up of Osborne House artefacts. Should a sale of any land ultimately be realised this will occur in future financial years.


Community engagement will be a requirement of the master plan should it proceed. Interested parties will include the Port of Geelong Authority.


There are no social equity considerations relevant to the recommendations of this report.


There are no legal or statutory implications for the project. Council will be acting in accordance with Local Government Act requirements.


Economic growth and the creation of clever and creative industries will be a consideration in assessing appropriate future uses within the precinct. Heritage considerations will be included in any assessment of Council owned properties.


No Council 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

The risks associated with the project are able to be managed following normal management procedures and processes.


Environmental implications will be considered should the master plan be undertaken.


Attachment 2

Plan


Attachment 3

Hi Peter Thanks for your time today As discussed we will outline our preferred course of action in order below: 1- Enter proceedings to purchase the depot site at a market valuation based on a comprehensive use zoning. Market value to be determined as of now with consideration to the Comprehensive use zone zoning. Settlement to be effected by the successful zoning change (60 days from zoning change). Note: Engage in public process by advertising the sale for 4 weeks and transact at market value. Masterplan to be developed by DHPG and presented to stakeholders for comment. Also look at long term lease or sale of land behind PowerStation for use as car parking 2 - Proceed with masterplan and zoning change. DHPG to co-ordinate. Masterplan to involve a ROW (or letter from council outline clear intentions to grant this access) for the PowerStation site over the road leading to the depot Once masterplan adopted we begin the process of a public sale with preference to deal with surrounding landholders and users. Also look at long term lease or sale of land behind PowerStation for use as car parking

Cameron Hamilton Managing Director M: 0412 927 229 P: 03 5278 9539 PO Box 1743 Geelong VIC 3220 Federal Mills Park, 33 Mackey St, North Geelong VIC 3215


5. CONSOLIDATION OF COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES

Source: Finance and Strategy Director: Peter Anderson Index Reference: Accommodation


confidential to Council in accordance with section 89(2)(h) of the Local

Government Act 1989 as it contains matters which may prejudice the Council

or any other person.




Purpose

To provide Council with relevant information to allow it to develop a strategy for the consolidation of Council administrative functions within a single, central administration building.

Background

• As early as 2000, Council identified the need to consolidate its administrative offices. In 2016 the State Government Commission of Inquiry also identified the consolidation project as a priority.

• Land at 137 Mercer Street was purchased in 2007 for the purpose of office

consolidation. After evaluating a number of sites Council in 2017 again confirmed 137 Mercer Street as its preferred location (see Strategic Site Assessment for more detail).

• Council agreed in 2015 to support expansion of the Geelong Art Gallery to the

existing City Hall building should sufficient space become available.

Discussion

• Recently the State Government through the Revitalising Central Geelong Partnership and the Geelong Authority has developed a draft Geelong Station Precinct Master Plan. Whilst the plan offers some exciting proposals for the precinct, in its current form, it severely reduces the land available on Council’s 137 Mercer Street site for development of Council’s Administrative Centre

• Based on research and using the larger City of Casey as a model, Council would

need approximately 8000m2 of gross office floor space if it embraced ABW (Activity Based Working) design principles. A building of 10,000m2 has been used for analysis.

• Council could include within any new building relevant community facilities to

service a growing residential population. 2200m2 of additional floor space would add $15m to the total budget.

• Council’s office consolidation project could be used as a catalyst project to stimulate

additional Government and private sector investment (eg; Convention Centre, Rail Station Redevelopment, Government office “hub”). Government funding assistance


for the Council project should be available under these circumstances (e.g.; City Deal funding or Regional Infrastructure Funding).

• Several development options have been evaluated against the ‘do nothing’

scenario. A financial model has also been developed. • In addition to the non-monetary benefits the project creates, the financial analysis

using a 25 year planning period shows:

OPTIONS

Costs measured in 2018 $

Net Present Cost (NPC)

Consideration

1. Do nothing $92.9 Retention of Busport

assumed (Say $5m at end)

2. Council owned, funded

and developed $104.7m Assumes debt fully repaid.

Asset at end worth $38m. Savings of over $25m over 25 year period.

3. Joint Venture

Development & Co-ownership

N/A Too many variables to cost. Risky and highly regulated option.

4. Developer builds and

Council leases new

premises

$112.9m Savings of $25m over the 25 year period

• Option 2 is preferred as it achieves consolidation and relative to the do nothing option

achieves a better financial result after factoring in asset value and savings. Assuming

Council funded the preferred option (2) entirely from borrowings Council’s long term

financial plan shows total borrowings in 2023/24 to reach $262m or a debt to rate revenue ratio of 164%. This means that in 2023/24 Council would have more total

liabilities than it raises annually in rates revenue. This ratio however still sits within the

financial capacity of Council to service and repay debt and Council would still have over

$2b in net assets in 2023/24. In an earlier financial review (Ernst and Young 2016) it was suggested that a sustainable debt level for COGG could be up to $322m.

• Future outstanding debt levels could be significantly reduced by a more aggressive

management of the property investment portfolio. Council could also create more

capacity to pay off debt via recurrent operational surpluses by more diligently planning and reviewing service provision.

• Approximately $100m of potential property sales over and above Council’s current

sales program has been identified by Council staff and more is expected once the new

asset management system is in operation (30th June). Future reliance on borrowings is

also offset by any Government funding able to be obtained for the project.


Recommendation

That Council: 1) Agrees in principal to the consolidation of its administrative functions to one

location within the Geelong CBD area noting that the preferred site is 137 Mercer Street, Geelong;

2) Affirms support for the expansion of the Geelong Gallery to all or part of the

existing Geelong Town Hall subject to the Central Administrative Office Project proceeding;

3) Refers the issues raised in this report to a Project Advisory Committee

comprising of at least six (6) Councillors; 4) The Project Advisory Committee be asked to report to Council by June 2018

on: a. Scope of the Project; b. Preferred siting and funding options; c. Opportunities for the Project to be a catalyst for further CBD

revitalisation projects (e.g. redevelopment of the Geelong Rail Station precinct);

d. Preferred future arrangements for civic and ceremonial functions; e. Expansion of the Geelong Gallery to part or all of the existing

Geelong Town Hall; and f. Opportunities to attract State and Federal Government funding for

the project.

