Council Minutes - 13 September 2005 - City of Greater Geelong

MINUTES 

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 

Tuesday, 13 September 2005 

Held at the 

Council Conference and Reception Centre 

City Hall, Little Malop Street, Geelong 

commencing at 7.00 p.m. 

COUNCIL: 

Cr. S.M. Dowling 

- Mayor 

(Transportation and Telecommunications) 

Cr. B.H. Abley (Economic Development) 

Cr. A.M. Ansett (Rural and Regional Affairs, Heritage) 

CCr. L. Brazier (Community Development, Youth, 

Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs) 

Cr. J. Farrell (Governance, Communications and Finance) 

Cr. B. Harwood (Tourism and Major Events) 

Cr. Dr. S. Kontelj (Major Projects) 

Cr. R. Macdonald (Infrastructure, Parks and Gardens) 

Cr. P. McMullin (Arts, Culture and Education) 

Cr. J. Mitchell (Sport and Recreation) 

Cr. T. O’Connor (Environment and Waste Minimisation Services) 

Cr. D.J. Saunderson (Infrastructure and Planning)

SECTION A - PROCEDURAL MATTERS 

Apologies ................................................................................................................1 

Confirmation of Minutes ...........................................................................................1 

Declarations of Interest or Conflicts of Interest .........................................................1 

Question Time..........................................................................................................2 

Petitions ...................................................................................................................3 

SECTION B – REPORTS 

1. Combined Permit and Rezoning Application Former Ropeworks Site 

– 95-103 Pakington Street, Geelong West.........................................................4-21 

2. Strategic Planning Amendment Request – Surf Coast Highway, 

Grovedale – Proposed Barwon Health Nursing Home – Amendment 

C101 .................................................................................................................22-30 

3. Geelong Bypass Section 3 – Fyansford to Waurn Ponds: 

Consideration of the Environment Effects Statement and Planning 

Scheme Amendments C113, C114 and C115 ...................................................31-48 

4. Leisurelink Scoping Study on Replacement Facility...........................................49-61 

5. Sport and Recreation Victoria Community Facility Funding – Major 

Project Submission............................................................................................62-66 

6. WestConnect – VicRoads Shared Path Agreement...........................................67-69 

7. Service Review – Parks Department .................................................................70-78 

8. Film Geelong Activity Report – January to June 2005 .......................................79-83 

9. 2004/2005 Carry Over Program.........................................................................84-89 

10. Capital Project Site Transfer (C06529) ..............................................................90-91 

11. Membership of ECO-Buy Environmental Purchasing Program ..........................92-95 

12. 2005/2006 General Insurance Renewal Report.................................................96-101 

13. Waste Management Future Directions Strategy ................................................102-105 

14. Renaming Sections of Sommers Place, Geelong to Merrell Lane 

and Long Lane, Geelong ...................................................................................106-109 

15. Delegation – Declaration of a Dog as being Menacing ......................................110-112 

16. Delegation – Declaration of a Dog as being Dangerous ....................................113-116 

17. Consideration of Tender Submissions Tender T05130 Consultant 

Services Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan..................................................117-121 

18. Consideration of Tenders Submissions Tender T05131 Cleaning of 

Aquatic Centres.................................................................................................122-125 

19. Appointment of External Representative on the Audit Committee......................126-130 

20. Audit Advisory Committee Summary Report (Confidential)................................131 

21. Civic Accommodation (Confidential) ..................................................................132 

22. Haymarket Car Park Feasibility Study (Confidential) .........................................133 

Common Seal Register .....................................................................................134-135 

Close of Meeting ...............................................................................................136

Greater Geelong City Council 13 September 2005 

Minutes of Ordinary Meeting 

SECTION A – PROCEDURAL MATTERS Page 1 

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING 

OF THE GREATER GEELONG CITY COUNCIL 

HELD AT THE COUNCIL CONFERENCE AND RECEPTION CENTRE 

LITTLE MALOP STREET, GEELONG 

TUESDAY 13 SEPTEMBER 2005 

COMMENCING AT 7.00 P.M. 

PRESENT: 

Cr S Dowling (Mayor), Crs B H Abley, A M Ansett, J Farrell, B Harwood, 

R Macdonald, J Mitchell, T O’Connor, D Saunderson 

Also present: 

K Rundle (Chief Executive Officer), J Wall (Acting General Manager 

Corporate Services), S Walker (General Manager Sustainable 

Development), P Reeve (General Manager City Services), I McGinnigle 

(General Manager Community and Recreation), S Wright (General 

Manager Major Projects), D Hannah (Manager Engineering Services), 

A Grant (Manager Property), D Frost (Manager Swim, Sport and Leisure), 

J Van Slageren (Manager City Development), A Garrett (Co ordinator 

Strategic Planning), S Adams (Co ordinator Strategic Development), 

J Bleazby (Governance Co ordinator), D Chiller (Senior Media Officer) 

OPENING: 

The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7.00 p.m. 

APOLOGIES: 

Crs L Brazier, P McMullin, S Kontelj (Leave) 

Cr Farrell moved, Cr Ansett seconded - 

That the apologies be noted. 

Carried. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE: 

Cr Ansett moved, Cr Abley seconded: 

That Leave of Absence be granted to Cr Stretch Kontelj from 8 September to 19 

September 2005, inclusive, Cr John Mitchell from 3 October to 31 October, 2005, 

inclusive and the Mayor, Cr Shane Dowling from 14 September to 9 October 2005, 

inclusive. 

Carried. 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES: 

Cr Farrell moved, Cr Ansett seconded - 

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 23 August 2005 be confirmed and 

signed. 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST OR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: 

Carried. 

Cr Abley declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 2, Proposed Barwon Health Nursing 

Home – Amendment C101, in that she is a member of the Barwon Health Foundation Board.




QUESTION TIME: 

The following questions were presented to Council concerning the Ropeworks 

Redevelopment. The Mayor indicated that the questions would be addressed during 

debate of the item later in the evening. 

David Stubbs asked why the officers report concerning the Ropeworks 

Redevelopment neglected to make reference to the over 4000 signatories who have 

expressed a desire to see the Ropeworks site developed according to sound planning 

principles? 

James Dean asked why is the application going on public display when all heritage, 

traffic, sustainability, walkability not community benefit, have not been addressed 

satisfactorily or at all. How will this application lead or come close to a more 

improved pleasant and pedestrian environment for the people to live, visit, work or go 

to school with the result in social benefits as in Amendment C105? 

Linda King asked why would Council consider supporting a proposal by Safeway for 

the Ropeworks site when the two neighbouring schools, St Patricks and Ashby 

Primary Schools have consistently and officially rejected it outright because of the 

significant negative impacts on the children’s learning environment? 

Kristn Demetrious asked how can the officer’s report on the one hand recommend 

exhibiting the Urban Design Guidelines that outline what is appropriate development 

and at the same time put up a proposal that is in contradiction to this? 

Rosemary Nugent asked why would Council consider supporting a proposal that will 

result in significant economic disadvantage for businesses that have, through normal 

and special rate levies, helped create Pako as the single most recognised and vibrant 

strip shopping location in Geelong? 

Jeannette Johanson asked if Council could clarify where trucks to service the 

proposed supermarket development on the former Ropeworks site will enter 

Pakington Street. Will they enter at the Telegraph Bridge or from Gordon Avenue? 

The Mayor responded that the issue of trucks servicing the proposed supermarket 

would be part of any submission should it go out to Independent Panel. 

Bruce Hyett asked how long will it be before finance will be available for roadworks 

south of the Princes Highway? 

The Mayor responded the decision is not Council’s responsibility, but would be 

addressed by the State Government. Discussions have already been held with the 

State and Federal Government in respect to further continuation of the proposed Ring 

Road to the SurfCoast.




PETITIONS: 

Cr Mitchell presented a petition from Sally Jackson of Bellarine Village expressing her 

concerns about the volume of traffic and the potential hazards it is creating and asks 

that the road at the rear entrance to the Village be closed. 

Cr Mitchell presented a petition from residents objecting to the continued operation of 

the Geelong business trading as ‘Naughty Gifts and Novelties’. 

Cr Farrell presented a petition from the School Education Board of Our Lady Star of the 

Sea and a number of people in the Ocean Grove community regarding signage near 

the School Crossing on Shell Road. 

Cr Farrell presented a petition containing approximately 2009 signatures seeking 

Council support for a 50 metre pool for Ocean Grove. 

Crs Abley and Mitchell presented a petition from residents of Western Beach 

requesting Council provide vegetation management practices to maximise views of 

Corio Bay. 

Cr Abley presented a petition containing approximately 3,000 signatures from The 

Ropeworks Action Group (RAG) concerning the proposed redevelopment of the former 

Kinears Ropeworks site in Pakington Street, Geelong West. 

Cr Abley presented a petition containing approximately 1300 signatures from residents 

seeking Council’s support to reject Woolworth’s Plan for a big box supermarket 

development on the Ropeworks site.



SECTION B - REPORTS Page 4 

1. COMBINED PERMIT AND REZONING APPLICATION FORMER 

ROPEWORKS SITE - 95-103 PAKINGTON STREET, GEELONG WEST 

Portfolio: 

Source: 

Director Urban Planning: 

Index Reference: 

Planning – Cr Saunderson 

City Development - Strategic Planning 

Kate Sullivan 

Project: Am C96 Ropeworks site 

Summary 

• Council has received a combined planning scheme amendment/planning permit 

application 1628/04 from Woolworths Limited proposing to redevelop the former 

Kinnears Ropeworks site at 95-103 Pakington Street, Geelong West (generally 

north west corner Pakington Street and Waratah Street). 

• The application has been accompanied by a planning, traffic, economic impact 

assessment, consultation program and heritage reports. Revised documentation 

has been received which attempt to address the economic, heritage and urban 

design issues raised during informal processes. 

• The application seeks rezoning of the majority of the land from the existing 

Industrial 1 Zone to part Business 1 Zone and part Mixed Use Zone with the 

remainder to Residential 1 Zone. Approval for a 3,699m2 supermarket and 30 

retail speciality shops of 2,135 square metres together with 360 carparks on site is 

also sought. The applicant has also proposed to develop the land fronting 

Donaghy Street for residential development and one 300m2 block in Collins Street. 

A Development Plan Overlay (DPO) and Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) is 

proposed over the western part of the site. 

• There is a need to provide direction, integration and certainty for the heritage 

aspects of the site. A requirement for a Conservation Management Plan (CMP), 

Heritage Victoria permit and a Section 173 Agreement is recommended. 

• The proposal is considered to be consistent with Council’s adopted Retail Strategy 

1998 & 2001 which discusses a full line supermarket in Pakington Street, Geelong 

West. The proposal also provides an active frontage to Pakington Street with the 

provision of speciality shops. 

• Prior to the exhibition of the amendment, the applicant/owner must demonstrate 

how the proposal addresses the Pakington Street North Urban Design Guidelines 

2004 including the objectives and guidelines as set out in the local planning policy 

which forms part of Amendment C105 to the planning scheme. 

• A single planning permit application for the entire site is sought. 

• It is considered that the proposal has sufficient merit to warrant the preparation of 

an amendment and public exhibition subject to the Ministers authorisation being 

obtained.






(CONT’D) 

Cr Saunderson moved, Cr Harwood seconded - 

That Council having considered all matters as required by Section 12(2) of the 

Planning and Environment Act 1987 resolves: 

1) To exhibit an amendment to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme 

conditional on information and draft amendment documents being submitted 

to the satisfaction of Council as set out in this report including: 

a) Residential 1 Zone for properties facing Donaghy Street, Collins Street (in 

part) and the ropewalk and Mixed Use Zone for the balance of the site; 

b) One planning permit application for the entire site (except proposed 

residential zoned land); 

c) Apply the Design and Development Overlay (DDO) – Schedule 14 to the 

entire site. 

d) Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) for the entire site; 

e) The applicant shall provide a detailed response in how they address the 

Pakington Street North Urban Design Guidelines 2004 and Clause 22.54 to 

be exhibited as part of Amendment C105; in particular: 

• Improving the treatment on the Collins Street frontage (as a residential 

area); 

• Demonstrating how the traffic access will minimise impact on Waratah 

Street during school hours; 

• Ensuring there is a positive relationship between the supermarket and 

retail shops and its relationship to the strip centre. 

f) Provide a comprehensive site analysis and site context plan 

g) Provide detailed site plan of the proposed development at a Scale 1:100. 

This plan should clearly identify car spaces on site together with 

location of footpath and vehicle entry points to the site and building 

development at Pakington Street/Waratah Street. 

h) A plan prepared by licensed surveyor showing the title details, 

dimensions, areas and boundaries of each lot comprising the site. 

i) A detailed response is required to the relevant clauses of the Greater 

Geelong Planning Scheme. 

j) A plan to clearly show the buildings to be retained and removed. 

Drawings to show true extent of works to ropewalk and machinery shed, 

what is actually being demolished and what is on HV extent of 

designation. Outline extent of works including timelines to the heritage 

listed ropewalk and machinery shed.






(CONT’D) 

Resolution (Cont’d): 

k) Submit detailed elevation plans at a Scale 1:100 indicating the façade 

treatment and building design of the proposed development particularly 

those shops fronting Pakington/Waratah Street which must be 

consistent with the predominant urban character of Pakington Street. 

Design response to building form and sustainability- i.e saw tooth roof. 

l) Specify building materials and colours to be used as part of the 

proposed development. 

2) Upon receipt of the information Council shall seek authorisation from the 

Minister for Planning to prepare the planning scheme amendment. 

3) To agree to consider the application for a planning permit for the 

development and use of the entire site (except the proposed Residential 

zoned land) concurrently with the preparation of the proposed amendment in 

accordance with Section 96A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and 

that a draft Planning Permit be prepared for exhibition with the amendment. 

4) That the owner of the land must prepare a Conservation Management Plan 

and seek and obtain a permit from Heritage Victoria for the heritage listed 

features on the land including the ropewalk/machinery shed. The permit from 

Heritage Victoria must be approved and finalised prior to Council formally 

considering any submissions received to the Amendment. 

5) A Section 173 Agreement to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 be 

prepared and entered into between the owner and Council that must include 

the following: 

• Building and works to comply with the Heritage Victoria permit must be 

enacted and completed within two years of the granting of the planning 

permit as part of this amendment. 

• Provide mechanisms to ensure the re-use of the former machinery shed 

and ropewalk as part of this Amendment is completed within two years of 

the opening of the supermarket. 

• The Establishment and Maintenance/Efficiency of Stormwater Quality and 

Treatment measures. 

• A plan of subdivision to subdivide the land zoned Residential 1, as part of 

this amendment, from the balance of the land is to be lodged and 

registered by Land Victoria within six months of the gazettal of the 

amendment. 

• Pay Council’s legal costs associated with the preparation of the Section 

173 Agreement. 

6) Such Agreement must be exhibited with the Amendment. 

Carried. 

Division Requested: 

For: Crs O’Connor, Saunderson, Harwood, Dowling, Mitchell, Farrell, Macdonald 

Against: Crs Ansett, Abley






(CONT’D) 

Report 

Background 

Site context 

The subject land is commonly known as the former Kinnears Ropeworks site. Rope 

making on the site commenced in 1874 and ceased in 1999. The site is located on the 

north-west corner of Pakington and Waratah Street, Geelong West. The majority of the 

land has been cleared of buildings and is largely vacant with the exception of the 

heritage listed ropewalk which includes the machinery shed, former warehouse and 

canteen. The narrow ropewalk extends approx 400 metres westerly and abuts the rear 

of properties on both Collins Street and Waratah Street. There is no direct access to 

the site from Pakington Street at the moment. 