5) Allocates future borrowings to fund the Central Administrative Office Project in the 2018/19-202122 Strategic Resource Plan.


Context

Council’s administrative and civic functions are located over 10 separate locations in and around the Central Geelong Area. The difficulties resulting from fragmented locations have been recognised by Council for many years. Costs of current situation

The annual net rent paid for commercial premises for office use now is $2.05m and this is anticipated to increase to $2.78m in January 2019 should Council take up further floor space in the Brougham Street building.

In addition to the net rental situation there are many other costs associated with the inefficiencies of operating over multiple locations. These costs have been estimated to be at least $1m per annum and form part of the analysis that follows (Currie and Brown 2017).

In addition to financial penalties there are also intangible costs including the loss of single customer focus with duplicated customer service ‘shop fronts’ for separate functions, reduced workplace amenity and culture, employee time costs moving between offices, duplicated IT infrastructure and reduced opportunities for improving staff health and wellbeing. The current configuration also results in the City of Greater Geelong having no single recognisable ‘seat of governance’ presence in the City.

137 Mercer Street In 2007-08 Council purchased a site of 4,655m2 at 137 Mercer Street for future accommodation ($ 2.7m) but despite various studies and consideration of options the consolidation at a single location has not been achieved.

There have been several separate reports commissioned by Council in 2000, 2006, 2010, 2012, 2014 and more recently in 2017. The land purchase was an outcome of the 2006 report. A recent valuation obtained for the site at 137 Mercer Street suggests it is currently worth $13m.

Actions to date In 2015 Council resolved to endorse the expansion of the Geelong Art Gallery into the driveway and conference centre/meeting room annexe of City Hall as its preferred option for the redevelopment of the Geelong Gallery (28th April 2015).

The Council Administrative Centre issue was also the subject of the Commission of Inquiry into the Greater Geelong City Council April 2016: Recommendation 12 of the Commission’s report:

“Action be initiated to consolidate Council departments in one central location to unify the organisation, deliver increased efficiency and productivity and release surplus assets for more economic uses”.

More recently (since Nov/Dec 2016) Council staff working with consultants have;

- Evaluated available central city sites for establishment of a single civic precinct which could include a new office accommodation project.

- Examined several designs for the preferred site at 137 Mercer Street.

- Evaluated various methods of financing the establishment of the project including possible reuses and/or disposal of vacated Council property and other property assets.


- Consultants used include

o Currie and Brown (research, financial analysis and cost management) o Design Inc (architects) o Ernst and Young (peer review and further financial analysis)

At its meeting on 20 September 2017 Administrators resolved to:

1) note that the information in the Business Case to date is positive, but conservative;

2) reaffirms the site at 137 Mercer Street as its preferred future accommodation site.

3) authorises further more detailed analysis be undertaken to:

• analyse and redesign key business processes to improve productivity both in terms of service delivery and spatial requirements to inform the size and design of any new facility;

• fully explore funding options consistent with the findings of the Commission of Inquiry and explore possible partnerships to achieve the most cost effective method of delivering Civic Accommodation that will realise the consolidation of Council administration at the one location in a single stage within a new Civic Precinct ;

• in association with the Geelong Authority and in the context of current master planning of the station precinct, investigate all urban design features and pedestrian and traffic management implications to ensure a new civic precinct works most effectively to link the Station, Johnstone Park, the Cultural and Arts Precinct to the central business district and to Deakin University.

4) receive a report on funding of the new Civic Accommodation project during the first quarter of 2018 and, if approved, refer the project to the 2018/19 budget for consideration and possible inclusion in the Strategic Resource Plan.

Discussion

1. Strategic Site Assessment

• A review of several potential sites in and around the Geelong Central Area was carried out including both Council and privately owned sites (refer to Attachment 1). Each site had to be capable of providing 15,000m2 of gross office accommodation space and associated parking to meet projected staff numbers over the forecast period. Provision was also made for a further area of 2,200m2 for community facilities such as a child care centre.

• The assessed sites included 137 Mercer Street, Civic Centre Car Park, Busport, City Hall and Johnstone Park and other private and Government sites around the central area. The removed Target site on Thompson Road was also assessed but dismissed as being too remote from the CBD.

o Each site was assessed using criteria relating to customer service,

workplace amenity, financial outcomes, economic benefit and growth potential. The two stand out sites were both Council owned; land at 137 Mercer Street and the Civic Centre car park site in Gheringhap Street.

• 137 Mercer Street emerged from the investigation as the least costly option of the

Council owned sites. The Civic Centre car park site is more costly due to demolition costs and lost parking revenue.


• The real value of the 137 Mercer site is its strategic importance. 137 Mercer Street offers the opportunity to create a stronger link between the business district and the rail station. From the Station through a new Civic Precinct linking and extending the Green Spine to the Central Business District with associated retail opportunities along the way adds a new dimension to the development of the western edge of the City Centre.

• With WorkSafe, TAC and NDIS in close proximity adding the Civic Accommodation

to the equation with access from the Council site to the station would result in this extended Green Spine link becoming a vital addition to City’s revitalisation.

• 137 Mercer Street also offers an opportunity to expand community access to the existing City Hall, Johnstone Park and the cultural and arts precinct. The site is also within an area that has flexible and supportive planning policies. With improved traffic and pedestrian planning this site is well positioned for easy access for the community and is within 150m of rail and bus transport.

2. Geelong Station Precinct Master Plan

• Since the selection of the Mercer Street site, and in accordance with the Council

resolution in September 2017, Council officers have worked with State Government offices (DELWP) and the Geelong Authority on the Geelong Station Precinct Master Plan.

• This plan in its current form has not been publicly released and has not been accepted or endorsed by the State. The plan does however severely restrict the Mercer Street site for development if it were to proceed. (see plans shown as Attachment 2 and 3).

• If the Station Precinct Master Plan as currently presented was to be implemented

it would also severely reduce the current value of Council’s Mercer Street land so some compensation would be expected and according to DELWP is included in the total cost of the rail plan budget.

• The rail plan assumes Council’s offices are established on a restricted land parcel

on Mercer Street but also assumes this happens by a reconfiguration of the site driven by the State Government through the involvement of Development Victoria. Confirmation of the State’s role and position on a redevelopment of the rail precinct may be known within the next few months. The smaller site area would mean a higher building with reduced floor plates. Modern office configurations favour larger floor plates to promote efficiencies and improved worker collaboration.

• The current Station Precinct Master Plan is ‘work in progress’ and is being further

reviewed. See Attachment 4 for an overview of the land configuration relative to the most recent plan.

• From information available to Council officers the acceptance of the plan by

Government and its full implementation may be several years away and if implemented solely with State funding would likely to be staged over a long period.

• Notwithstanding the adoption of the overall master plan, there are elements of the master plan that, subject to community consultation, may be able to be advanced in the shorter term which would result in the improved function of the bus and train transport network.


3. Projected accommodation requirements

• Council’s existing administrative accommodation is located over 10 sites as shown in the table below. Annual costs for all leased premises are $2.05m as at February 2018 which could rise to $2.78m pa in January 2019 or beyond should additional space available at Brougham Street be taken up. Council currently has an option over additional floor space at Brougham Street.

• It is expected that staff at the former Post Office will move to Busport in April 2018 leaving the Post Office vacant allowing for disposal of the property (see February Council meeting report).

Location Occupied Space m2

Total Workstations

Occupancy Status

City Hall Civic* 755 4 Owned

City Hall Administration 1,844 108 Owned

Corio Street 1,884 191 Leased

Brougham Street 3,644 241 Leased

Busport** 1,286 90 Owned

Post Office 228 19 Owned

Customs House 442 22 Owned

National Wool Museum 348 23 Crown land - CoM

Ariston 385 37 Leased

155 Mercer Street 900 78 Leased (from July 2017)

Total 11,716 813

*Civic space includes Council Chamber, Councillor’s offices, function and servicing areas. ** Includes Tourism Geelong Bellarine at Busport 15 workstations.

• In projecting future floor space needs consideration is given to a range of issues including existing workstation numbers, projected growth, space allocations per workstation and grossing up items including meeting rooms, amenities, front of house, storage and other spaces.

• The conventional form of office accommodation is open plan with dedicated desks. Activity based working

• In contemporary office accommodation there is a trend towards activity based working (ABW) which allows for smaller desk footprints and “hot desking” or the non-assigned desks, facilitated by greater use of technology and the move towards paper free offices. ABW aims to increase productivity by enabling more interaction between employees, while retaining employee satisfaction and reducing accommodation costs.


• ABW is best demonstrated in call centre environments and other industries with a data processing emphasis. In local government there is limited use of ABW in its pure form, although in modern government office environments there is evidence of strong ABW influence (Cardinia Shire’s new offices are perhaps the best local government example of this and new municipal offices at Casey have embraced ABW). Locally the Australian Bureau of Statistics office in the former Ford Discovery Centre building is another good example of ABW.

• According to both Cardinia and Casey Councils ABW is demonstrating improved

amenity for staff, is producing increased satisfaction and productivity results and is resulting in improved collaboration. Cardinia Shire has occupied its premises for 3 years and is reporting:

o Improved employee engagement and empowerment o Reduction of paper use by 70% o Decrease in operational energy costs through functional Environmentally

Sustainable Design (ESD). o Health benefits – more mobile working o Operational benefits – increased productivity - 68% of staff feel they are more

productive in the ABW environment o Less floor space required per staff member – decreased building footprint.

70% ratio adopted o Built in 10 years additional growth or more o Increased organisational learning which drives better decision making and

customer service (Cardinia Shire Presentation March 2018). • ABW can also significantly reduce floor space requirements for COGG and

consequently reduce build costs. ABW can require a 3 to 4 year lead in period to inform and change staff attitudes and traditional practices. Lessons from others suggest the transformation to the ABW environment must be supported by investment in staff education and development if the best results are to be obtained and the cost of transformation should be included in the project cost.

Options for Council administration The question of who will be accommodated in the new single administrative building needs to be determined for the calculation of floor space. Currently the Councillor offices, support staff, Council Chamber, Mayor’s office, Council lounge area, kitchen and other meeting rooms occupies 1000m2 of space. If the traditional approach is adopted and should all of these areas be incorporated into any new building the new build cost for these facilities would be in the order of $6m.

If ABW is used it wouldn’t necessarily matter where the Councillor facilities were as the space would be incorporated in the office design with Councillors having hot desk arrangements within a Councillor “neighbourhood” where the Mayor’s office would also be. Support staff would be mobile and be able to hot desk anywhere within the office building. The Council Chamber could also either stay at City Hall or be created by designing in a larger meeting room/forum within the new offices (Cardinia and Casey examples)

The project feasibility undertaken by Currie and Brown for Council in 2016 was based on conventional office design and assumed the Councillor related functions would remain at City Hall

A redesign of City Hall could be undertaken to adequately accommodate the Gallery extension and Council’s future requirements (see later commentary on Art Gallery). There is a total floor space City Hall of 2811m2 assuming the existing staircase and mezzanine floors were retained.


• In the original concept drawing for the new Civic Accommodation Council

incorporated an area of 2209m2 for a community facility potentially incorporating a child care centre. It is considered that this facility, if finally incorporated, could either be provided directly by Council or perhaps some aspects of it provided commercially by private investment. It may also be considered that if appropriately configured internally City Hall may become a venue for some community use. Alternatively provision of community facilities within a building such as the former Court House may be an option.

• From a recent visit to Casey Council it does seem advantageous to incorporate the Council’s administrative centre within a designated community hub. At Casey the offices are within a precinct that contains a library, a theatre, an outdoor theatre, an early learning centre and an art gallery. There is a vibrancy generated by people using and visiting the precinct and the focus is very much on community rather than simply the Council offices.

• Currently Council has no adopted strategic plan for a new community facility within central Geelong but with the objective of increasing both the worker and residential populations of central Geelong it would seem that a facility will be required in the future. The Geelong Authority has however identified the need in central Geelong for a new primary school and other facilities such as a community centre, a health and wellbeing hub and an early learning centre (Revitalising Central Geelong Community Infrastructure Report Nov 2017).

• For planning purposes an accommodation building to suit the Council’s

projected needs up until 2038 could assume direct provision by Council of community facilities and that any Governance related functions (Council Chambers, etc) could remain at City Hall.