To the immediate south of the subject site is located a Church and Ashby Primary 

School, to the immediate north is situated a car repair place and residential housing 

fronting Collins Street, to the east are commercial shops and to the west residential 

housing. 

The Pakington Street community shopping centre (between Autumn Street to the south 

and Wellington/Waratah Street to the north) currently contains 135 commercial spaces 

including one supermarket, hardware shops, banks, post office, restaurants, cafes, 

hotels, offices and a very extensive range of community services. It is a traditional strip 

community shopping centre, one of the most popular in the City. 

Size of land 

The site has a frontage of 79.17 metres to Pakington Street, 239.26 metres to Waratah 

Street, 103.51 metres to Collins Street, 56.39 metres to Bread Street and 57.30 metres 

to Donaghy Street. The total site area is 24,514 square metres. 

Zoning and Overlays 

The site is currently zoned Industrial 1 with a small area of land on the western end of 

the site fronting Waratah Street zoned Residential 1. To the south of the site, land 

fronting Pakington Street is zoned Business 1, to the north the land is principally zoned 

Business 4. Residential housing to the area generally north, south west of the site is 

located within the Residential 1 Zone. This includes Ashby Primary School. The south 

side of Waratah Street between Second Street and Askew Street is located within the 

Lawton Avenue Heritage Area HO1633. 

Development History 

Council previously refused a planning permit application/rezoning request in 2003 for a 

development on the same site. The application comprised of “three big boxes” with no 

building frontage to Pakington Street. Council resolved to refuse the application on the 

basis that it was not consistent with the broad thrust of the Greater Geelong Retail 

Strategy 1998 & 2001 and failed to respond to the urban design issues of Pakington 

Street. 

Summary of proposed development 

The application seeks to rezone majority of the land from the existing Industrial 1 Zone 

of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme to part Business 1 Zone and part Mixed Use 

Zone and Residential 1 Zone.






(CONT’D) 

Report (Cont’d) 

Background (Cont’d) 

To accommodate residential development it is proposed to rezone one parcel of land 

fronting Collins Street to Residential 1. It is also proposed to rezone part of the land 

(small section fronting Waratah Street) from Residential 1 Zone to Mixed Use Zone. 

The application was lodged with Council on 30 November 2004. 

The key features of the planning permit application include: 

• supermarket retail floor area of 3699 m2 (revised from the initial 3800m2) together 

with mezannine floor area of 200m2; 

• 30 small speciality shops with a total retail floor area of 2,135 m2. 16 shops are 

located at the street frontage to Pakington/Waratah Street; 

• Combined total retail floor area of 5,834 m2; 

• Carpark for 360 vehicles; 

• Residential development fronting Donaghy Street. 

• Provision for a single residential development (land size 300m2) fronting Collins 

Street; and 

• The total area proposed to be redeveloped is 20,630 m2. 

The application is supported by plans and documentation including: 

• Town planning report (UrbisJHD); 

• Traffic Engineering Assessment report (Grogan Richards P/L), 

• Economic Impact Assessment (UrbisJHD); 

• Consultation Program (Withington & Ass); 

• Heritage assessment report (Bryce Raworth) 

• Accompanying plans. 

A copy of all reports and plans are available for Councillors perusal in the Councillors 

lounge at City Hall. 

A Development Plan Overlay (DPO) is proposed over the western part of the site that 

encompasses the heritage listed ropewalk and machinery shed and seeks to develop 

the land for residential and consulting suites/community uses. The Environmental 

Audit Overlay (EAO) is also proposed to reflect the same boundary area. The DPO as 

prepared by the applicant outlines the proposed uses with requirements for the 

development plan but no time lines have been provided as to when the development 

will commence. Both of these Overlays are excluded from the current planning permit 

application. 

The building form is predominantly single storey with a small recessed area of 

Pakington Street and splayed entry at the Pakington/Waratah Street intersection with a 

raised tower.






(CONT’D) 



At this stage formal notification of the joint planning application is required under the 

Planning and Environment Act 1987, however, the community has been able to view 

the application since it was lodged with Council. The Ropeworks Action Group (RAG) 

and other individuals have strongly objected to the proposal. Two local schools Ashby 

Primary and St Patricks Primary School have submitted position statements to Council 

objecting to the proposal. A petition of support was received that focussed on the 

convenience and choice of a full line supermarket. 

Pakington Street Urban Design Guidelines 2004 

In response to the urban design issues, the Pakington Street North Urban Design 

Guidelines 2004 was prepared by consultants Planisphere for Council at the request of 

the local community. The guidelines were adopted by Council in August 2004. This 

document will guide Council in the consideration of planning scheme amendments and 

development applications within the study area. 

Council has finalised the preparation of the planning scheme amendment known as 

Amendment C105, that seeks to introduce these guidelines as a local planning policy 

known as Clause 22.54 in the planning scheme for the section of Pakington Street 

between Waratah/Wellington St to Church Street, Geelong West including of all the 

ropeworks site. This amendment will be placed on public exhibition commencing 25 

August, 2005 until 26 September, 2005. The objectives for Clause 22.54 as set out in 

the policy include: 

• To ensure that new development responds to the preferred urban design character 

for Pakington Street North. 

• To improve the quality of the pedestrian environment by providing visual interest at 

street level. 

• To retain and enhance the identified elements that contribute to the preferred 

urban design character of Pakington Street North. 

• To implement the Pakington Street North Urban Design Guidelines, August 2004. 

The applicant should be requested to provide a detailed submission outlining how the 

development addresses the Pakington Street Urban Design Guidelines 2004. In 

particular they should address design issues and residential interface issues with 

Collins Street (and access issues on the street adjacent to the school). 

Discussion 

Applicant Submission 

The submission put forward by the proponent in favour of the proposal are as follows: 

• The existing Industrial 1 Zoning is incompatible with the surrounding zoning pattern 

and inappropriate in the context of adjacent residential and community uses; 

• The rezoning of the land to Business 1 Zone is consistent with the adjacent land 

within Pakington Street and is supported by the Greater Geelong Retail Strategy 

and Retail Review;






(CONT’D) 


Discussion (Cont’d) 

• The proposal will fulfil an identified need for a full line supermarket in the area and 

the increase in floor area will not unreasonably impact on the existing retail 

hierarchy or the trading capacity of nearby shopping destinations; 

• The development of the speciality retail shops and interface along Pakington 

Street will enhance character, retail activity and vibrancy of the shopping centre; 

• The proposal will not have an unreasonable impact on the surrounding area as a 

result of traffic and will not have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of the 

nearby residential area; 

• The proposal will retain the heritage significance of the land and the previous use, 

through the retention of the Rope Walk and the future provision of the heritage 

interpretative centre. 

The application seeks to address the following planning scheme policies including: 

• State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF); 

• Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF); 

• Clause 22.09 Assessment Criteria for Retail Planning Applications; 

• City of Greater Geelong Retail Strategy and Retail Review 1998 & 2001; and 

• The Pakington Street North Urban Design Guidelines 2004. 

Assessment of the Proposal 

Economic Impact Issues 

The application was accompanied by a Economic Impact Assessment report June 

2004 prepared by Urbis JHD which identifies the primary site trade area as the suburbs 

of Geelong West and Manifold Heights and the north western part of central Geelong 

with secondary trade area to the north, south and west. 

The Council’s Retail Strategy identifies Pakington Street as a ‘Community Centre’ with 

a retail floor area of 13,000 square metres (Urbis JHD report identifies 16,100 square 

metres). The proposal to add approx 6,000 square metres increases the retail area of 

the centre by an additional 36.2% (based on Urbis JHD figures). The speciality retail 

shops could directly compete with existing small shops in the area. 

It is important to note that the Pakington Street Geelong West shopping centre falls 

within the Community Centre category of the retail network hierarchy serving Geelong. 

Community Centres are typically around 10,000-15,000 square metres and serve a 

population up to 25,000 persons. 

A Community Centre is described in the retail strategy as “around one or more 

supermarkets as the main tenants, but also have a range of speciality shops and offer 

non-retail services such as banks, community services, office etc”.






(CONT’D) 



To assist Council to better understand the size of the proposal the following is a guide 

of comparative supermarket sizes across the region: 

• Coles Bay City- 5,050 square metres; 

• Coles Belmont- 3,313 square metres; 

• Coles Corio- 3,621 square metres; 

• Sims Geelong West- 1350 square metres; 

• Safeway Newcomb- 2,200 square metres; 

• Safeway Highton- 2,170 square metres; 

• Safeway Waurn Ponds- 4,030 square metres; 

• Safeway Bell Post (former Meadowvale- Norlane)- approx 3,400 square metres 

with 2,000 square metres speciality retail; and 

• Safeway Ocean Grove- 3,228 square metres and 2,215 square metres speciality 

shops. 

The applicant has provided revised documentation which indicates a reduction in the 

retail floor by 101m2 to 3699 m2, excluding the mezzanine floor of 200m2. 

Comment 

The proposed total retail floor area of 5,834 square metres is considered to be high and 

may lead to an intensification of the likely traffic and economic impacts of the 

development. 

The independent assessment undertaken by MacroPlan P/L for Council makes a 

number of key review conclusions including that: 

• The report provided by the consultants in support of the application indicates that 

the centre will impact the Shannon Avenue North Centre Geelong west by a 

minimum of 15% and the Shannon Avenue Newtown Centre by a minimum of 17% 

and Pakington Street, Geelong West. Council’s consultants Macroplan state that 

the impact is greater than accepted in a normal competitive market which is 

normally around 10%. This indicates a potential for significant closures with in 

these three centres. 

• The proposed trade area is considered excessive in size to justify a supermarket of 

this size. The trade area is comparable to a ‘sub regional’ centre with a catchment 

in excess of 25,000 persons; 

• The most critical issue is that the proposed development will need 30-35% of foods 

and goods (F&G) expenditure from a trade area that is marginally growing. This is 

an enormous impact to be absorbed by existing F&G retailers and will result in 

significant closures and alterations to the retailing environment;






(CONT’D) 



• The retail floor area for the supermarket be reduced to a maximum allowable of 

floorspace of 2200-2400 square metres; and 

• A supermarket closure would need to occur before the proposed 3,800 square 

metres supermarket can be justified from a sustainability perspective; 

The applicant has revised plans to indicate that the floor area of the full line 

supermarket be reduced to 3,699 m2. Based on the figures supplied by Urbis JHD this 

will still provide a total of 36.2% increase of retail floor space in Pakington Street. This 

is a significant alteration to the existing retail floor area. Of concern is the high number 

and floor area of specialty shops. 

While the proposed supermarket is to be substantial in size, Council’s retail strategy 

does recommend the provision of a full line supermarket in the area. It is considered 

more appropriate to review the amount of specialty shops proposed. This review can 

take place as part of the exhibition process. 

The proposal is generally consistent with the broad built form and zoning structure of 

Pakington Street, which includes retail activity to the frontage of Pakington Street and 

carparking located at the rear. A reduction in the size of the retail area could enable a 

consistent built form outcome and would likely reduce the economic, traffic and amenity 

impact of the development. 

Traffic/Vehicle Access 

A fully signalised intersection at Pakington Street/Waratah Street/Wellington Street is 

proposed. Principal vehicle access is off Pakington Street with two other access points 

from Waratah Street and one from Collins Street with a secondary access from Bread 

Street. Peak time is estimated to be between 3.15pm-4.15pm with the development 

likely to generate a peak of 712 vehicles at this time with 50% of vehicles entering and 

50% exiting the site. 

An informal pedestrian point in the form of a raised pavement slow point, will be 

provided across Waratah Street east of the western Waratah Street access. This slow 

point will be constructed to facilitate slower vehicle speeds and safer pedestrian access 

for pedestrians crossing Waratah Street between the Ashby Primary School and the 

shopping centre. 

Articulated vehicle ingress and egress is via the sites Pakington Street access. 

The traffic report presented acknowledges minimal traffic will enter from the west and 

north catchment trade areas and enter the local street network. The traffic report 

states “the traffic impacts of this development can be accommodated on the 

surrounding traffic network”.



SECTION B - REPORTS Page 13 



(CONT’D) 


Comment 

Any development on the site will have a traffic impact though it should be 

acknowledged that the former industrial use also created increased car and truck 

movements. A new entrance off Pakington Street could reduce the vehicle movements 

in Waratah Street but would not follow the general approach of minimising access off 

busy shopping streets to avoid pedestrian conflict points. Traffic calming measures 

proposed in Waratah Street require approval from Vic Roads. This is considered 

sufficient together with a signalised intersection at Pakington Street/Waratah 

Street/Wellington Street to reduce traffic impacts on the side streets. 

It is acknowledged that vehicle access and in particular unloading bay facilities will 

need to be carefully managed. 

The applicant has made a conscious decision to provide a practical solution to this 

issue taking into account comments made by Council. 

Referral Units 

The application has been referred to internal business units for comment. Council also 

engaged the services of an independent town planning consultant firm The Planning 

Group and MacroPlan P/L reviewed the Economic Impact Assessment Report. 

External bodies consulted with include Environment Protection Authority (EPA), 

Barwon Water, Heritage Victoria and Department of Sustainability and Environment 

(DSE)- Port Phillip Region. 

The comments from DSE were received in mid May 2005 and have been forwarded to 

Council as ‘internal working advice’. In the letter to Council DSE advise “the former 

ropeworks site is a major urban transition at the interface between adjacent 

commercial, residential, service business and community uses….. it is desirable that 

planning for the future of the land establishes a clear framework and provides some 

certainty for the totality of the site ahead of pursuing detailed development proposals 

for component elements- the UDF work contributes towards this task. The requested 

joint amendment and permit application does not appear to achieve this, leaving the 

future planning directions for much of the site unresolved, particularly to the west, 

whilst extending to great detail on others”. 

It is recommended that the site be developed as one complete proposal rather than in 

the two stages currently proposed. 

Zoning/Overlay 

The application seeks to rezone all the land and apply different planning scheme 

Overlays over the site. The planning permit application is for only part of the site for 

the retail component and associated carparking together with residential development 

(one site of 300m2 only in Collins Street) and along the frontage to Donaghy Street. 

The applicant has proposed a Development Plan Overlay (DPO) for a portion of the 

site which includes the residential, heritage and community uses and an appropriate 

built form response to be achieved on all interfaces. The DPO sets out the 

requirements including matters to be met to the satisfaction of Heritage Victoria. No 

time limits have been given. The planning permit application does not include the area 

set out with the DPO.






(CONT’D) 



An Environment Audit Overlay (EAO) is also proposed to be applied over the same 

area as the DPO. The previous activities on the site may have potentially 

contaminated the land. The Ministers Direction No 1 sets out the manner in how 

Responsible Authorities shall deal with potentially contaminated land. The EPA have 

provided comments back to Council on this application. 

Comment 

The zoning appears to overly restrict the potential for a variety of uses on the site, and 

may lead to a further rezoning request. To avoid this circumstance it is proposed to 

apply the Mixed Use Zone, except where there is a direct residential interface. 

Residential zone is recommended to Donaghy Street and the individual lot in Collins 

Street together with the ropewalk. 

The DPO is not supported given that the heritage issues are recommended to be dealt 

with through a Heritage Victoria permit and a Section 173 Agreement which provides 

certainty and clarity. 

The proposed Development Plan Overlay (DPO) provides no certainty in terms of 

timeframes for when development/restoration of the former ropewalk, machinery shed 

and Mill House buildings will occur. It is recommended that a planning permit 

application be lodged for the whole site and/or a Section 173 Agreement be entered 

into with the applicant/owner that provide mechanisms for the restoration of the 

heritage buildings and appropriate uses for them. Heritage Victoria approval will be 

required for that area of the ropewalk which falls within their extent of designation. 