• The original projections do however incorporate limited use of ABW and

consequently these projections have been revised to now allow for 10,000m2 of gross office related floor space (down from 15000m2) based on the following principles: (see further comment in part 5)

o Assumption of planning for 80% of EFT workstations – say 650. o Allowance for 20% growth in staff numbers over the next 20 years. o Additional allowances for meeting rooms, front of house, amenities,

storage and associated areas and using an ABW design for staff workstations (total of 10000m2 gross floor area)

o Additional space to accommodate 120 on site parking spaces. o An additional community space of 2200m2 with an additional 30 on site

parking spaces.

Comparison with Casey

• The City of Casey provides services to 300,000 people.

• In its new offices the City of Casey has been able to plan for growth in staff numbers and meet these requirements within a new office building of 7477m2 so the projected 10000m2 of office space for COGG in our analysis still seems conservative.

• Comparing the projected office accommodation space requirement of 10,000m2 (gross floor area) with both Casey’s current space and the existing COGG allocation of 11,716m2 indicates the relative inefficiency of Council’s current fragmented accommodation and office configurations.


• Much of the existing accommodation is located within buildings that prevent open plan layouts and 20 year old space allocations per workstation which are greater than contemporary standards. There has also been an increase in staff numbers over the past 18 months which will need to be stabilised over the coming years to avoid discrepancies between projected and actual space needs.

4. Council Administrative Offices as a catalyst project

Some thought should be given to using the Council office project as a catalyst for creating improved community outcomes and to attract additional investment by the State and Commonwealth Governments as well as the private sector.

Whilst establishing the Council offices at 137 Mercer Street could complement the new Station Precinct there is also the possibility of partnering with the Government and private sector in building on plans for a new bus interchange and facilities to improve the overall experience of commuters as part of the rail station redevelopment. There may also be other opportunities to use the Council Offices project to attract investment in a much larger project (Convention Centre, a Government office “hub”, etc.)

If Council, was to fund a new office development above a new Government funded bus terminal and interchange on the corner of Brougham and Mercer the scale of the development should attract both State and Commonwealth funding for the Council component under the City Deals program.

Appropriately designed this sort of development would provide all the same strategic advantages of the 137 Mercer Street site and could also offer retail opportunities such as a café, supermarket and other outlets to cater for an increasing population using buses and trains to enter and exit Geelong. The State may also wish to incorporate some Departmental offices within the complex.

Community facilities such as a child care centre could also be planned for the site and the development would position the City of Greater Geelong offices within a growth precinct. This would not only ultimately secure the value of the investment but also make it more attractive to private sector investment.

Building as part of an expanded rail station precinct without compromising future plans for the area may, subject to cost, potentially also allow building over the rail lines and therefore effectively linking eastern and western parts of the precinct.

5. The project

• For our current financial analysis work, the project has been determined to be:

o 10,000m2 of gross floor area of office space

o A minimum 5.5 star Green Star building.

o Basement car park levels providing 120 spaces.

o Active street frontages

• Additional space for a child care centre and associated parking have been separated so as to be able to isolate the cost of the offices only against the ‘do nothing’ option. The cost of the child care and parking is estimated to be $15m and would apply as an addition to all models evaluated.


• If built on Mercer Street the building would be 8 – 10 stories. If the site became the station precinct it would be possible to have larger floor plates and therefore five or six levels of office space may be sufficient for Council needs.

6. Use of City Hall by the Art Gallery

The possibility of the Geelong Art Gallery occupying City Hall either in its entirety or in a co-located form has been discussed in the past.

Council considered a development plan in April 2015 to expand the Gallery by building over the Council chamber and laneway between the two buildings (providing a further 3200m2 to the existing 2200m2 of existing gallery space).

In September 2017 Council endorsed the Arts and Cultural Precinct Master Plan which raised the possibility of an expanded Art Gallery. The following extracts from the relevant Council minutes on this matter are provided here:

“In 2014 Council and the Geelong Gallery were successful in securing funding from the State Government under Regional Development Victoria to undertake a Business Case that identified and assessed options for the Gallery’s future redevelopment and expansion options, and to provide a platform for prospective future funding bids.

Ten redevelopment options were assessed including several within the Gallery’s current location, as well as alternative locations. Spatial massing designs and costs estimates were undertaken for each.

At 9 December 2014 meeting, Council noted Option 4 as the preferred option for the Geelong Gallery redevelopment.

In Option 4, the Gallery expands from its current (2,200m2) footprint eastwards and upwards into the driveway and footprint of the conference centre/meeting room annex of City Hall. Option 4 includes funding for reclamation of lost space to Council.

Option 4 requires a one off total capital investment in the order of $40m with an estimated increase in recurrent operating costs of $800k including $450k for programme and exhibition development and $350k for annual maintenance. It would provide the Gallery with sufficient space (5,400m2) to develop and secure major (‘blockbuster’) ticketed exhibitions; increase the percentage of collection items on display; increase capacity to deliver public and education programmes; enhance essential visitor amenities including the Gallery Shop; develop a café/restaurant; and, provide crucial exhibition preparation and storage areas.

As part of any such development, the Gallery would need to undergo a fundamental repositioning, substantially broadening and deepening its programming mix and target markets. This is anticipated to lead over time to a tripling of annual visits from around 60,000 to up to 200,000, bringing significant economic, social, cultural and community benefits to Geelong and region.

1290 community surveys were completed during the community comment period. Based on the responses received 98.6% rated the importance of the expansion as “very important” or “important” with 98.9% agreeing that the Geelong Gallery plays an “absolutely vital” role in the City’s cultural wellbeing and is one of Geelong’s major cultural attractions. 98.3% believe a redeveloped Gallery is “absolutely vital or “important” to the appeal and success of the Cultural Precinct. 93.9% rated Option 4 as “a very good idea” or “a reasonable idea”. In addition hundreds of respondents provided detailed and overwhelmingly positive comments on the importance of the Geelong Gallery and its development to the City and the region”.


The preferred option in 2015 was for the Art Gallery to occupy City Hall with the annexation of the existing western end of the Town Hall (approx. 700m2). The preferred option for the expansion of the Gallery could proceed if Council’s functions were re-established elsewhere or in the eastern end of the current building and funding was available (2015 report suggested $39.8m). The State Government has a role in these plans as the land occupied by both City Hall and the Art Gallery is Crown land (999 year lease expiring in 2854) and State funding would be required for the Gallery expansion (assumed in 2015 report).

7. Development options

Development options describe the manner in which Council can procure the project in both financial and occupancy terms. The ‘do nothing’ option has been included for the purposes of financial comparison. For the purposes of the financial analysis the initial development options reviewed over a period of 25 years were:

7.1 Do nothing. Council continues to occupy various dispersed central area

locations, buildings either being Council owned or controlled or leased from private owners.

7.2 Council owns, funds and develops on land it owns. This could either be

completed by council or be part of a larger development on a site in a partnership with the private sector or with Government.

7.3 Council enters into a joint venture /ownership with a developer on Council

land or another site. Construction management by the developer and Council leases the building from the joint venture entity.

7.4 Council leases a purpose built building from the private sector on Council

land or another site.

Summary of analysis. Note: In considering how to fund new offices it has not been assumed that any Government funding would be available. For a development of the size required by Council and the economic impact such a development would have for the revitalisation of central Geelong or as a catalyst for a major infrastructure project there is a strong case for seeking Government funding assistance.

a) Do nothing

This is the base case in which Council would continue to maintain the existing owned and leased facilities.

o Additional growth would be accomplished by increased rental space. o Costs include periodic upgrades and refits each 5 years. o Over a period of 25 years the net present cost (NPC) of this option would be

$92.9m. o This cost consists of rent and outgoings (to external landlords), maintenance

of council owned assets and upgrade projects for workspace improvements at both owned and leased premises.


Retention and/or replacement of Busport and Customs House as offices is assumed under this option. No expansion of Gallery to City Hall is assumed and continuation of existing operational inefficiencies is assumed due to spatial disbursement. This scenario does not assume Council leases any further spaces over the 25 years, but continually works to undertake workspace efficiency projects. It does not contemplate an ABW change. This option is the least disruptive but effectively continues the relative high cost of dispersed administration. It also fails to address any cultural changes assisted by consolidation of staff within a single office environment.

b) Council owns, funds and develops on its land.

Under this option:

• Council would meet the costs of its office accommodation. • The community facility space of 2200m2 would be added. • All cost associated with construction, operating, maintenance, upgrades, debt

finance, revenue rental offsets, etc. have been included in the NPC calculation. • This option assumes Council finances from borrowings and over a 25 year period

has a NPC of $104.7m. The NPC is higher than the “do nothing” however it delivers a higher standard of work environment and brings most functions under one roof, thereby enabling work place efficiencies. When these efficiencies are factored in (est. $25m over the period) and after allowing for depreciation, etc. the Net Present Value (NPV) of the building asset at the end is factored in ($38m) the real value of this asset is much lower than doing nothing. See comment on page 8 for some other potential benefits of this option. The main costs associated with the NPC of $104.7m is the loan (principal and interest) associated with funding the construction costs. The financial analysis assumes Council would pay off the loan over 25 years. The annual cost of loan repayments commencing from 2022 (estimated completion of construction) is $5.7m pa. Council would also be responsible for operational and capital expenditure normally associated with ownership of the asset. Benefits: - Council will own the building – as opposed to paying rent. Positive NPV at end of

$38m - Efficiencies gained by consolidating (est. $25M over 25 years)

Under this option and depending on developer interest a larger development could be achieved by entering into an agreement with a developer over the balance of the Council property. This may recover some value of the unused land and/or it may create some economies of scale resulting in reduced costs for the Council “anchor” component. The own, fund and develop option could also apply to a development within the rail precinct. If, for instance, Council and the State “swapped” land Council would be compensated for loss of 137 Mercer and own an equivalent site within the rail precinct. Council could therefore develop the site for offices with bus interchange and associated uses developed with funding assistance from Government and/or the private sector. This is the preferred option as it provides new premises with the benefits of co-location and overall offers better value than Options 1 or 4.


Joint Venture Development and Co-Ownership

Under this option: • Council would enter into an agreement with a developer to jointly manage a

development which would be partly owned by Council • Ownership could be on a separate title basis with shared common areas, or the

entire asset could be co-owned by Council and a developer/investor. • Management functions of the asset are assumed to be undertaken by an

independent entity.

• Benefits Council would borrow less, but would still have to pay rent to the ownership entity.

Drawbacks

• Council will be both the landlord (in part) and the tenant which could give rise to conflicts of interest over issues such as rent and maintenance, sale/exit and debt conditions and covenants.

• Council would need Ministerial and also probably Treasurer approval under the

entrepreneurial provisions of S193 of the Local Government Act.

• A risk analysis would also need to be undertaken to ensure any risk associated with joint financing or management was mitigated.

Co-ownership has been considered, but due to many of the non monetary risks of such a structure it is not a preferred option. c) Option 4. Developer builds and Council lease new premises

Under this option Council invites proposals from developers wishing to meet its needs for office accommodation and community facilities (depending on final scope). Council offers its 137 Mercer Street site as an option but also allows nomination of sites with say an identified area reasonably close to the Town Hall. This option would open up the possibility of incorporating Council’s new administrative centre with the proposed Convention Centre (similar to what City of Casey has done with its Arts and Cultural Centre) and/or being part of a larger building on the redeveloped Rail Precinct site. This option of inviting developers to present proposals would also work on a Council ownership model (see earlier comment) whereby the developer would build to Council’s specification and Council owns the building within a larger precinct which provides State and/or Community facilities. The rent required to make the development feasible (i.e.; the economic rent) would be a function of the cost to build the premises. If just considering the rental of premises this option assumes a developer will be trying to achieve a rate of return around 10% on the cost (i.e.; the developer’s profit). If Council built the premises itself it would save on this cost. Depending on the actual cost of establishment the commencement rentals could be as high as $600m2 net plus parking but given rentals in recent new buildings in Geelong may be as low as $450m2 (e.g. WorkSafe). The calculation of cost then depends on level of specification and quality of fit out Council requires.


Initial analysis suggests the NPC cost of this rental option over 25 years could be as high as $ 112.9 m. There is of course no Council asset value at the end of 25 years to offset this cost but there would be the same reduced operational costs applying to the build and own option (see earlier comment). Under the rental or commission and purchase variation of this option Council would be advised to give some consideration to the future use of its 137 Mercer Street site. Rather than run the risk of this site being devalued as competing sites seek major development opportunities in a reduced market Council could either decide to keep the site for car parking, offer it to the State for reconfiguration if the rail master plan was being pursued or more likely make it a condition of the agreement with the new site developer to reimburse the Council for the value of its landholding.