The EPA recommends that the environmental audit be extended to the entire site. The 

Environment Audit Overlay (EAO) should be applied to the whole site. 

It is recommended that a plan of subdivision to subdivide the land zoned Residential 1, 

as part of this amendment, from the balance of the land be lodged and registered by 

Land Victoria within six months of the gazettal of the amendment. 

Carparking 

Provision has been made for 360 carparks on site based on a ratio of 6 carspaces for 

each 100 square metres of building floor area. Provision is also made for bicycle 

storage area to be provided on site. 

Comment 

This is considered acceptable. Detailed plans should be provided of carspaces 

provided on site i.e owned by applicant. 

Supermarket location and operation 

The supermarket is proposed to be located at the northern edge of the site, adjacent to 

the Collins Street boundary. The overall building height varies between 7.5 to 11 

metres. The Collins Street façade is to be treated with glazing (simulating windows) 

and heritage style verandah. The hours proposed are 7am to midnight 7 days a week. 

Revised documentation allows for an increased setback in Collins Street in line with 

surrounding residential housing with a more domestic appearance.






(CONT’D) 



Comment 

The Retail Strategy 1998 & 2001 provides strategic justification for the ‘full line’ 

supermarket. 

Council officers preferred position is to relocate the supermarket development within 

the south east corner of the site consistent with the built form of Pakington Street and 

carparking to the rear (west of the shops). However it is recommended that the 

applicants be requested to provide additional details on how the proposal responds to 

the Pakington St North Urban Design Guidelines. 

The proposal also provides an active frontage to Pakington Street with the provision of 

speciality shops. 

Retail speciality shops 

Speciality shops with a total retail floor area of 2,135m2 is proposed. A group of small 

shops are proposed along the frontage to Pakington Street and Waratah Street, with an 

additional component of speciality shops clustered around the entrance to the 

supermarket. The shops fronting Pakington Street are proposed to be setback between 

3-6 metres from the building line. 

Comment 

At a strategic level there is concern that there is excessive number of shops and retail 

floor area when the Retail Strategy details that a ‘full line’ supermarket can be 

considered in Pakington Street. 

Heritage issues 

The rope walk is included on the Heritage Victoria Register as H1169 and is included in 

the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme as Heritage Overlay HO 741 (over the historic 

rope walk and machinery shed). It is proposed to demolish three bays of the existing 

machinery building and annexe, canteen and warehouse building. The remnant 

section of the machinery shed and ropewalk are to be retained and redeveloped to 

include an interpretative centre and possibly some community use/consulting suites. 

The application includes a Conservation report prepared by a heritage practitioner that 

provides a brief history and makes recommendations including preparing a 

Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for the historic ropewalk and remnant heritage 

buildings. The future use of the historic ropewalk is not known as the current 

application does not provide adequate direction or certainty. 

The machinery shed is partially in the proposed DPO and partially in the land covered 

by the current application. The proposed demolition of the three bays of the heritage 

listed building has not been addressed in the current application. The applicant has not 

sought a permit from Heritage Victoria, as required for the partial demolition of the 

machinery shed.






(CONT’D) 



Comment 

As the building is on the Heritage Victoria Register a permit for buildings and works is 

required from Heritage Victoria. No permit has yet been sought by the applicant from 

Heritage Victoria. It is common practice by Heritage Victoria that a CMP is conducted 

prior to a permit being issued. 

It is strongly recommended that a CMP be prepared in consultation with Heritage 

Victoria and Council. The CMP should address the ropewalk and the machinery shed 

to provide certain definable actions including future uses and timeframes. The 

ropewalk which forms part of the proposed DPO is not subject to the current planning 

permit application. The CMP will be able to guide the future use/development and 

integration of the ropewalk and machinery shed. 

It is considered appropriate for Council to require that a CMP be provided prior to 

consideration of submissions to the exhibition of the amendment. 

It is recommended a Section 173 Agreement linked to the amendment to outline 

specific timeframes and mechanisms to achieve restoration works and re-use of 

buildings. 

Potential Contamination 

Due to the previous industrial activities on site the land may be contaminated. The 

applicant has agreed to apply an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to the proposed 

area proposed to be rezoned to Residential 1 and Mixed Use Zones areas. Ministerial 

Direction No. 1- requires Council to satisfy itself that the environment conditions are 

suitable for the proposed use. 

Comment 

If not already undertaken, a site audit of the land for residential and mixed uses should 

be undertaken with cleanup before development. It is however, recommended that the 

audit should extend to the entire site due to the potential for groundwater contamination 

and the Environmental Audit Overlay be applied to the entire site. A copy of the audit 

report should be submitted to Council. The EPA recommends that the environmental 

audit be extended to the entire site. 

Further information to be supplied to Council prior to exhibition 

The following are conditions on which Council will support an exhibition of the 

amendment. 

• Requirement to prepare a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for the heritage 

listed ropewalk and machinery shed in consultation with Heritage Victoria. The 

CMP will guide the use and changes to be made to the ropewalk and machinery 

shed. It is recommended that Section 173 Agreement be entered into between 

Council and the applicant/owner as part of the exhibition of the amendment to 

ensure works are carried out to the structure within an agreed and established 

timeframe;






(CONT’D) 



• The applicant shall provide a detailed response in how they address the Pakington 

Street North Urban Design Guidelines 2004 and Clause 22.54 to be exhibited as 

part of Amendment C105; in particular: 

• Improving the treatment on the Collins Street frontage (as a residential area); 

• Demonstrating how the traffic access will minimise impact on Waratah Street 

during school hours; 

• Ensuring there is a positive relationship between the supermarket and retail 

shops and its relationship to the strip centre. 

• An EAO be applied over the whole site; 

• A plan of subdivision to subdivide the land zoned Residential 1, from the balance 

of the land. 

• Provide a comprehensive site analysis and site context plan (including existing 

conditions plan) showing dimensions of the site and titles, the dimensions of 

adjoining roads, key infrastructure and car parking provision, the location, height, 

materials and purpose of buildings on adjoining land, relevant ground levels, 

setbacks subdivision layout of adjoining residential including Collins Street 

opposite the site. A streetscape plan drawn to scale must be provided showing 

development in its context of Pakington Street to the north and south, Waratah 

Street and Collins Street. Plan sketch drawn to scale to show building style, 

height, roof forms and design detail. 

• Provide detailed site plan of the proposed development at a Scale 1:100. This 

plan should clearly identify car spaces on site together with location of footpath 

and vehicle entry points to the site and building development at Pakington 

Street/Waratah Street. 

• A plan prepared by licensed surveyor showing the title details, dimensions, areas 

and boundaries of each lot comprising the site. 

• A detailed response is required to the relevant clauses of the Greater Geelong 

Planning Scheme. 

• A plan to clearly show the buildings to be retained and removed. Drawings to 

show true extent of works to ropewalk and machinery shed, what is actually being 

demolished and what is on HV extent of designation. Outline extent of works 

including timelines to the heritage listed ropewalk and machinery shed. 

• Submit detailed elevation plans at a Scale 1:100 indicating the façade treatment 

and building design of the proposed development particularly those shops fronting 

Pakington/Waratah Street which must be consistent with the predominant urban 

character of Pakington Street. Design response to building form and sustainabilityi.e 

saw tooth roof. 

• Specify building materials and colours to be used as part of the proposed 

development.






(CONT’D) 



• Formal closure of Bread Street maybe required. Written request must be made to 

Council to close it. Proof must be shown that there is clear title. 

Matters to be considered as planning permit conditions 

The following matters have been raised by referral authorities and internal business 

units which can generally take the form of permit conditions. These include but not 

limited to: 

• Provide an archaeological survey (including post contact), 

• Investigate the provision for solar panels to illuminate carpark areas. 

• Details of the proposed pre-treatment of stormwater using MUSIC and stormwater 

quality treatment infrastructure maintenance plan; 

• Details of noise attenuation devices, location of waste facilities on site, plans of 

fencing particularly as it relates to Waratah Street, details of indigenous planting on 

site, specify species to be undertaken with Council’s Environment Unit, 

• Outline whether there will be sale of liquor (if any) on site. 

• Submit a Site Stormwater Management Plan (SSMP) which includes Drainage 

Feasibility Report & Water Quality Impact Report. 

• Provide information documenting the establishment and maintenance /efficiency 

of all stormwater quality treatment measures (as set out in the Environment Unit 

response). 

• Provide details of Litter Management Plan to be provided and management of 

these issues; 

• Outline hours proposed for the unloading of goods/delivers to the site. Details 

should be provided on business hours of other retail uses. 

• Provide details on urban furniture particularly at the front entrance and method to 

separate of pedestrian and vehicle spaces including additional footpaths. The 

development must demonstrate a pedestrian friendly environment. Shade 

treatment should be investigated at the front entrance. 

• Provision should be made for bicycle racks. Detail number and location and 

Identify wheelchair friendly points. 

• Details of the Site Construction Management Plan (SCMP). 

• Traffic conditions including cost to be borne by the applicant/owner in relation to 

infrastructure including signals, road works, and intersection treatments. 

A planning permit and associated conditions has not been drafted. Conditions may 

also be requested by Vic Roads. Other standard Council conditions will be included in 

the draft planning permit that will be exhibited with the amendment.






(CONT’D) 



Matters to be addressed prior to Council considering submissions 

The following matters are required to be addressed prior to Council formally 

considering submissions received to this amendment. 

• Provision of a Conservation Management Plan and seek and obtain a permit from 

Heritage Victoria for the heritage listed features on the land including the 

ropewalk/machinery shed. The permit from Heritage Victoria must be approved 

and finalised. 

Matters to be included in the exhibition of the amendment 

The following changes to the Schedule as part of this Amendment is proposed: 

• Specify the subject site within the pedestrian route table for Sexually Explicit Adult 

Entertainment in Clause 22.08 and amend the Pedestrian route table to Clause 

52.28-6 for Gaming by making reference to this site within Pakington Street, 

Geelong West. 

Financial Implications 

The land owner/developer is responsible for all new infrastructure including services, 

signals, road works and intersection treatments. The applicant is to bear all costs 

associated with panel hearings. 

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications 

The development of a full line supermarket is consistent with council's current Retail 

Strategy. The proposed rezoning/development has been assessed against the 

adopted Retail Strategy 1998 & 2001 and planning policies in the Greater Geelong 

Planning Scheme. 

The Pakington Street North Urban Design Guideline 2004 provides a strategic basis for 

the consideration of development applications including addressing the urban design 

issues. 

In the event that the Council decides to exhibit an amendment it will be necessary for 

the Council to obtain authorisation from the Minister for Planning in accordance with 

the recent amendments to the Planning and Environment Act 1987. 

Risk Assessment 

Nil 

Social Considerations 

Integrating social and physical planning, urban design and community development will 

create not only environmentally sustainable but also socially sustainable communities. 

The proposal seek to actively engage with the existing Pakington Street retail centre.






(CONT’D) 


Environmental Implications 

Council has an adopted Greenhouse Reduction Target and Stormwater Quality Plan 

which are targeting developments to incorporate best practice into their design and 

minimise off-site impacts. 

From an environmental perspective, the proposal fails to acknowledge the 

developments impact on the local environment or incorporate any innovative 

approaches that are evident in the application to address core environmental 

considerations, including stormwater management, energy efficient design/greenhouse 

gas reduction, use of local indigenous trees in the landscape design and litter control. 

Conditions can be placed on a planning permit to address these issues. 

The applicant will be required to address heritage issues including an archaeological 

survey. 

Stormwater leaving this site must meet the water quality objectives as specified in the 

State Environment Protection Policy-Waters of Victoria and in the Urban Stormwater 

Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines. 

Communication 

If Council determines to exhibit the amendment, the community will have the ability to 

make submissions on the proposal. 

Conclusion 

The development of a full line supermarket is consistent with Council's current Retail 

Strategy 1998 & 2001. Council has an obligation to consolidate and strengthen the 

existing shopping centres through the provision of appropriate retail development and 

compatible land uses. 

The applicant has been instructed that any proposal must address the potential impact 

on the Heritage Buildings on the site, impact on the Pakington Street retail strip, impact 

on adjacent residents and must respond to applicable polices, including the Pakington 

Street North Urban Design Guidelines 2004. 

Heritage issues are not fully addressed as there is an absence of a Conservation 

Management Plan (CMP) and a required Heritage Victoria permit. Heritage Victoria 

are responsible for issuing permits for works on Heritage Registered buildings. The 

applicant has not sought a permit from Heritage Victoria. As the Heritage Victoria 

permit may ultimately impact on the proposal. It is recommended that Council instruct 

the applicant that a CMP and Heritage Victoria permit must be obtained by the 

applicant and provided to Council prior to the formal consideration of submissions by 

Council. 

While not generally consistent with the typical built form of Pakington Street the design 

of the proposal has some positive aspects. These include an active frontage to 

Pakington Street which re-inforces the Pakington Street character. The design is 

broadly consistent with local policy. The development seeks to develop an under 

utilised prime site.






(CONT’D) 


Conclusion (Cont’d) 

Rezoning of the land to Business 1 is consistent with the adjacent land in Pakington 

Street which enables the land to be used for the purposes supported by the Retail 

Strategy. The proposal will fulfill an identified need for a full line supermarket and 

enhance the retail activity of the shopping centre. 

While all impacts of development are unlikely to be mitigated, it is considered that there 

is development potential on the site, including a full-line supermarket. Negotiations 

with the applicant have not resulted in clarity/certainty for the heritage aspects on the 

site. It is recommended that the proposal be placed on public exhibition subject to 

further information as required being submitted to Council.




2. STRATEGIC PLANNING AMENDMENT REQUEST - SURF COAST 

HIGHWAY, GROVEDALE - PROPOSED BARWON HEALTH NURSING 

HOME – AMENDMENT C101 

Portfolio: Planning - Cr Saunderson - 

Source: 


General Manager: Kate Sullivan 

Index Reference: Project: C101 Nursing Home Surf Coast Highway 

Grovedale 

Subject: Council Reports 2005 - 13 September 2005 

Summary 

• A new application (on land adjoining the previous rezoning request) has been 

received from SJB Planning Consultants acting on behalf of the Victorian 

Government Solicitors’ Office in association with the Department of Human 

Services seeking the rezoning of a 2.4 ha parcel of land situated at 344 Torquay 

Road (Surf Coast Highway), Grovedale, from Rural zone to Public Use zone and 

the introduction of a Public Acquisition Overlay. 

• The application is being sought for Barwon Health to construct a new 108 bed 

public aged care facility as a matter of urgency to enable it to continue to provide 

adequate care accommodation in Geelong. 

• At its meeting on 24 May 2005 the Council resolved to exhibit a near identical 

planning scheme amendment; however following subsequent negotiations 

between DSE, VicRoads and Barwon Health the new site has been selected to 

avoid the high likelihood of the land subject to the proposal being affected by the 

future Geelong By-Pass. This process has confirmed the concerns for a Geelong 

interchange adjacent to the site. 

• It is proposed to amend the Amendment as the applicant no longer wishes to 

pursue the proposal on exactly the same land. 

• The new site is directly adjacent to the previous site, and is within the same large 

parcel of land. 

• While Council Officers have identified alternative sites in existing residential areas, 

Barwon Health has advised the subject land is the only suitable site it has been 

able to identify. 

• The subject land is situated in the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area. Council is 

undertaking a detailed planning exercise that will determine the optimum location 

for uses based on engineering environmental, social, transport and archaeological 

reports. The development of this site for aged care accommodation potentially 

raises a number of strategic planning, residential amenity and practical concerns, 

as demonstrated already by the need to change the site from the previous 

rezoning request. 