8. Funding Strategy

8.1 Impact of project on borrowing levels

Depending on the final funding decision the delivery of a project of this size by Council under a build own or commission and purchase option has considerable impact on Council’s debt position and balance sheet.

As at the end of June 2018 it is anticipated that based on current projections Council will have total borrowings of $68.4m.

Over the next five or six years the Council borrowings will need to increase to fund projects associated with growth in Armstrong Creek, Northern Geelong and projects associated with the continued growth and development of established communities. Council is however well placed to offset the cost of borrowing by making better use of its existing asset base.

Should Council elect to simply borrow to fund all new projects, including the new office accommodation (which has largely been the historical practice), the total debt level in say 2023/24 could be as high as $262m (subject to Council approval of the forward capital works program). Borrowing to this extent is still within Council’s capacity but would see the ratio of debt to rate revenue reach 164% in 2023/24 Current loan balance (end Feb 2018) is $39.7m or a ratio of 31%. Ernst & Young in an earlier review of Council’s financial sustainability (2006) suggest a sustainable debt level for CoGG could be as high as $322m. The projected level of debt would include the estimated investment in new Civic Accommodation (est. $75m with fitout if established on Council land or more if purchased on other land). The $75m estimate is based on the estimate of building costs associated with the cost of building the WorkSafe building and has been verified by Ernst and Young as being an accurate assessment. The cost of the Council project could be as high as $90m if community facilities are incorporated. Depending on how the future expansion of the Art Gallery was funded this may also impact on financial forecasts Final costs depend on scope and will only be known when and if the project goes to market.


8.2 Offsetting financing costs.

Future borrowings could of course be offset if Council could create additional capacity in its operational budget to fund capital works or it elected to sell some of its existing land and building assets. A recent high level analysis report to Council identified over $100m of potential asset sales and it is expected more opportunities for asset sales may come from Service Planning work and the new Asset Management system being put in place by Council officers.

Should Council elect to go down the path of rental or joint venture the impact on borrowings is obviously reduced. If Council was to offer its project as a catalyst for one of the State’s larger infrastructure projects it should also be possible to attract some State and/or Federal Government funding for the new offices under the banner of further CBD revitalisation and investment in central Geelong. If Council’s office was to either form part of a bigger Convention Centre development or (more likely) be the catalyst for the new Rail Station redevelopment there should be a strong business case for assistance.

All opportunities for partnership funding need to be explored further. The case for the Rail Station complex seems stronger if Council offices were built above or beside the new bus interchange area and the foyer was also shared with rail patrons. This would be a stronger community focus than the Convention Centre. Such a location would also be very positive for attracting staff and for the visiting public given proximity to public transport and parking. It may also lend itself to the incorporation of other community facilities. The land sales program could be assembled using existing CBD properties owned by Council. The annual cost of servicing additional net debt of say $30m would, after considering efficiency benefits, be less than what Council is currently paying in rent.

9. Exploring the potential for a precinct development

Ideally the Council Accommodation Project would form part of a larger investment project and be funded from a variety of sources. In addition to a land swap Government funding to at least 30% of the office and community facility project should be sought (assume $30m).The balance of say $60m split between borrowings and repayment of loans from future property sales would see Council owning an asset worth over $100m within a larger project benefiting the community for many years to come and achieving significant efficiencies compared to the do nothing scenario.

• If unencumbered by future rail station redevelopment plans 137 Mercer Street is a relatively large site (4655m2) and offers the potential for a larger precinct development incorporating the requirements of Council. An option exists for Council to invite the private sector to bid for the development rights to the precinct to incorporate the 10,000m2 office building or the building and associated community facilities to be owned by Council.


• The advantage of offering the whole site for future development is the potential economies of scale whereby the Council building is the anchor and further offices, car parking, community amenities such as child care and perhaps retail establishments (e.g.; restaurant, cafes, etc.) could be created within the precinct to further enhance the attractiveness of the whole area. A further advantage would be that Council may recover some of its equity in the land ownership depending on the type of proposals coming forward.

• If Council “swapped” its Mercer Street land for an equivalent sized site within the

Station Precinct, the opportunity for a larger development would still remain.

10. Project Delivery Outline

If the project is Council owned, funded and developed there is an outline program in Attachment 5. The “move in” date is planned for 1 July 2022 to coincide with terminating leases over existing office accommodation. Under other than Council controlled options the end date remains the same but planning and delivery is subject to negotiation with other parties.


The financial implications of this project both in term of capital funding and operational costs have been summarised in the report and have been the subject of more detailed work with Ernst and Young. Options for funding have been considered and a funding formula suggested.

Should Council proceed with the recommendation to further examine this project via the Project Committee the financial implications will form part of this further review.


The community has not yet been engaged in the planning for this project. If the project moves to the next stage it is expected that the Council Plan and accompanying strategic resource plan will provide opportunity for engagement. The establishment of a consolidated administrative office has been considered by the Council since 2000 and during this time there has been community engagement.


No identifiable social equity impacts if recommendations were implemented.


No impacts in relation to the Human Rights Charter. Compliance with provisions of the Local Government Act will occur.


The project is identified in the draft 2018/2021 Council Plan. This Plan will be subject to further community engagement.


No conflict of interest exists


Risk Assessment

No identifiable risk if recommendations were implemented.


No identifiable environmental implications if recommendations were implemented.

Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Attachment 3

Attachment 4

Attachment 5


6. EMPLOYMENT MATTER

Source: People and Organisation Development Executive Manager: Andrew Keen Index Reference: Subject: CEO Recruitment


confidential to Council in accordance with section 89(2)(a) of the Local

Government Act 1989 as it contains information relating to personnel matters.




Purpose

The purpose of this report is for Council to appoint an Acting Chief Executive Officer for a short term until the commencement of the new Chief Executive Officer.

Background

• The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Kelvin Spiller, announced his retirement and will leave the organisation on 28 March 2018.

• In accordance with the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) and Council Policy, the CEO Employment Matters Committee was established and recruitment for a new Chief Executive Officer commenced.

• The appointment of an Acting CEO is required for the period between Mr Spiller leaving the organisation and the commencement of the new CEO.

• The CEO Employment Matters Committee has considered the need for an Acting CEO.