• However, in accordance with Council’s previous resolution and the social 

importance of Barwon Health continuing to provide a vital community service, it is 

recommended the amendment be exhibited in the normal manner.




2. PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT REQUEST - SURF COAST HIGHWAY, 

GROVEDALE - PROPOSED BARWON HEALTH NURSING HOME (CONT’D) 

Cr Abley declared a Conflict of Interest in the following item in that she is a member of 

the Barwon Health Foundation Board. 

Cr Saunderson moved, Cr Harwood seconded - 

That Council, having considered the applicants request, resolves to amend 

Planning Scheme Amendment C101, to rezone a 2.405ha site situated at 344 

Torquay Road (SurfCoast Highway) from Rural Zone to Public Use Zone 3 and 

apply a Public Acquisition Overlay as resolved on 24 May 2005, prior to 

exhibition in order for the Amendment to apply to the land shown in Appendix 

2-1. 

Cr Abley left the meeting room at 7.35 pm whilst the vote was taken. 

Cr Abley re-entered the meeting room at 7.37 pm 

Carried. 

Report 

Background 

A new application has been received from SJB Planning Consultants acting on behalf 

of the Victorian Government Solicitors Office in association with the Department of 

Human Services seeking the rezoning of a 2.4 ha parcel of land situated at 344 

Torquay Road (Surf Coast Highway), Grovedale, from Rural zone to Public Use 3 zone 

(Health and Community) and the introduction of a Public Acquisition Overlay. The 

application is for Barwon Health to construct a new 108 bed public aged care facility as 

a matter of urgency to enable it to continue to provide adequate aged care 

accommodation in Geelong. 

The Public Acquisition Overlay is being sought to enable the land to be purchased from 

the current owner by compulsory acquisition. The proposed Public Use 3 zone would 

enable Barwon Health to construct the new nursing home without the need for any 

further planning approval. 

This new application applies to land which adjoins a near identical planning scheme 

amendment request which was previously considered by the Council on 24 May 2005 

and for which Council resolved to exhibit a planning scheme amendment. Subsequent 

to Council’s resolution, negotiations between DSE, VicRoads and Barwon Health 

resulted in the site being changed to the new location to reduce the likelihood of the 

land subject to the previous proposal being affected by the future interchange between 

the Geelong By-Pass road and the Surf Coast Highway. 

The land subject of this application is vacant grazing land and forms a portion of a 

much larger property. Appendix 2-1 shows the requested rezoning (which is also the 

land subject to the proposed Public Acquisition Overlay) and Appendix 2-2 shows the 

site of the previous application. 

Barwon Health has prepared a report titled “Case in support of Planning Amendment 

for Property at Surf Coast Highway, Grovedale”, which has previously been circulated 

to all Councillors. The Executive Summary of the report, as follows, sets out the basis 

of their detailed presentation: - 

“Barwon Health manages over 400 public aged care beds within the City of Greater 

Geelong. All of the aged care facilities that accommodate our residents are at the 

end of their useful life and about to fall short of minimum Commonwealth aged care 

certification standards.








Presently Barwon Health operates the only two public nursing homes south of the 

Barwon River, John Robb House and Peter Street, the lease of the latter facility 

expiring in August 2007. The State Government has indicated that $16.5M of 

funding for a new 108 bed nursing home to replace these two facilities and a ward at 

the Grace McKellar Centre will be available in the May 2006 State Budget. To 

secure this project Barwon Health requires a site secured and tender documentation 

prepared prior to the State budget announcement, therefore architects must receive 

instructions prior to July 2005. 

After an exhaustive search over a period of 4-6 years an ideal site has been 

selected for the project within the Richardson Estate on Torquay Road, Grovedale. 

However, for the project to succeed with funding secured, the support of Council is 

required in the form of a planning amendment. Without this amendment the 

compulsory acquisition process will be delayed along with tender documentation. 

As a consequence, the project, along with valuable nursing home places could well 

be lost to the Geelong community. 

The Surf Coast Highway site has been chosen after thorough consideration of all 

available sites in Geelong’s southern suburbs, and Barwon Health has now settled 

on the only available, and only suitable, location in the area that meets all of the key 

social determinants that should be considered when choosing a site for an aged 

care residential facility. 

The attached documentation outlines the technical, social and economic 

implications of the development and also addresses Council’s two major concerns, 

(1) impact on the Ring Road extension path and (2) impact on the pending structural 

plan that will guide development of the surrounding area. 

This significant aged care residential development will bring considerate social and 

economic rewards to our community. In order for these to be realised Barwon 

Health now requires the support of the City of Greater Geelong to ensure the 

development proceeds.” 

The applicant’s consultants have advised Council they do not wish to continue with the 

previous site; therefore Council’s previous resolution to exhibit an amendment will not 

be acted upon. 

Discussion 

Orderly Planning/Approval 

The key issues affecting this site in relation to orderly planning are: 

(i) 

(ii) 

That this proposed amendment precedes the completion of the Armstrong Creek 

future planning study and may pre-empt the final development vision. As such, it 

is not clear at this stage what will be surrounding the site. 

The location of the link from the western bypass to the Surfcoast is still 

unresolved and this site may be impacted. At this stage based on work done to 

date by VicRoads, it does not appear that this site will be impacted by this link.








Council recently resolved: 

“to provide time for the draft Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan to be developed, 

Council resolves that until 18 months after project consultants are appointed or until 

December, 2006 which ever is the sooner, it will only consider supporting rezoning, 

subdivision and development applications in the study area that supports and 

compliments the orderly planning of the area as Greater Geelong’s primary growth 

corridor.” 

As with the previous proposal, there are a number of practical concerns about the new 

site chosen for the proposed nursing home (although it is acknowledged they are not 

shared by Barwon Health) 

1. Isolation of the site. 

The subject land is in a rural setting basically surrounded by paddocks. The future 

neighboring uses are unknown; however it is likely to be at least 10 years before the 

area resembles an established urban area which is the setting Barwon Health is 

seeking to achieve for its nursing home. Certainly the initial generations of residents 

would be living at an isolated site. 

The new site means the proposed nursing home will be setback over 100-metres from 

Surf Coast Highway potentially only accessed by a narrow 10-metre laneway. The new 

site appears to be inconsistent with Barwon Health’s objective of providing such 

facilities with direct road exposure and access. 

2. Reticulated sewerage provision 

The subject land is not served by reticulated sewerage and falls outside the declared 

sewered area of Geelong. Barwon Water has indicated it is only prepared to accept 

responsibility for sewerage at the connection point to the existing system (Grovedale 

Interceptor Sewer) approximately 550 metres away from the site. Barwon Health 

would need to construct a temporary rising main and pump station and gain the 

necessary approvals for it to be located in the Surf Coast highway road reserve from 

VicRoads and underneath the existing railway line from VicTrack. Whether such 

approvals would be given and under what conditions is not known. 

The new site is approximately 100 metres more remote from existing sewerage 

infrastructure. 

3. Stormwater Management 

The existing underground drainage system along Surf Coast Highway has limited 

capacity. Council’s Engineering Services Unit advises development is only feasible 

from a drainage perspective if Barwon Health agrees to significant on site detention 

storage and subsequent controlled release to the Surf Coast Highway drain. 

In the future, a new stormwater management system will need to be designed and 

constructed to serve the development of this area (which will form part of the future 

detailed planning for the area.)








Irrespective of the strategic planning concerns which have been outlined above, it is 

recognised that Barwon Health is providing a vital community service as demonstrated 

in both their written reports and verbal presentations to Council in support of their 

previous application. In considering the previous proposal, Council considered it was 

of paramount importance to ensure Barwon Health was able to continue to provide the 

necessary care for elderly residents within this sector of the city and has the necessary 

expertise to select a site which reflects its specific requirements. 


Nil 


It is considered that the application is not consistent with some components of State 

policy, Council policy and Council's resolution to conduct an Urban Growth Plan for 

Armstrong Creek and avoid development that predicts or may undermine development 

potential. 

State Government Clause 14.01-2, which is within every Planning Scheme across 

Victoria states: 

“Planning authorities should facilitate the orderly development of developing urban 

areas through the preparation of structure plans. The plans should take into account 

the strategic and physical context of the location, provide for the development of 

sustainable and liveable urban areas in an integrated manner, facilitate the 

development of walkable neighbourhoods and facilitate the logical and efficient 

provision of infrastructure.” 

“Responsible authorities should use any relevant structure plan in considering 

applications for subdivision.” 

Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement (Clause 21.08 Urban Growth Objective 1) 

includes a policy to: 

“encourage retention of existing allotment structures and discourage fragmentation 

of rural properties that will prejudice the future orderly development of urban growth 

areas.”. 

Council has previously resolved: 

“to provide time for the draft Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan to be developed, 

Council resolves that until 18 months after project consultants are appointed or until 

December 2006 which ever is the sooner, it will only consider supporting rezoning, 

subdivision and development applications in the study area that supports and 

compliments the orderly planning of the area as Greater Geelong's primary growth 

corridor.”







Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications (Cont’d) 

The applicants consultants consider that the proposal complies with Clause 14.01 – 

Planning for Urban Settlement and Clause 18.06 – Health Facilities contained in the 

State Planning Policy Framework on the basis that “the rezoning …….will facilitate the 

development of a nursing home facility in an area identified as having insufficient 

nursing home beds relative to the area’s demographics. The rezoning will also enable 

the provision of a health service that is located in an area that is highly accessible to 

public and private transport.” 

The applicant’s consultant considers the amendment is consistent with Clause 21.05 – 

Planning Principles and Clause 21.08 Urban Growth of Council’s M.S.S. 

At the time of writing this report, the Minister for Planning had not yet authorised 

Council to prepare an amendment for the new site. 

The appropriateness of placing a public use zone on land that has not been acquired 

by a public authority has not been demonstrated. A letter provided by the applicant 

from the Victorian Government Solicitor (dated 17 th May 2005) did not fully address the 

issue. 


Nil 


It is imperative that Barwon Health be able to continue to provide adequate aged care 

accommodation to meet the future needs of the community. Barwon Health should be 

encouraged and supported to construct a new nursing home for future residents and 

their families. 

Whilst approval of this application will provide benefits, it is difficult to assess without 

having completed Council’s future planning for the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth 

Area. 

However, the implications of Barwon Health not being able to construct a new nursing 

home will have serious implications and inconvenience for future nursing home 

residents and their families. 


The subject land is cleared farmland used for grazing. Provided stormwater is 

managed in a satisfactory manner, the development will not result in any adverse 

environmental outcomes. 

Communication 

If the Council decides to exhibit a planning scheme amendment, full public notification 

will be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Environment 

Act.







Conclusion 

This application seeks an amendment to both rezone land and apply a Public 

Acquisition Overlay to enable Barwon Health to construct a new aged care nursing 

home to serve the southern areas of Geelong. 

The alternative site is proposed as there was an acceptance of the potential direct 

conflict with a future southern bypass road. There are potential other conflicts that 

have not been investigated as Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan has not been 

completed. It is acknowledged the value/need and importance of ensuring a site for the 

new facility is obtained as a matter of urgency. The site which has been selected raises 

a number of strategic planning, residential amenity and practical concerns as outlined 

in this report. Whilst the site proposed is not entirely consistent with existing State 

policy, Council adopted policy and resolution to support the orderly development of 

Armstrong Creek the importance of obtaining the new aged care facility as a matter of 

urgency is the paramount issue to be considered. 

It is recommended that upon receiving authorisation from the Minister for Planning, 

Council exhibit the Amendment as requested in the normal manner.




Attachment 1 

(1 Page) 

Current Site




Attachment 2 

(1 Page) 

Previous Site




3. GEELONG BYPASS SECTION 3 – FYANSFORD TO WAURN PONDS: 

CONSIDERATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS STATEMENT AND 

PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENTS C113, C114 AND C115 

Portfolio: 

Source: 

General Managers: 


Planning - Cr Saunderson 


Kate Sullivan 

Project: C113, C114, C115 Council Reports & Other, 

Project: Westconnect 

Subject: Council Reports 2005 

Summary 

• VicRoads has commenced the public exhibition process of the joint Environment 

Effects Statement (EES) and the Planning Scheme Amendment for Section 3 of 

the Geelong Bypass, between south of the Hamilton Highway, Fyansford and the 

Princes Highway West, Waurn Ponds. 

• The associated Planning Scheme Amendments, C113, C114 and C115 to the 

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, principally seek to reserve land for the 

proposed road, exempt VicRoads from a range of planning permit requirements 

and update local planning policies. Only one Amendment will be implemented. 

• Option 1 would be located largely within the existing Bypass reservation, 

terminating at the Princes Highway to the west of the existing reservation at Waurn 

Ponds. 

• Option 2 would follow the existing reservation between south of the Hamilton 

Highway and Barrabool Road and then follow a line approximately due south, 

passing west of the Deakin University Management Centre, to terminate at the 

Princes Highway West. 

• This project has included consultation with a Technical Reference Group, (TRG) 

Community Reference Group (CRG) and Open Days, however there are concerns 

regarding the EES process, including late road option changes. 

• Additionally, there are concerns with the limited scope of the project, including lack 

of budget to construct south of Princes Highway, no route options to Surf Coast 

Highway and no certainty for land owners affected by options / opportunities south 

of the Princes Highway. 

• As VicRoads is the Planning Authority, Council must make a submission in order 

for its issues to be heard at any Independent Panel Hearing. 

• The Geelong Bypass will be a critical infrastructure asset for Geelong and it is 

therefore appropriate for Council to respond to the EES and Amendment and 

identify its preferred route. 

Cr Saunderson moved, Cr O’Connor seconded - 

That Council resolves to: 

1) Make a submission to VicRoads about the Geelong Bypass Section 3 

Environment Effects Statement (EES) and Planning Scheme Amendments 

C113, C114 and C115 based on the following:






PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENTS C113, C114 AND C115 (CONT’D) 

Recommendation (Cont’d) 

a) Concern regarding introduction of new Bypass routes (opportunities) 

within the last six weeks prior to exhibition of the EES and Amendment, 

without appropriate consultation or detailed consideration within the 

EES reports. 

b) Encourage VicRoads to concurrently construct the bypass to Princes 

Highway together with linkages to Princes Highway west and at least to 

Anglesea Road. 

c) Request greater certainty for the local community and ensure any 

ultimate routes are reserved through the provision of Public Acquisition 

Overlays as part of this Amendment process. 

d) Inadequate investigation in the EES of the route options and 

implications, including limited information on why options were not 

considered appropriate. 

e) Encourage VicRoads to ensure the ultimate route and design allows 

direct (and high speed) access to/from Princes Highway west and also 

the Surf Coast Highway, while minimising impacts on the local 

community and environment. 

f) Incomplete Planning Scheme Amendment proposals 

g) Changes to Council’s Local Planning Policies in the Municipal Strategic 

Statement, namely Clause 21.26 Integrated Transport 

h) Need for a native vegetation net gain assessment to be carried out on 

the revised route for Option 2 

i) Inadequate assessment of the traffic noise especially from freight 

movement on the Bypass between midnight and 6am 

j) Social impacts of the Bypass especially on pedestrian and cyclist 

movements in the vicinity 

2) As part of the submission, out of the options provided that Council 

nominates its preferred route for the Geelong Bypass Section 3 as 

Opportunity 2F as outlined in Amendment C115. 

3) Work with VicRoads regarding the connection to Surf Coast Highway, 

including through the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan area and to the 

Bellarine Peninsula. 

Report 

Background 

Carried. 

VicRoads has prepared a joint Environment Effects Statement (EES) and three 

Planning Scheme Amendments (PSAs), for Section 3 of the Geelong Bypass between 

south of the Hamilton Highway, Fyansford and the Princes Highway West, Waurn 

Ponds. The EES and PSAs are required as part of the planning process to determine 

the route and the required environmental mitigation measures for the Bypass.