Key Issues

The CEO Employment Matters Committee was established in late 2017 and commenced the CEO recruitment process.

The committee appointed an executive recruitment consultant, the position was advertised in accordance with the Act, and the process is nearing completion.

For the period in between the former CEO leaving and the new CEO commencing, the CEO Employment Matters Committee has considered the requirement for an Acting CEO and is recommending to Council that Mr Brett Luxford been appointed as Acting CEO.


Recommendation

That Council:

1) In exercise of the powers conferred by section 94 of the Local Government Act 1989, appoints Mr Brett Luxford as Acting Chief Executive Officer until the commencement of a new, permanent Chief Executive Officer;

2) Authorises Executive Manager, People and Organisation Development, to undertake the administrative arrangements in accordance with Council policy to give effect to the appointment;

3) Notes in the minutes of this meeting that Mr Brett Luxford has been appointed as Acting Chief Executive Officer.


Attachment 1

Discussion

The CEO Employment Matters Committee considered the requirements for the Acting CEO position and recommends the Director of Investment and Attraction, Brett Luxford, be appointed.


There are no environmental implications associated with this report.


There are no additional financial impacts associated with this report.


There are some specific requirements provided by section 94 of the Act relating to the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer.

• A Council must appoint a natural person to be its Chief Executive Officer.

• The Chief Executive Officer is a member of Council Staff.

• A Council may only appoint a person to be its Chief Executive Officer after it has invited applications for the position in a notice in a newspaper circulating generally throughout Victoria and has considered all applications received by it that comply with the conditions specified in the notice. (Not applicable for Acting position).

While the appointment is to be made by the Council, a Committee may be appointed in accordance with section 86 and 87 of the Act with delegated powers to undertake designated steps in the recruitment process, including making a recommendation regarding the appointment of a CEO.


The Acting CEO will assume the delegations of the CEO and lead the organisation to align with City Plan.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

There is no officer direct or indirect conflict of interest.

Risk Assessment

Appointing an existing member of the executive team reduces any known risks.

Social Considerations

There are no known social considerations.

Human Rights Charter

Human Rights Charter has been considered and no impacts have been identified.

Consultation and Communication

The vacancy for the permanent position has been publicly advertised.


7. AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE SUMMARY REPORT

Source: Governance and Legal Services Executive Manager: Rebecca Leonard Index Reference: Audit - CG - Internal


confidential to Council in accordance with section 89(2)(h) of the Local

Government Act 1989 as it contains matters which the Council considers would

prejudice the Council or any person.




Purpose

To provide a summary of the Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) meeting held on Wednesday 21 February 2018.

Background

The ARC meets on a quarterly basis in February, May, August (2 meetings) and November each year. The ARC’s charter requires that a summary report is provided to Council after each meeting.

The members of the Audit and Risk Committee are Councillors Harwood and Grzybek together with three independent members including Lisa Tripodi, John Watson and Chair Geoff Harry.

Key Issues

Seven reports were presented to and considered by the ARC on 21 February 2018 as follows:

1. Chief Executive Officer’s report;

2. Financial Management Report(s) – December 2017;

3. External Audit- VAGO – Audit Strategy report;

4. Risk Management report;

5. Internal Audit - Crises Management and BCP report;

6. Internal Audit - Food Act Compliance report; and

7. Internal Audit - Data Analytics - Payroll and Accounts Payable report.

A copy of the draft minutes of the ARC meeting held on 21 February 2018 is included at Attachment 1.

Recommendation

That Council receives and notes the Audit and Risk Committee Summary Report in respect to the meeting held on 21 February 2018.



As detailed in the minutes attached.


There are no community engagement implications related to this recommendation.


There are no social equity implications related to this recommendation.




How we do business.


Members are required to declare any direct or indirect interest in respect to any agenda items at the commencement of the meeting.

Risk Assessment



There are no environmental implications related to this recommendation.


8. T1770865 - PROVISION OF PAINTING SERVICES

Source: Finance and Strategy Director: Peter Anderson Index Reference: Tender T1770865

The information contained within this report is provided on the basis that it is confidential to Council in accordance with section 89(2)(d) of the Local

Government Act 1989 as it contains contractual matters. The release of this information to any other person would constitute a breach

of the Local Government Act 1989.



Purpose

To Council for the awarding of Preferred Supplier Contracts to the top three ranked Tenderers under a Schedule of Rates, these being:

1. C1770865A – Greater City Painting Services ABN 65074646487 2. C1770865B – Higgins Coatings Pty Ltd, ABN 50005632708 ; and 3. C1770865C – Programmed Property Services Pty Ltd, ABN 66106015632;

Background

The current panel contract for Painting Services for the City of Greater Geelong expired 28 February 2018 and consists of service providers Programmed Property Services Pty Ltd and Greater City Painting Services. Contracts have been extended to allow for the awarding of this tender process.

Tenders for the provision of painting services were invited via public tender on Saturday 29 July 2017 and closed Wednesday 9 August 2018 to appoint experienced painting contractors to its panel of suppliers. The works of this Contract include the re-painting of Council buildings, structures or other assets either internally or externally, on various types of surfaces and conditions including some minor new painting works and graffiti repaints.

Key Issues

• Procurement Services, in partnership with Facilities Maintenance undertook an open tender process to appoint experienced painting contractors to its panel of suppliers.

• All officers involved in this process have no conflicts of interest to declare.

• Council approval is required to engage the recommended Panel of Suppliers as the value of the Contract over the initial term including extension options will exceed $2,000,000.00

• As part of the tendering conditions Council reserved the right to appoint more than one contractor to the contracted panel and gave no guarantee of work volumes.

• Council received six (6) tender submissions from painting contractors seeking inclusion on the panel contract.


• The Tender Evaluation Panel used the following evaluation criteria in order of weighting:

o Price – Value for money;

o Capability and experience, past performance over past three (3) years (35%);

o Proposed Staffing levels, plant and equipment, extent of subcontracting, methodology / plan (20%);

o Quality, Environment & Risk Policy and Procedures (15%);

o Customer Service (15%);

o Economic contribution to the Geelong region (10%); and

o Flexibility and Responsiveness (5%).

o

Summary of Submissions received

Supplier Final Score

Programmed Property Services Pty Ltd 81.50

Higgins Coatings Pty Ltd 76.00

Greater City Painting Services Pty Ltd 75.50

Mattioli Bros Pty Ltd 43.50

Prime painting Group Pty Ltd 43.00

MAC Coatings Pty Ltd 32.00

• The tender submission responses were scored and rated individually against all the separate criteria above. Panel members undertook a rigorous exercise of due diligence by assessing the various tenderer submissions, undertaking pricing assumptions against the schedules provided and analysing further written clarifications on aspects of tendered bids.