In addition, VicRoads have identified corridors – ‘opportunities’ for possible future link 

roads to the Princes Highway West and the Surf Coast Highway and other related 

changes.The Amendments relate to different route options. 

• Amendment 113 relates to Option 1 and ‘opportunity’ 1c (Attachments 1 & 5) 

• & 1l (Attachment 2 & 5) 

• Amendment 114 relates to Option 2 and ‘opportunity’ 2d (Attachment 2 & 6) 

• Amendment 115 relates to Option 2 and ‘opportunity’ 2f (Attachment 4 & 6) 

These Amendments seek to reserve land for the selected Bypass route, and to provide 

for related planning scheme policies and controls. Only one of these Amendments will 

ultimately be adopted. 

Discussion 

Preferred Option 

Of the alternatives proposed Opportunity 2f, contained within Amendment C115, is 

considered the most preferable, for the following reasons. 

• Potential for access to the Surf Coast Highway to be optimised, as it provides a 

direct route with no intersection before Anglesea Road. 

It is considered that, of all of the listed opportunities, 2D and 2F meets assessment 

objective 4 of the EES: 

“To provide an opportunity for the future development of a high-standard, 

free-flowing link, between the Geelong Bypass and the Surf Coast 

Highway.” 

• This option eliminates the need for vehicles travelling to and from the west along 

the Princes Highway to mix with local traffic in Grovedale and on Anglesea Road. 

• With further connections to the east this option would enable commuter traffic from 

the Armstrong Creek growth area and Torquay to access the Bypass without 

mixing with local traffic on Anglesea Road or the Princes Highway. 

• There is a potential opportunity to provide additional access to the Bypass 

between Princes Hwy and Barrabool Road. This should be investigated as it may: 

- Reduce the potential for congestion at the Barrabool Road – Bypass 

intersection; 

- Potentially remove the need for exit / entrance ramps at the Princes Highway 

in the Waurn Ponds Valley; 

- Provide direct access from Pigdons Road; 

- Further reduce traffic impacts within the Waurn Ponds Valley; 

- Encourage commuters from Grovedale and the southern part of Highton to 

use the Bypass; and









- Reduce the need for domestic and commercial traffic to mix on the Princes 

Highway at Grovedale. 

Critical points of concern with the Planning Scheme Amendments 

Bypass south of Princes Highway, Waurn Ponds - Lack of Public Acquisition Overlay to 

Anglesea Road 

The lack of a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) between Princes Highway and 

Anglesea Road appears to be a serious inadequacy of the proposed Amendments. 

Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, the mapping of a "Possible Future 

Corridor" on Figure 1 of Clause 21.26 in C113, C114 and C115, effectively places 

planning blight on the land without providing the land owners any certainty or avenue 

for compensation as a PAO has not been applied. This continues their anguish, 

potential loss of property values and reluctance to invest in their homes. Certainty 

through this Amendment process or a commitment to a defined separate VicRoads 

project is required. 

Changes from consultation material 

After a long process VicRoads has produced new plans within the last month of 

consultation/preparation of the EES. While some of these routes appear to have some 

merit, they have not been fully considered by the CRG or TRG nor properly examined 

by other stakeholders. While these opportunities are discussed in the Amendment 

documents they do not appear to be adequately investigated through the many EES 

consultant reports. 

Future Road Planning 

It is still unclear if VicRoads expects the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan (UGP) to 

designate the exact route for a southern Bypass. The UGP only extends westward to 

Ghazeepore Road, and it is unclear who (when and how) will be responsible for the 

planning of routes (and application of a PAO) between Ghazeepore Roads and the 

Princes Highway. The EES and Planning Scheme Amendment should clearly 

articulate these responsibilities and actions. 

Some of the options for the Princes Highway interchange at Waurn Ponds don’t appear 

to rely on using the existing reservation and the Amendment documents don’t articulate 

the removal of the current Public Acquisition Overlays. This needs to be clarified and if 

necessary, changes made to the C113, C114 and C115 Amendment documentation to 

include the deletion of parts of the existing PAO. 

Applicability of the PAO along the Princes Highway 

Amendment C113 proposes the application of a PAO along the northern side of the 

Princes Highway west of Pigdons Road. This information has been received late in the 

process without prior notification to Council or the affected landowners. It is likely that 

some property owners will experience a greater level of impact than previously thought.









Changes to Council’s Local Planning Policies in the Municipal Strategic Statement 

Clause 21.26 Integrated Transport 

Each Amendment C113, C114 and C115 proposes to alter Clause 21.26 Integrated 

Transport to reflect the completion of the Princes Highway upgrade between 

Melbourne and Geelong and to incorporate the findings of the Geelong Ring Road 

Strategic Study and the outcomes of the Environment Effects Statement process for 

the Geelong Bypass Section 3. 

Generally, the changes that reflect the completion of the Princes Highway upgrade are 

supported and will update this part of the Planning Scheme. There are, however, two 

changes proposed to this Local Planning Policy that are of concern. These relate to 

“more effective movement of freight to and from Geelong Port” and altering policy to 

reflect that the Geelong Ring Road Strategic Study and its conclusion that an ‘eastern 

Bypass’ of Geelong is not needed and has poor feasibility for the foreseeable future. 

Road Closures 

The alignment option being proposed in Amendment C113 will necessitate the closure 

or truncation of Wandana Drive at two points. The Planning Scheme Amendment 

should have included a Road Closure Overlay for these parts of Wandana Drive. 

Additionally Option 2 includes the closure of several small roads in the vicinity of Hams 

Road. The implications of these closures need to be carefully examined with local 

landowners. 

VicRoads Evaluation of Route Options 

VicRoads concludes that: 

• Option 1 would have a lesser impact on locally significant landscapes, and would 

utilise a larger proportion of the existing reservation. 

• Option 2 would provide superior transport outcomes. Option 2 would provide for a 

superior future opportunity in relation to serving the Princes Highway West and 

would also provide better opportunities for an improved connection to the Surf 

Coast Highway. Option 2 would also have less adverse social impact than would 

Option 1, being located closer to a fewer number of houses. 

VicRoads is seeking public comment on these options through the exhibition process 

and therefore has not nominated its single preferred route at this time.









There is no cost to Council of preparing a submission about the EES and the three 

Planning Scheme Amendments. When an Independent Panel is appointed to hear and 

consider all submissions, it may be necessary to engage external expertise to assist 

Council. 


The proposed Planning Scheme Amendments seek to change Council’s adopted 

planning policies as represented in the Municipal Strategic Statement. Some of these 

are of concern and should be challenged by Council as part of its submission to 

VicRoads. 

While Option 2 would result in Rural zoned land being included on the urban side of the 

Bypass this should not be seen as undermining Council’s urban growth strategy. The 

Victoria Planning Provisions require that, prior to the rezoning of land; the proponent 

must demonstrate that the proposed rezoning would be consistent with state and local 

planning policies. 

Additionally, VicRoads has addressed this matter by including in the revised local 

planning policy for each of PSA C114 and C115, the requirement that a strategic 

investigation of this area be undertaken before any rezonings are entertained. 


As the Planning Authority, Responsible Authority, local traffic management authority 

and representative of Geelong’s citizens, it is imperative that Council makes a 

submission about the EES and Planning Scheme Amendments. 

Making a submission about the EES and PSAs will outline to VicRoads and the 

broader Geelong community that Council has a key stake in the direction and outcome 

of the Geelong Bypass Stage 3. The exhibition period closes on Friday September 16, 

2005 and submissions should be received by this date. Consideration of any late 

submissions will be at the discretion of VicRoads. 


Communities in the vicinity of the Bypass will be potentially affected by increased traffic 

movements on local roads seeking to access and exit from the Bypass, impacting on 

safety and access for pedestrians and cyclists. 

Detailed design of the final route for Stage 3 should be required to include appropriate 

provision for bicycle access. 

Option 2 is considered to have fewer direct adverse effects on existing residential 

communities than Option 1.









The assessment of the impacts on flora values for Option 2 requires reassessment, as 

a Net Gain assessment has not been carried for that route since the proposed 

alignment was modified. 

As the flora that will be impacted by Option 2 has an endangered status, refinement of 

this assessment needs to be carried out in order to adequately determine an accurate 

comparison between Option 1 and Options 2. 

In the absence of such a detailed re-assessment it is probable that the Option 1 route 

would result in less loss of native vegetation and therefore lower off-set requirements 

under the principles of Net Gain. 

Communication 

A submission outlining Council’s position on the EES and Amendments C113, C114 

and C115 will be prepared and submitted to VicRoads prior to the close of the 

exhibition period. This submission will become a public document. As a submittor, 

Council will be invited to appear before an Independent Panel and further present its 

submission. 

Conclusion 

The Geelong Bypass will be a significant asset for Geelong and address a 

demonstrated traffic management need. 

It is important to minimise the impacts of the Bypass whilst maximising the long term 

opportunities for a direct and convenient arterial road network around the City. In this 

context, Option 2F is considered to be the best option for the Stage 3 Bypass route as 

it is the Option with the greatest potential to provide a high standard free flowing link to 

the Surf Coast Highway. 

A link from the Bypass at Princes Highway, Waurn Ponds to the Surf Coast Highway is 

considered to be an integral part of Geelong’s road network. VicRoads should commit 

to building the connection south of the Princes Highway as soon as possible and work 

with Council to plan for the link to Surf Coast Highway in conjunction with Council’s 

Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan.



SECTION B - REPORTS Page 38













SUMMARY & CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS 1, 1L & 1C 

SUMMARY OF OPTIONS 

Option 1: refers to the route shown in red on Attachments 1 and 2. 

Summary 

Option 1 generally located within the alignment of the existing Public Acquisition 

Overlay for the Bypass, between Barrabool Road and the Princes Highway. The 

intersection of the Bypass with the highway is proposed to be moved further west, from 

opposite Rossack Drive to a point opposite the plant nursery, between the Waurn 

Ponds Hotel and the entrance to the Bunnings retail complex. 

Option 1C: refers to the route shown in orange on Attachment 1. 

Summary 

Strategic recognition is also provided within Amendment C113 for “Opportunity” – i.e. 

alternative - Option 1C. The differences between this opportunity and Option 1, are 

summarised below: 

• Linkages with the Princes Highway & Anglesea Road 

- the off ramp for south-bound vehicles exiting the Bypass is moved further west, 

to a point directly opposite the entrance to the Bunnings complex. 

- Anglesea Road would become a continuation of the Bypass, linked by a flyover 

of the Princes Highway, at the location of the existing roundabout at the 

intersection of the Princes Highway and Anglesea Road. 

- Traffic exiting Anglesea Road in an easterly direction (towards Grovedale) 

would cross the west bound lanes of the Princes Highway at grade, to merge 

with the east bound lanes. 

- Traffic travelling west along the Princes Highway (from Grovedale) wanting to 

access the north bound lanes of the Bypass would be required to cross the east 

bound lanes of the Princes Highway at grade, immediately east of the merge 

point for traffic exiting the Anglesea road. 

• Potential for access to the Surf Coast Highway. 

- The use of Anglesea Road as an extension of the Bypass creates the potential 

for a link to the Surf Coast Highway, south of the Geelong – Warrnambool rail 

line.. 

• Local road connections. 

- It is proposed to connect Rossack Drive to Pigdons Road via a new road below 

the Bypass and off ramp, through the Deakin Gardens Estate subdivision, with 

a ‘T’- intersection providing access to Deakin University. This road is proposed 

to be generally located along a major drainage line, which has been required to 

be set aside as a drainage reserve on a recently issued permit for the 

subdivision of the land. 

- An overpass across the Bypass is proposed to connect Pigdons Road and 

Thornhill Road, with Pigdons Road to be truncated north of the entrance to 

Marcus Oldham College and south of the entrance to Deakin University, at the 

boundary of the proposed right of way for the Bypass.




SUMMARY & CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS 1, 1L & 1C – Attachment 5 (Cont’d) 

Option 1 L: refers to the route shown in orange on Attachment 2. 

Summary 

Strategic recognition is also provided for “Opportunity” / Option 1L. The differences in 

location of this route relative to Option 1C are summarised below. 

• Linkages with the Princes Highway & Anglesea Road. 

- The Princes Freeway is truncated immediately west of its intersection with the 

Anglesea Road. 

- The Bypass would generally follow the alignment proposed in Option 1C, 

however it links the Bypass to the western – Waurn Ponds Valley – section of 

the Princes Highway. 

- The eastern – Grovedale – section of the Princes Highway is re-routed to 

connect to Anglesea Road. 

- Vehicles travelling east west between the Grovedale and Waurn Ponds sections 

of the Princess Highway are required to negotiate an at-grade ‘t’ intersection of 

the western portion of the Princes Highway with the connection between the 

Grovedale section of the Princes Highway and the Anglesea Road, at the 

current location of the roundabout. 

- South bound vehicles exiting the Bypass to the eastern section of the Princes 

Highway would do so at a point directly opposite the nursery, as in Option 1. 

- Vehicles travelling west along the Princes Highway, from Rossack Drive would 

cross the Highway immediately west of the off ramp before passing under the 

Bypass. 


- It is proposed to retain the intersection of Pigdons Road and the Princes 

Highway, with the Bypass crossing Pigdons Road via a fly-over. 

- An overpass across the Bypass is proposed to connect Pigdons Road and 

Thornhill Road, with Pigdons Road to be truncated north of the entrance to 

Marcus Oldham College. 

CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS 

Option 1 

The following shortcomings have been identified regarding Option 1: 

• It does not provide capacity for a link to the Surf Coast Highway or reduce the 

need for traffic using the Princes Highway to the west of Waurn Ponds to travel 

along the section of the Highway alignment located in the valley of Waurn Ponds 

Creek. 

• No provision is made for convenient access to the Bypass for vehicles from the 

residential areas beyond its intersection with the Princes Highway. 

• The design does not allow for separation of movements at the intersection with the 

Princes Highway for local traffic, commuter vehicles accessing the Bypass and 

long distance commercial traffic, all of which have conflicting requirements. 

Option 1C 

The following shortcomings have been identified regarding Option 1C:





• Disadvantages of this alternative route 

- As with Option 1, all east –west traffic is required to utilise the route through the 

Warne Ponds Valley. 

In this instance this concern could be addressed by the consideration of a link 

from the Anglesea Road extension of the Bypass to the west, south of Hams 

Road, to join the Princes Highway east of Drayton Road, similar to the link 

proposed in ‘Opportunity 2F’. 

- The location of the access point for north bound traffic to the Bypass, west of 

the Anglesea Road fly over, will act as a disincentive for local traffic to utilise the 

Bypass, for the following reasons: 

* Vehicles from Rossack Drive will have to negotiate both the traffic lights at 

the Bypass off ramp / Bunnings intersection, as well as the at grade 

intersections with vehicles exiting the Anglesea Road and vehicles in the 

east bound lanes of the princes Highway, in order to gain access to the 

Bypass. 

* Vehicles from the southern part of Highton, in the Pigdons Road / Fogarty 

Avenue area would also be disinclined to access the Bypass for north 

bound trips as, in addition to the above intersections, they would also have 

to negotiate the traffic lights at the Rossack Drive intersection, as well as 

increased levels of traffic on the realigned Pigdons Road. 

• Impact on local amenity. 

- The proposed linkage of the Bypass to the Anglesea Road by a fly-over across 

the Princes Highway, would necessitate a significant realignment of the 

southern end of the Bypass immediately north of the Princes Highway. 

- The suggested alignment of the Bypass and off ramp would be through land in 

a Residential 1 zone for which a permit to subdivide has been issued. The 

resultant planning blight would be compounded by the proposed link between 

Rossack Drive and Thornhill Road via Pigdons Road, which would further 

reduce the residential development potential of the land. 

- The extent of the ‘proposed right of way’ shown on the exhibited plans would 

severely limit the capacity to develop an appropriately inter-connected local 

road network on the remainder of the as yet undeveloped portion of the Deakin 

Gardens Estate. 

- The combined effect of the revised Bypass route and link road would be to 

significantly reduce the size of and enclose the Deakin Gardens Estate, 

reducing the potential for estate residents to access nearby open space and 

commercial facilities on foot or by bike, as well as reducing the effective open 

space afforded to the subdivision by the drainage reserve. 

- The proposed new road link between Rossack Drive and Thornhill Road would 

be likely to result in loss of amenity for residents whose dwellings front to 

Thornhill Road.





Option 1L 

The following shortcomings have been identified regarding Option 1L: 

• Disadvantages of this alternative route 

- In this instance the potential for connection to the Surf Coast Highway is 

particularly poor. As there is no connection from the Bypass to Anglesea Road 

all traffic between the Bypass and any Surf Coast Highway link would be 

required to exit the Bypass at Grovedale to access the Anglesea Road. 

- The orientation of the Bypass into the Waurn Ponds Valley will increase traffic 

impacts within the valley, as well as eliminating the possibility of an alternative 

route being developed south of Hams Road, to connect with the highway west 

of Drayton Road 


- As with Option 1C, the proposed linkage of the Bypass to the Waurn Ponds 

Valley section of the Princes Highway, would necessitate a significant 

realignment of the southern end of the Bypass. 

- The suggested alignment of the on ramp would also be through land in a 

Residential 1 zone for which a permit to subdivide has been issued. 

- The extent of the ‘proposed right of way’ shown on the exhibited plans would 

severely limit the capacity to develop an appropriately inter-connected local 

road network on the remainder of the as yet undeveloped portion of the Deakin 

Gardens Estate. 

- Relative to Option 1C however, Option 1L would generate a lower level of 

planning blight, as it does not propose a link between Rossack Drive and 

Thornhill Road via Pigdons Road. 

- The effect of the revised Bypass route would be to significantly reduce the size 

of and enclose the Deakin Gardens Estate. In particular it would reduce the 

potential for estate residents to walk / ride to commercial facilities on the south 

side of the Princes Highway. 

- The proposed linking of Rossack Drive and Thornhill Road via Pigdons Road 

would be likely to result in loss of amenity for residents whose dwellings front to 

Thornhill Road.




SUMMARY & CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS 2, 2D & 2F – Attachment 6 

SUMMARY OF OPTIONS 

Option 2: Refers to the route shown in red on Attachments 3 and 4. 

Summary 

Option 2 forms the basis for Amendments C114 and C115, with the differences 

between the two amendments relating to the alternative ‘opportunities’ addressed by 

each. 

South of Barrabool Road Option 2 follows a more westerly route to that of Option 1, 

along an alignment through the western portion of the landholdings of Marcus Oldham 

College and Deakin University, to meet the north side of the Princes Highway at a point 

between the intersections of Marendez and Luggs Roads on the southern side of the 

Highway. 

The following shortcomings have been identified regarding Option 2: 

• The location of the Bypass entrance and exit ramps will require all traffic using the 

southern section of the Bypass to travel through the Waurn Ponds Valley. This will 

significantly increase traffic impacts within the valley. 

• The design does not allow for separation of movements at the intersection with the 

Princes Highway for local traffic, commuter vehicles accessing the Bypass and 

long distance commercial traffic, all of which have conflicting requirements. 

• The distance between the entrance and exit ramps and the residential areas of 

Grovedale and the southern part of Highton are such that the use of this portion of 

the Bypass by commuter traffic generated in these areas is likely to be significantly 

lower than would be the case if more direct and convenient access were available. 

• The requirement for domestic traffic to mix in an undifferentiated manner with large 

commercial vehicles, given the restricted road design Options available within the 

confines of the valley of the Waurn Ponds Creek, will further reduce the desirability 

of this route for residents of Grovedale and Highton. These issues will be 

exacerbated during the morning peak, when vehicles accessing the Bypass from 

the east will be required to cross the path of west bound vehicles. 

These four concerns could be ameliorated by the provision of more direct access 

from these residential areas of Highton and Grovedale. 

The following comments summarise the strategic planning implications of Option 2, 

relative to Options 1, 1C and 1L, addressed in Attachment 5. 

• Potential for access to Anglesea Road and the Surf Coast Highway. 

- The shortcomings identified above are also relevant to access between the 

bypass and Anglesea Road and for future connection to the Surf Coast 

Highway. This is however mitigated by the on and off ramps of the Bypass 

being located so as to provide for the construction of Options 2D and 2F. 


Option 2 avoids the need to truncate Wandana Drive and Pigdons Road which are 

inherent in option 1 and opportunities 1C and 1L.




SUMMARY & CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS 2, 2D & 2F – Attachment 6 (Cont’d) 


As Option 2 south of Barrabool Road does not immediately abut existing 

residential development it will be likely to have a lower impact on local amenity 

than would option 1, or opportunities 1C or 1L. 

Option 2D: Refers to the routes shown in orange on Attachment 3. 

Summary 

Strategic recognition is also provided for “Opportunity” / Option 2D, as part of 

Amendment C114. The differences in location and potential impacts of this Option 

relative to Option 1 are summarised below. 

Opportunity 2D provides free flowing access for south bound traffic from the Bypass 

intending to head in a westerly direction along the Princes Highway. This is located 

south of the Waurn Ponds Valley, rejoining the Princes Highway at its present 

intersection with Lemins Road. 


- This opportunity provides good access from the Bypass to Anglesea Road. 

- This access would need to be designed to allow for a future flyover from the 

Bypass across Anglesea Road and the Geelong – Warrnambool Rail Line, to 

provide for a free flowing high speed link between the Surf Coast Highway and 

the Bypass. 


- The connection between the south bound lanes of the Bypass and the west 

bound lanes of the Princes Freeway would require the truncation of Luggs and 

Lemins Roads at their intersections with the Princes Highway. 

- The connections between the Bypass and Anglesea Road would require the 

truncation of Hams Road between Anglesea Road and Luggs Road. 

- A flyover on Lemins Road is proposed to cross the connecting ramps between 

the Bypass and Anglesea Road. 


- While Opportunity 2D is likely to have greater impact on local amenity south of 

the princes Highway than would Option 2, this impact will be relatively minor 

compared to that of any of the routes based on Option 1, due to the significantly 

lower density in settlement patterns in the vicinity of the route proposed for 

opportunity 2D. 

Option 2F: Refers to the routes shown in orange on Attachment 4. 

Summary 

Strategic recognition is also provided for “Opportunity” / Option 2F, as part of 

Amendment C115. The differences in location and potential impacts of this Option 

relative to Option 2D are summarised below.




SUMMARY & CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS 2, 2D & 2F – Attachment 6 (Cont’d) 

Opportunity 2F provides for high speed access for both north and south bound traffic 

from the Bypass to the Princes Highway west of Geelong. This link is partially located 

in the northern section of the quarry, south of Hams Road, rejoining the Princes 

Highway east of Drayton Road. As this section of the quarry has been exhausted its 

utilisation as a route for the Bypass link represents an effective re-use of the land 

resource. 

It would be desirable for the link to be designed so as to allow for the future 

construction of a free flowing connection between the Princes Highway west and the 

Surf Coast Road, in order to maximise the benefits of separating local and through 

traffic. 


- As with opportunity 2D, this opportunity provides good access from the Bypass 

to Anglesea Road. 

- This access would need to be designed to allow for a future flyover from the 

Bypass across Anglesea Road and the Geelong – Warrnambool Rail Line, to 

provide for a free flowing high speed link between the Surf Coast Highway and 

the Bypass.. 


- The connections between the Bypass and Anglesea Road would require the 

truncation of Hams and Lemins Roads between Anglesea Road and Luggs 

Road. 

- Opportunity 2F does not require the closure of either Luggs or Lemins Roads at 

their intersections with the Princes Highway, as is the case with opportunity 2D. 


- As the link between the Bypass and the Princes Highway would be located at 

grade, or lower in the case of the section through the former quarry workings, it 

is likely that there would be only minimal noise impact on adjoining properties. 

- This option would be likely top see a significant reduction in through traffic 

utilising the Waurn Ponds Valley section of the Princes Highway.




4. LEISURELINK SCOPING STUDY ON REPLACEMENT FACILITY 

Portfolio: 

Source: 

General Manager: 


Sport & Recreation – Cr Mitchell 

Community & Recreation – Swim Sport & Leisure 

Irene McGinnigle 

Subject: Sport & Recreation / Facilities 

Summary 

• Council endorsed the Aquatic Infrastructure Strategy Plan in November 2003. One 

of its recommendations was that due to the limited size and poor condition of 

Leisurelink the facility should be replaced within three to five years. 

• This LeisureLink Scoping Study is the first stage in the replacement process and 

highlights community opinion, population trends, and facilities required, possible 

sites for a new centre, and indicative capital costs and operational implications. 

• The replacement of Leisurelink will be a significant financial investment by Council 

and will provide health, fitness and recreation services for current and future 

generations. 

• This report is based upon the Leisurelink Scoping Study report that is summarised 

as Appendix 4-1. 

• The report identifies 3 broad options in terms of facility scope. These are: 

1. Option 1 – Replacement of current facilities and services provided by the 

existing LeisureLink facility. These are considered “mandatory” works and the 

minimum level of facility development. An indicative cost of this option is $22M 

approx. 

2. Option 2 – This option suggests additional water play and recreational 

opportunities, targeting a variety of age groups. Features could include wave 

pool, wave rider, lazy river, children’s splash pad and facilitates a larger lap 

pool to Option 1. These features are based on significant community 

consultation and are considered “desired” facilities, if the new Centre is to meet 

the needs of the wider community. The indicative cost of this option is in the 

range of $24-$28M. 

3. Option 3 – This option suggests further water play features such as significant 

water slides and additional water play. It also adds hydrotherapy facilities and a 

large 50M-lap pool. It also provides for two indoor sports courts. These works 

were identified through the community consultation process, however are 

considered “future” facilities. An indicative cost of this option is $34M approx. 

• The report identifies potential sources of funding in the range $3.5M –$4M. Option 

1 should attract $3.5M, with options 2 and 3 potentially attracting up to $4M of 

external funding. 

• Both Option 1 and Option 2 are within the broad costs identified within the Aquatic 

Infrastructure Strategy Plan. Council’s forward resource plan however assumes a 

$16M net Council contribution (assumes $4M income) for the project. Adjusting for 

the likely income Option 1 requires an additional nominal contribution of $2M, 

while Option 2 requires an additional nominal contribution of between $4M and 

$7.6M, to that provided in forward cost plans




4. LEISURELINK SCOPING STUDY ON REPLACEMENT FACILITY (CONT’D) 

Summary (Cont’d) 

• The Scoping Study recommends that Council consider Option 2 as the preferred 

scope of the replacement LeisureLink on the basis it provides for the recreational 

and health and fitness needs of the wider community 

Cr Mitchell moved, Cr Harwood seconded - 

That Council: 

1) Notes the recommendations of the Leisurelink Scoping Study (Appendix 4-1). 

2) Requests detailed scoping work for Option 2 scope of works specific to the 

Leisurelink replacement including: 

a) development of a number (2-5) of schematic design options for Council 

consideration. 

b) development of cost plans specific to each schematic design option. 

c) development of an operational plan for each schematic option that 

considers operating revenue, operating expenditures, staffing 

requirement, ongoing maintenance upgrade requirements. 

d) development of a funding model. 

e) identification of any potential competitive neutrality issues. 

f) identification of any site specific issues e.g. traffic management, works 

to integrate development with existing facilities. 

3) Acknowledges that the advice of the scoping study in relation to project cost 

and operational cost is “preliminary” advice and that, should the additional 

and more detailed work to be undertaken as the project develops vary 

materially from that provided in the scoping study, Council may need to 

alter/reduce the scope of the project. 

4) Confirms the preferred location for the development is Pioneer Park Waurn 

Ponds. 

5) Engages detailed negotiations with Baseball Geelong to facilitate 

construction on the area known as Diamond 2 (preferred) or Diamonds 4/5. 

6) Endorses the project management model as described in Appendix 4-2. 

7) Acknowledges that following the construction and opening of the new 

facility, the current facility will be closed, decommissioned and the site sold 

to assist with the funding of the project.





Resolution (Cont’d) 

Amendment 

Cr Farrell moved. Cr Abley seconded - 


1) Notes the recommendations of the Leisurelink Scoping Study (Appendix 4-1). 

2) Requests detailed scoping work for Option 1 scope of works specific to the 

Leisurelink replacement including: 

a) development of a number (2-5) of schematic design options for Council 

consideration. 

b) development of cost plans specific to each schematic design option. 

c) development of an operational plan for each schematic option that 

considers operating revenue, operating expenditures, staffing 

requirement, ongoing maintenance upgrade requirements. 

d) development of a funding model. 

e) identification of any potential competitive neutrality issues. 

f) identification of any site specific issues e.g. traffic management, works to 

integrate development with existing facilities. 

3) Acknowledges that the advice of the scoping study in relation to project cost 

and operational cost is “preliminary” advice and that, should the additional 

and more detailed work to be undertaken as the project develops vary 

materially from that provided in the scoping study, Council may need to 

alter/reduce the scope of the project. 

4) Confirms the preferred location for the development is Pioneer Park Waurn 

Ponds. 

5) Engages detailed negotiations with Baseball Geelong to facilitate 

construction on the area known as Diamond 2 (preferred) or Diamonds 4/5. 

6) Endorses the project management model as described in Appendix 4-2. 

7) Acknowledges that following the construction and opening of the new 

facility, the current facility will be closed, decommissioned and the site sold 

to assist with the funding of the project. 

The amendment was put and lost. 

The motion was put and carried. 

Report 

Background 

The Aquatic Infrastructure Strategy Plan concluded that Leisurelink is close to the end 

of its useful life. This is due to deteriorating asset condition. (Evidence: structural 

engineers reports).







Further, the facility is finding it increasingly difficult to cater for peak usage demand due 

to limited space. This is exacerbated by expected continued increased usage of the 

centre in addition to current demands. 

With expected continued growth and the proposed future development of the 

Armstrong Creek area to the south of Leisurelink, the current catchment population of 

67,000 in the areas surrounding Leisurelink could reach 100,000 in years to come. 

(Evidence: ABS figures and proposed development of Armstrong Creek Urban Growth 

Plan). 

Council resolved by adopting the Aquatic Infrastructure Strategy Plan in November 

2003 that work commences on replacing Leisurelink within 3-5 years. The Scoping 

Study is the first element of this process. The scoping study has been undertaken to 

clarify the necessary and desired facilities required, current centre users and local 

community opinions and feedback and most appropriate location(s). 

Discussion 

Community consultation linked to the scoping study has found overwhelming support 

for a replacement facility for Leisurelink and that it should be replaced as soon as is 

practicable. The community consultation highlights that the new centre should be 

significantly larger than the current centre and that it should provide a greater variety of 

services than the current facility. There is strong support from current users for a much 

larger gymnasium, larger multi purpose rooms, more lap lanes and activities for 

children, teenagers and young adults. There was also strong support for ensuring that 

the new centre catered for people with disabilities and that the centre should offer 

programs and services that could cater for all members of the community. 

Waurn Ponds was strongly favoured as the best location for any new centre and that it 

should be situated fairly close to where the current centre is located. 