• Tenderers that obtained a qualitative score of >75/100 were deemed to have the necessary skills, experience and resources to deliver the services in accordance with the specification. The tenderers who achieved this score were then assessed

on a value for money basis.

• Pricing analysis demonstrated that the top three qualitative responses were in the top four cheapest rates for Council under the assumptions modelling.

• Prime Painting Group Pty Ltd were in the top four cheapest rates submitted to Council but they did not rate highly in their qualitative score and therefore were deemed not suitable.

• Based on the shortfall of suitable suppliers in the previous tender process and expected increases in painting requirements, three (3) suppliers is a successful outcome for the contract for the supply Painting Services.

• All recommended tender submissions satisfied the mandatory criteria consisting of OH&S, attendance at the mandatory site inspection and provision of Working with Children checks and were deemed conforming.


• Programmed Property Services Pty Ltd (PPS) are a Geelong based provider who are currently contracted to supply painting services to the City of Greater Geelong. They have established relationships with local paint and equipment suppliers and have forecast 6 full-time Geelong based tradespeople will have continuous employment over the course of the contract term. PPS demonstrated that they had the expertise, plant and staffing to successfully supply the contract, providing a methodology detailing how they will comply with the specification. As a current contracted supplier they have been able to demonstrate ongoing compliance with Council's OH&S requirements supported by evidence of their workplace health & safety practices.

• Greater City Painting Services (GCPS) are based in Geelong and have provided painting services to the City of Greater Geelong under the existing panel contract. They have a proven track record of supplying quality works demonstrating a preparedness to take on the smaller jobs, often at short notice. As a current contracted supplier they have demonstrated their compliance against Council's OH&S requirements providing details of their safe work method statements and OH&S practices.

• Higgins Coatings have been based in Geelong for 10+ years and were previously a contracted provider with City of Greater Geelong. They currently provide painting & maintenance services for numerous Council's including the City of Moreland, City of Darebin, Yarra City Council and Wyndham City Council. Their detailed submission addressed how they would deliver works in accordance with the specification and were supported by certified OHS, EMS & QMS systems. Higgins have confirmed that 100% of materials and all tradespeople will be sourced from within the Geelong region.

• Council currently incurs additional painting expenses of $210,000.00 per annum outside the panel contract. The type of jobs incurred outside of the panel contract include expenditure related to other building maintenance jobs (which do not form part of Councils planned painting maintenance program) and Graffiti expenses.

• The annual contract cost is $400,000.00 per annum. Council currently incurs additional painting expenses of $210,000.00 per annum outside the panel contract. As a result, the annual painting costs for Council are $610,000.00 per annum. The Panel also recommend an additional 15% be included in budget allocation to provide sufficient funding for future years growth in the painting program, CPI and efficient management of future delegation and cost management. Accordingly, it is expected that the annual contract cost could reach $700,000.00 per annum.

• This is a schedule of rates tender and will rely upon the amount of funds allocated in Council’s future recurrent budgets The estimated total cost for the term of this agreement (five (5) year term if all options exercised) is $3,500,000.00 (subject to CPI increments).

• This panel will follow rules of use which will force users to operate under the current procurement threshold when engaging suppliers.


Recommendation

That Council:

1) Awards Contract C1770865A for a period of three (3) years plus two (2) by one (1) year options to extend exercisable at Councils discretion to Greater City Painting Services ABN 65074646487 based on a Schedule of rates.

2) Awards Contract C1770865B for a period of three (3) years plus two (2) by one (1) year options to extend exercisable at Councils discretion to Higgins Coatings Pty Ltd, ABN 50005632708 based on a Schedule of rates.

3) Awards Contract C1770865C for a period of three (3) years plus two (2) by one (1) year options to extend exercisable at Councils discretion to Programmed Property Services Pty Ltd, ABN 66106015632 based on a Schedule of rates.

4) Delegates the Chief Executive Officer the authority to execute the Contract No’s C1770865A, C1770865B and C1770865C, and any other documents required by or to give effect to the terms of those Contracts, on behalf of Council.

5) Notes in the minutes of this meeting that:

• Contract C1770865A has been awarded to Greater City Painting Services; • Contract C1770865B has been awarded to Higgins Coatings Pty Ltd, and • Contract C1770865C has been awarded to Programmed Property Services

Pty. Ltd


Attachment 1


This is a schedule of rates tender and will rely upon the amount of funds allocated in Council’s various recurrent budgets. The current core budget allocation for this service is approximately $400,000.00 per annum. Council incurs additional Painting costs of $210,000.00 per annum via other recurrent budgets. The Panel recommend an additional 15% be included in future budget allocation to provide sufficient funding for future years growth in the painting program, CPI and efficient management of future delegation and cost management. It is expected that the annual contract cost could reach $700,000.00 per annum.


There are no communication issues associated with the acceptance of this tender. Council’s representative will liaise with affected community groups.


It is expected that the Provision of Painting Services will generate positive employment outcomes while maintaining the building infrastructure and services that address the needs of the Geelong community.


This tender was publicly tendered in accordance with the requirements of section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989 and the tender process has been conducted in accordance with Council’s Procurement Policy. There are no other policy, legal or statutory implications associated with this tender process. Confidential information contained in this Council report will be managed in accordance with Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, as the information relates to contractual matters and premature disclosure of the information could be prejudicial to the interests of Council or other persons.


The provision of this service has a positive impact on all key City Plan objectives.


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

Risk Assessment

There are not considered to be any risks associated with the acceptance of this tender that cannot be managed through the contract conditions. The tender evaluation process involved the assessment of Work, Health and Safety policies, procedures and risk assessment documents.


Any environmental implications associated with this contract will arise from the execution of these works. It is considered that these are the responsibility of the Contractor and will be managed through the contract documentation.

council agenda - 27 march 2018 - geelong...attached is your agenda for the ordinary meeting of...

Documents