A replacement facility for Leisurelink should be able to optimally cater for current users 

including the user increase that will result from the anticipated population growth 

expected over the next 10 to 20 years. Additionally, the new centre needs to provide 

services and activities for those groups that the facility currently does not have the 

amenities or capacity to accommodate now. (Refer Appendix 4-1, page 2-4 for 

details). 

Leisurelink currently has 375,000 visits per annum and generates an operational 

surplus of approximately $380,000. Visitations will increase given the increased size of 

facilities proposed as option 1. Visitation figures for the Option 2 Leisurelink with 

additional amenities and services could easily exceed 650,000 visits per annum and 

operate at a significant operational surplus. 

Based on the consultation a replacement facility for Leisurelink should provide all the 

services and amenities that are currently available to patrons at Leisurelink. (Within 

the report, these are referred to as ‘essential’ replacement facility/services). These 

facilities need to be significantly larger and of a better quality than those currently 

available at Leisurelink.







A replacement facility should cater for the demands of current and future catchment 

area residents and could cater for some of the recreation water play needs of the 

region. (These are referred to within the report as ‘required facilities/services’). 

Recreation water play could include a wave pool, lazy river, wave rider and some water 

spray areas and/or slides. 

These facilities can be indoor or outdoor (preferably indoor) and will be able to 

generate significant usage and income at a new Leisurelink. 

The provision in a new Leisurelink of a third, smaller multi purpose room and a nonwater-based 

playground for children will further increase and improve the variety of 

usage. 

The Scoping Study identifies 3 broad options in terms of facility scope. These are 

Option 1 – Replacement of current facilities and services provided by the existing 

Leisurelink facility. These are considered “essential” works and the minimum level of 

facility development. These include: 

• A much larger gymnasium 

• Two aerobic rooms 

• Child care facility 

• 8 lane 25m lap pool 

• Learners pool 

• Spa/sauna 

• Large and modern change areas and office space 

• Small outdoor toddler recreation space 

This option provides facilities and services to cater for those members of the 

community who currently use the Centre 

Option 2 – This option adds additional water play and recreational features. These 

could include some or all of: 

• wave pool 

• wave rider 

• lazy river 

• children’s splash pad 

• and facilitates a larger lap pool to option 1. 

These features emanate from the significant community consultation and are 

considered “desired” facilities, if the new Centre is to meet the needs of the broader 

community.







Option 3 – This option suggests further water play and enhances aquatic facilities. It 

also provides for indoor sports courts. This includes: 

• significant water slides 

• hydrotherapy facilities 

• a large 50M-lap pool 

• two indoor sports courts. 

These works were identified through the community consultation process, however are 

considered “future” facilities, as the projected total cost exceeds that identified within 

the cost parameters of the Aquatic Infrastructure Strategy Plan. 

Table 1 is a review of the key user groups and the standard of facility provision now 

and the possible future provision. It demonstrates Option 1 improves significantly the 

quality of service to those groups/users it targets with current facilities. It also indicates 

that an Option 2 level development with the provision of all the ‘targeted recreational 

facilities’ will provide improved recreation opportunity for the broader community 

particularly families and younger children. 

Quality of amenities/services 

provided to various user 

groups 

Water education Pre school 

Water education Primary school 

Water education 13 years + 

H&F Older adults (50 years +) 

H&F Adults (16-49 years) 

H&F rehab/relaxation 

H&F Sport specific 

Recreation pre school 

Recreation primary school 

Recreation secondary school 

Recreation young adults 

Families 

Sports courts 

Community building 

Current Leisurelink 

Very poor 

Poor 

Average 

Good 

Very Good 

New Leisurelink 

Mandatory facilities 

only 

Very poor 

Poor 

Average 

Good 

Very Good 


Mandatory and 

desired facilities 

Very poor 

Poor 

Average 

Good 

Very Good 

N/A N/A N/A 


Mandatory, desired 

and future facilities 

Very poor 

Poor 

Average 

Good 

Very Good 

Table 1: Quality of service – considering facility options







Site Analysis/Recommendation 

The study investigated a number of possible sites to construct the new Leisurelink. 

(Refer Appendix 4- 1, pages 8-9 for details). 

The existing site (Reynolds Road, Belmont) was not considered suitable given 

construction on this site would have resulted in significant service disruption (18-24 

months), and the soil conditions on this site are not conducive to aquatic centre 

development. 

A location other than the existing site will allow the current centre to remain operational 

throughout the construction process with the intent of transferring services post 

construction. Following the opening of the new facility it is intended the current site be 

closed, decommissioned and the site sold to assist the funding of the new facility. 

Deakin University has indicated its willingness to enter into negotiations related to the 

provision of University land for the construction of the facility. Baseball Geelong have 

shown strong interest on a new Leisurelink being built at Pioneer Park 

Consultation highlighted a preference for a site within the Waurn Ponds area. 

Subsequently two sites were investigated in detail: - 

• Pioneer Road, Waurn Ponds (Baseball Centre precinct) 

• Deakin University (Cnr Princes Highway and Pigdons Road) 

After considering a range of factors, including user preference, cost implications, 

accessibility, visibility, and synergies with adjacent facilities, the study determined that 

Pioneer Park (Baseball site) was the preferred location. 

This is largely due to Pioneer Park (Baseball Centre precinct) being Council land and in 

closest proximity to the current Leisurelink facility. 

It needs to be noted that there will be additional works, beyond that required at a ‘green 

field’ site, to integrate the new leisure centre with existing facilities within the baseball 

precinct. Specific works are yet to be identified and will be confirmed following detailed 

discussions with Baseball Geelong. This may cost in the range $300K if Diamond 2 is 

the specific site chosen for the development. That said there are some advantages 

that some facilities such as car parking are established and whilst additional car 

parking would be required, there is the probability that this could be shared between 

the two facilities. 

The study notes preliminary indications from Deakin University that it may be able to 

contribute funds to the project in addition to its generous offer of land. More recently 

however the University has advised due to financial constraints it is unable to 

contribute to the project beyond its offer of access to land. The study suggests that a 

financial contribution to the project by Deakin University would have a material impact 

on the site assessment outcome.







Project Governance/Management 

Given the scale of this project and its implications to Council and the community, a 

“Council wide” response is required to deliver the project. 

A project management structure is provided as Appendix 4-2. This is summarised 

below: 

Group 

Responsibility / Decision making Authority 

Council Approve - Project scope (Scoping Study) 

- Preferred facility concept 

- Funding 

- Appointment of Contractors 

Project Control Group - Guide / provide advice to Project working group. 

- Authority is limited to delegated authority of CEO 

Project Working Group 

(PWG) 

Working Groups / 

Sub-committees 

- Project Delivery 

- Authority is limited to delegated authority of General 

Manager 

- Specialist groups to provide advice to PWG and 

manage particular element of the project 

Examples include: 

Commercial 

- Finance / Business Plans 

- NCP 

Communication - Consultation 

- Media liaison 

Project Delivery 

Capital Projects tend to be delivered in stages, with each stage refining and developing 

the work undertaken previously. 

Appendix 4-3 describes this process in broad terms. 

By making resolutions specific to outcomes of the scoping study, Council is refining the 

scope/scale of the project. Whilst this may raise community expectations, its resolution 

does not lock Council into a position. Moreover, it provides direction to move to the 

next stage of project development. 

It is proposed that a number of schematic designs (concepts) are developed for 

Council consideration and that these (along with financial/community/ environmental 

impact analysis) provide the basis of a firm Council decision in terms of project scope. 

It is expected this will be presented to Council in the 2 nd quarter of 2006. 

Following the Council’s resolutions regarding a preferred scope and subject to budget 

the project will proceed to design development (detailed design). 

Acceptance/confirmation of the detailed design (again subject to budget) will see the 

project move through design documentation (preparation for tender), project tender and 

construction phases.







Architects and quantity surveyors were engaged to develop concepts of the type of 

centre that could be built and the costs associated with that construction. All costs 

referred to below are fully inclusive of design fees, project management, construction 

costs, project contingency and makes allowances for cost escalations (assumes a Jan 

2007 start of construction). 

Options 1 and 2 fall within the cost range previously advised to Council via the Aquatic 

infrastructure strategy plan (although are not currently fully costed in Council’s forward 

financial projections). Option 3 falls outside of this range and given this has not been 

fully developed, with facilities listed as future facilities. (Refer Appendix 4-1, page 5 for 

detail). 

There are opportunities for sponsorship and funding for this project. It is proposed that 

funding be sought from the State Government through Sport and Recreation Victoria, 

with $2.5M being available. 

The demolition and sale of the current Leisurelink site could likely net a $1 million 

return. 

Council’s forward resource plans considers the Leisurelink replacement project in 

establishing this plan. Council has assumed a project cost of $20 million (less $4M 

income). All options presented fall outside these assumptions. There is currently 

$430K allocated as part of the 2005/06 budget (this has been rounded to 500K for 

simplicity in the analysis following).






Financial Implications (Cont’d) 

Three cost plans have been developed relating to each option. These are summarized 

below: 

Option 1 

Probable Design and Construction Costs $22M 

Probable external income 

$3.5M 

Probable net Cost to Council 

Less Project Funds allocated 05/06 (preliminary design) 

$18.5M 

$0.5M 

Option 2 

Probable Design and Construction Costs $24-$28M 

Probable external income $4M 

Probable net Cost to Council 

Less Project Funds allocated 05/06(preliminary design) 

$20-$24M 

$0.5M 

Option 3 

Probable Design and Construction Costs $34M 

Probable external income $4M 

Probable net Cost to Council $30M 

Less Project Funds allocated 05/06(preliminary design) 

$0.5M 

Options 1 and 2 fall within the cost estimates reported to Council via the Aquatic 

Infrastructure Strategy Plan. However, Council’s forward resource plan assumes gross 

expenditure of $20M (net $16M). Expenditure beyond this will impact upon Council’s 

ability to fund other projects. 

Council has the option of reducing the scope to Option 1 to remain within the 

projections of Council’s forward resource plan. This would result in the development of 

a facility that provides similar facilities to those currently provided at Leisurelink. This is 

likely to cause significant negative sentiment with existing Leisurelink users, and have 

Council develop a facility that does not meet the needs of a growing community. 

Particular emphasis is placed on expected population growth in the southern areas of 

Geelong (Armstrong Creek/Mt Duneed).







Operational Projections 

Given that Option 1 is essentially the same facility as is currently in operation it is 

reasonable to expect that the a new facility based on option one will perform largely as 

the existing Centre does. On this basis it is expected that a year 1 operational surplus 

in the range of $400,000 would be realistic. This compares to a current operational 

surplus of $387,000. 

Council engaged recreation consultants from Stratcorp Consulting on the operational 

financial projections of a new aquatic centre based on option 2. 

Stratcorp Consulting found that on their “realistic” projections (based on Option 2) the 

new aquatic centre would generate at least a $400,000 operational surplus. This 

surplus was predominantly due to the significant increase in recreation patronage. This 

is summarised in the table below (refer Appendix 4-1, page 6 for further details). 

It is important to recognise that given this analysis is based on a number of 

assumptions it should be regarded as “preliminary” advice. As the scope/design of the 

project proceeds this work will need to be refined. 

A new Leisurelink (The first three years of operation) 

Current Leisurelink Stratcorp Consulting realistic projections 

2004/2005 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 

TOTAL INCOME $ 1,692,526 $ 2,800,233 $ 2,966,733 $ 3,100,000 

TOTAL EXPENDITURE $ 1,305,000 $ 2,440,797 $ 2,468,569 $ 2,496,832 

Net Operating Surplus 

(Excluding Depreciation) $ 387,526 $ 359,436 $ 498,164 $ 603,168 

Table 2: Operational finance projections Vs current operations. (Option 2) 

Source: Stratcorp Consulting. 

Given that option 3 was beyond the broad parameters of the Scoping Study in that its 

likely cost was in excess of that previously advised to Council via the Aquatic 

Infrastructure Strategy Plan a detailed review of operation costs for option 3 was not 

pursued. 


Council’s strategic planning recognises the importance of sport and recreation in 

enhancing community wellbeing. The recommendations outlined in this report would 

significantly enhance Councils capacity to provide relevant services in this area.






Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications (Cont’d) 

Leisurelink follows appropriate regulations for children’s services, water quality and 

relevant guidelines for service provision and safety standards. This would continue in 

any replacement facility. 


The current Leisurelink facility is in poor condition and any significant further 

deterioration could necessitate at least partial closure and significant expense to rectify. 

With this in mind it is prudent for construction of a new facility to be undertaken as soon 

as practicable as there is a risk of high expenditure costs in maintaining the current 

infrastructure at Leisurelink. 

The size of financial contribution required by Council for this project may impact on 

Councils ability to fund or contribute to other community projects over the next few 

years. 

Given the scale of the proposed project there are a number of risks that need to be 

considered. Much of this risk relates to the broad definition of the project at this initial 

stage. As the project develops and is more refined much of the areas of risk become 

more definite, enabling Council to make decisions with firm information. 

Areas of risk include: 

Project Cost/Funding- The current cost plans provide costs for 3 broad scales of 

project. As the schematic designs are developed more detailed cost plans will be 

developed to provide more accurate costs. 

Operational Costs- Recreation/Business Consultants Stratcorp have provided an 

analysis of financial projections. These are based on a number of assumptions that will 

become clearer through the schematic design process. Operations plans will be 

developed for each of the sketch design options developed. 

Competitive Neutrality- The project will need to consider competitive neutrality issues. 

Whilst the current facility operates in accordance with the National Competition policy it 

is important the new venue continues to do so. 

It is important to recognise that as the project is refined and developed, these matters 

will become clearer and may vary from that of the scoping study report. If this occurs 

Council may need to alter/reduce the scope of the project if it is to fit within the 

parameters described in the scoping study report, or within Council’s financial capacity. 


Over the last three years there has been significant growth in usage of Leisurelink (and 

Council’s other leisure centres). There has been significant growth in memberships and 

it is expected that community demand and interest in the services provided at an 

aquatic leisure centre will continue to grow. This growth along with the expected 

population growth necessitates a large community leisure centre that provides a social 

outlet for the local community.






Social Considerations (Cont’d) 

Participation in sport and recreational activities has long been recognised as an 

important contributor to community health and well being. 

Benefits of physical exercise and recreation are well documented and include improved 

health and fitness, development of social skills, impaired community connectedness 

and enhanced self-esteem. 


There are no environmental considerations within this report however during the design 

of a new centre environmental friendly operations and construction will need to be 

ascertained and where appropriate used. 

Communication 

Significant consultation with the community has occurred throughout the completion of 

the Scoping Study. This consultation will continue throughout the next stage of 

replacing Leisurelink (design). 

Conclusion 

The development of a large new aquatic facility in the Waurn Ponds area will provide 

the community with a facility that can cater for the health fitness and aquatic recreation 

needs of current and future generations. This centre can become a state of the art 

facility that is used by all demographic groups and provide health benefits and 

enjoyment to the local community and potentially to the region. 

It will be a significant investment by Council. The outcomes, however, will provide a 

facility that the community and region will be proud of and will not only be of benefit to 

current generations, but provide an ongoing legacy for many decades.

LEISURELINK SCOPING STUDY EXECUTIVE REPORT 

ATTACHMENT 1 

1 

Background 

The Aquatics Infrastructure Strategy Plan was adopted by Council in November 2003 

and had as one of its recommendations; 


• Acknowledges the issues related to aquatic infrastructure in the southern suburbs 

of Geelong, and requests a detailed scoping study linked to the future of 

Leisurelink be conducted. This study should look at in detail facility options, 

funding opportunities, partnerships, sponsorship and community expectations. 

This is the executive report of that scoping study. 

The Leisurelink facility is close to the end of its useful life both structurally and in its 

limited capacity to accommodate peak patron usage times. 

There has been significant growth in population within the key catchment areas 

surrounding Leisurelink. With expected continued growth and the proposed future 

development of the Armstrong Creek area to the south of Leisurelink, the current 

catchment population of 67,000 in the areas surrounding Leisurelink could reach 

100,000 in years to come. 

The existing facility has seen significant growth in population within its surrounding 

suburbs over the 24 years, and the popularity of the facility has meant that the facility 

is not large enough to cater for the demand. This is supported by benchmarking 

which indicates that Leisurelink is significantly above the median visits per square 

metre for a facility of its type. Leisurelink attracts 131 visits per square metre against 

the industry median of 83 visits per square metre. 

Additionally there have been structural problems with the buildings and pool shells at 

Leisurelink from about 1982. Significant repairs have been undertaken at various 

times over the last 20 years and over the last 3–5 years the repairs and maintenance 

required on the facility to ensure it can still operate have been of a structural nature 

and have been extensive. 

Assessment from a number of engineering experts has found that the facility has a 

limited life with some parts of the facility “only marginally serviceable” “compromised” 

and/or “nearing the end of their service life”. 

Current centre users generate a visitation figure of 375,000 visits per annum. These 

visitations can be divided into three key categories of use: 

• Health and Fitness 

• Water education 

• Aquatic Recreation/Leisure 

Within each of the above categories there are a number of user groups based on 

demographics. Currently the centre has the ability to only partially cater for the 

requirements of some of those user groups and has little to no capacity to cater for 

any of the aquatic recreation/leisure user groups during the winter months. During 

the 3 months of summer Leisurelink only caters for children under 8. 

City of Greater Geelong Swim Sport & Leisure Report 

1


Community Consultation 

Community consultation has found overwhelming support for a replacement facility 

for Leisurelink and that it should be replaced as soon, as is practicable. The Geelong 

community believes that the new centre should be significantly larger than the current 

centre and that it should provide a greater variety of services than the current centre 

offers. 

There is strong support from current users for a much larger gymnasium, larger multi 

purpose rooms, more lap lanes and recreation activities for children, teenagers and 

young adults. There is also strong support for ensuring that the new centre caters 

well for the disabled and that the centre should offer programs and services that 

could cater for all members of the community in some way. 

Community consultation indicated that Waurn Ponds was strongly favoured as the 

best location for any new centre and that it should be situated fairly close to where 

the current centre is located. 

Local primary and secondary students were strongly in favour of a new centre 

becoming a place where they can go with their family and/or friend(s) in their leisure 

time. Many of the students said that they did not go to Leisurelink currently because 

there was nothing to do there. 

Students were keen on wave riders, slides, wave pools and lazy rivers and that if 

those sorts of attractions were available they would be regular users of the centre. 

Discussions were also held with aquatic centre managers within Australia and 

overseas as well as with recreation consultants and Melbourne based architects. 

Most aquatic managers believed that if they were building a new facility they would 

ensure that it offered much greater water play experiences than they were currently 

able to offer. Recreation consultants argue that an aquatic centre is more financially 

viable if major water play facilities are provided. 

Future Usage 

A replacement facility for Leisurelink must be able to optimally cater for current users 

including the user growth that will result from the continued population growth 

expected over the next 10 to 20 years. Additionally the new centre needs to provide 

services and activities for those groups that currently the centre has limited or no 

capacity to accommodate. 

A review of potential usage of a new Leisurelink shows that using straight-line 

projections based on current population and visitation approximately 560,000 visits 

could be expected at Leisurelink if the catchment population reached 100,000. (The 

current centre could not cope with this level of usage). 

If the facility provided new aquatic experiences for the community (such as water 

play opportunities) and attracted visits from throughout the region (and outside the 

region) those visitation figures could easily exceed 650,000 per annum with no 

operational subsidy. 


2


A new Leisurelink 


A replacement facility for Leisurelink must provide all the services and amenities that 

are currently available to patrons at Leisurelink. These facilities need to be 

significantly larger and of a better quality than those currently offered. 

There is a need for additional lap lanes, a much larger gymnasium, at least two large 

multi purpose rooms as well as indoor water play that that can cater for a variety of 

demographics. It requires pools for Learn to Swim classes of a minimum of 2000 

children per week and a hydrotherapy area. Change rooms, reception and cafe areas 

are also required that can cater for demand levels well into the future. 

The pools provided need to operate autonomously so that significant variations in 

water temperature can be offered. Pre school children and the elderly prefer water at 

a significantly higher temperature than that demanded by lap swimmers. 

Desired Facilities 

Water play 

A replacement facility must cater for the demands of current and future catchment 

area residents and could cater for some of the recreation water play needs of the 

region. 

A new Leisurelink should provide services that attract all demographic groups within 

the community to ensure that the new centre is utilised by as many local residents as 

possible. 

Recreation water play space is non-existent in the indoor areas of Leisurelink and the 

outdoor water play areas are solely for use by children under 8. There is a significant 

population that is not being offered modern and exciting water play opportunities. 

The provision of expansive and up to date, recreation water play amenities can also 

attracts residents of the whole of Geelong and potentially outside of Geelong. This 

will allow the new aquatic centre to not only cater for the 67,000 people within 

Leisurelink’s current catchment but for at least the 250,000 within the region. 

The provision of significant water play can also mitigate any future need for 

expansion at Councils other aquatic centres. If the quality of services provided at a 

new Leisurelink can attract users from other parts of the municipality there will be 

less need to expand other facilities in the future 

Significant water play would include a wave pool, lazy river, wave rider. 

These facilities would preferably be indoors and will be able to generate significant 

income and usage to a new Leisurelink. 


3


Third multi purpose room 

Leisurelink currently has two multi purpose rooms used for childcare and group 

exercise classes. One type of group exercise class (Revolution) is currently offered 

in the gymnasium. This does not provide the appropriate privacy or space for 

participants. The provision in a new Leisurelink of a third, smaller multi purpose room 

can allow a better quality of atmosphere and instruction for these classes. It could 

also be used for meetings or relaxation type classes. (eg yoga, Pilate’s) 

Playground 

Provision of non-water based playground for children could allow children to be 

entertained even if they do not wish to get wet. If their siblings have a swimming 

lesson or the child has “a bit of a cold” some dry land play equipment could provide 

an alternative play option. 

The provision of these facilities can ensure that ALL community groups are well 

catered for at a new Leisurelink and provide Geelong with facilities that are the 

standard for new centres internationally but are limited in their provision in Victoria 

and non existent in Geelong. 

Below is a review of the key user groups and that standard of facility provision now 

and the possible future provision. 

Quality of amenities/services 

provided to various user 

groups 

Water education Pre school 

Water education Primary school 

Water education 13 years + 

H&F Older adults (50 years +) 

H&F Adults (16-49 years) 

H&F rehab/relaxation 

H&F Sport specific 

Recreation pre school 

Recreation primary school 

Recreation secondary school 

Recreation young adults 

Families 

Sports courts 

Community building 


Very poor 

Poor 

Average 

Good 

Very Good 



only 

Very poor 

Poor 

Average 

Good 

Very Good 


Mandatory and 

desired facilities 

Very poor 

Poor 

N/A N/A N/A 

Average 

Good 

Very Good 


Mandatory, desired 

and future facilities 

Very poor 

Poor 

Average 

Good 

Very Good 

Table 1: Quality of service 


4


Future facilities 

As part of this report a review and assessment has been undertaken of possible 

future facilities. The potential future additions are limitless but it is deemed that the 

following facilities are the best fit and likely most needed. 

• Stand alone hydrotherapy centre. (Similar to Grace McKellar centre) 

• Indoor Sports Courts (as a partial or full replacement for Barwon Valley Activity 

Centre) 

• Community facilities (library customer service centre child care centre) 

Concept Plans and Costs 

Architects and quantity surveyors were engaged to provide some indicative examples 

of the type of centre that could be built and the costs associated with that 

construction based on our findings outlined and the type of facilities required. A 

number of plans have been developed based on a variety of concept plans. The 

costs of these plans have been from $22 to $34 million. 

Three cost option plans have been developed based on the provision of one of the 

following amenities; mandatory facilities only, mandatory and some or all required 

facilities and mandatory, required and future facilities. (See Appendix 2) 

An indicative cost of providing a new aquatic centre based on ‘mandatory’ and 

‘required facilities (the preferred option) is from $24-$28 million. This is the total cost 

of the project and it would be expected that with funding opportunities available the 

cost borne by Council would be in the range of $20-24 million. 

Example of Possible Capital Costs 

Construction Cost $20,300,000 

Design/Professional Fees $2,544,000 

Contingencies $3,026,000 

Cost escalation to tender $2,130,000 

Less funds from SRV ($2,500,000) 

Net proceeds of land sale ($1,000,000) 

Possible corporate sponsorship/funding ($,500,000) 

Council Net Cost $24,000,000 

Note: 

Prices assume project commencement January 2007. 


5


Funding/Sponsorship 

A project of this size is a significant investment for Council and assistance in funding 

externally is paramount to ensuring the viability of the project. 

There are opportunities for sponsorship and funding for this project. It is proposed 

that funding is sought from the State Government through Sport and Recreation 

Victoria. Maximum funding is $2.5M. 

Given the unique features (wave rider etc) proposed as part of the project there is 

potential to gain some sponsorship through funding partners. 





financial contribution to the project by Deakin University would have a material 

impact on the site assessment outcome. 

Discussions were also proceeding with various other companies with brand 

positioning aligned to surfing culture and who have as a primary target audience of 

teenagers/young adults. These discussions concluded given the initial indications 

from Deakin. These discussions will be re-invigorated following the most recent 

advice from Deakin. Potential sponsorship is upwards of $500k 

The demolition and sale of the current Leisurelink site could likely net a $1million 

return. This is based on a site valuation of $1.4m and demolition and other costs of 

approximately $400K 

Operational Costs 

Leisurelink currently operates at a significant surplus. It is expected the new centre 

will continue to operate at a significant operational surplus. Stratcorp Consultants 

were engaged to develop a business plan on a new aquatic centre and found that a 

new centre, based on the concept plans developed would operate on an operational 

surplus of a “realistic” minimum of $400K, to potentially almost $1M per annum in the 

first three years. The centre would of course have much greater expenditures than 

the current centre but these would be fully offset by additional revenue streams and 

usage levels. 


6



Stratcorp Consulting realistic projections 

Stratcorp Consulting Optimistic Projections 

Income 2004/2005 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 

Memberships $1,073,000 $1,202,628 $1,236,000 $1,236,000 $1,202,628 $1,236,000 $1,236,000 

Aquatic Education $217,216 $338,280 $366,469 $394,687 499,000 535,000 571,000 

Casual fitness $101,319 $47,925 $51,919 $55,916 55,913 59,907 63,900 

Recreation Swimming $241,288 $1,007,880 $1,091,867 $1,175,940 1,175,460 1,259,850 1,343,000 

Other Income $59,703 $203,520 $220,479 $237,456 232,000 247,000 261,000 

TOTAL INCOME $1,692,526 $2,800,233 $2,966,733 $3,100,000 $3,165,001 $3,337,757 $3,474,900 

Expenditure Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 

Management/Admin $305,000 $435,035 $435,035 $435,035 $ 435,036 $ 435,036 $ 435,036 

Health & Fitness $185,000 $243,479 $252,821 $262,193 $ 261,993 $ 271,566 $ 280,938 

Swim School $85,000 $156,862 $166,052 $175,243 $ 175,243 $ 184,434 $ 193,625 

Aquatic operations $350,000 $875,960 $877,200 $878,400 $ 878,440 $ 879,900 $ 890,940 

Utilities $140,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 

Other Costs $240,000 $429,461 $437,461 $445,961 $ 444,790 $ 452,000 $ 460,500 

TOTAL EXPENDITURE $1,305,000 $2,440,797 $2,468,569 $2,496,832 $ 2,495,502 $ 2,522,936 $ 2,561,039 

Net Surplus $387,526 $359,436 $498,164 $603,168 $669,499 $814,821 $913,861 

Table 2: Financial Modelling; Operational projections Vs current operations. Stratcorp Consulting 2005 


7


Location 

A significant part of this study has involved investigating and assessing new possible 

sites for an aquatic centre. Due to the poor soil and limited space at Leisurelink and 

assessment from structural engineers it is necessary to find a new location for the 

new Leisurelink. 

Many sites have been assessed. Patron preference is for a new facility to be located 

in Waurn Ponds and in close proximity to the current facility. As such most 

investigation has centred in the Waurn Ponds area. 

It was found that: 

• Some private land is available but would have to be bought off the owners at 

significant cost to Council. 

• Council has significant land holdings at Pioneer Baseball Park. 

• Deakin University have significant land holding and were interested in an aquatic 

centre being located on their land. 

• Vicroads have a significant parcel of land but no decision has yet been made on 

a ring road site. 

Further discussions were held with Deakin University and with Baseball Geelong. 

Three specific sites were found to be most preferable. Two sites at the Baseball 

Centre and a site on Deakin land. 

Further discussion with the groups found that:- 

• Baseball Geelong would like works to take place at the Baseball Centre to 

mitigate the loss of a baseball diamond. (At a cost of up to $1 million) 

• Deakin University were keen on the facility being built on their land but did not 

have the capacity to contribute funds to the project. 

Geotechnical results 

PJ Yttrup and Associates undertook an analysis of soil conditions on the preferred 

sites. They concluded that there were reactive soil issues at each of the sites tested. 

The Deakin University site on the corner of Pigdons Road and the Princes Highway 

however was deemed to be the best of the three for the proposed aquatic centre as it 

appears that competent limestone occurs at relatively shallow depth. This reduces 

the geotechnical risk associated with the site compared to the baseball centre sites. 

Nevertheless, the properties of the shallow limestone need further investigation to 

further confirm that it is intact rock. 

A weighted assessment of the sites was also undertaken taking into consideration all 

available information. The results are listed overleaf. 


8


Baseball (2) 

Baseball (4) 

Deakin 

Issue 

Weight (1- 

3) 

Score (1- 

3) Total 

Score (1- 

3) Total 

Score (1- 

3) Total 

Patron Preference 

3 3 9 3 9 2 6 

Capital Costs 

Best location -Short(5yrs) to 

medium(10yrs) term 

Medium location -Short (10yrs) to 

long (20yrs) term 

Ability for CoGG to design and 

construct autonomously 

3 1 3 1 3 1 3 

2 3 6 3 6 2 4 

2 3 6 3 6 3 6 

2 2 4 2 4 1 2 

Future expansion capability 

2 2 4 2 4 3 6 

Good road accessibility 

2 2 4 1 2 3 6 

Geotech results 

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 

High Profile location 

1 3 3 1 1 3 3 

Synergies with surrounding 

facilities 

* Assumptions 

1 3 3 3 3 2 2 

Deakin University scoring is based on the land on the corner of Pigdons Rd and Colac Rd. 

43 39 40 

Based on the weighted scores assessment the Baseball site is marginally preferred. 





financial contribution to the project by Deacon University would have a material 

impact on the site assessment outcome. 


9


Conclusion 

The development of a large new aquatic facility in the Waurn Ponds area will provide 

the community with a facility that can cater for the health, fitness and aquatic 

recreation needs of current and future generations. This centre can become a state 

of the art facility that is used by all demographic groups and provide health benefits 

and enjoyment to the local community and potentially to the region. 

It will be a significant investment by Council and major project. The outcomes 

however can provide a facility that the community and region can be proud of and 

that will be utilised by current Leisurelink patrons, current and future local residents 

and could potentially be an attraction that will have users from outside of the Geelong 

region. 

Recommendations 

That Council endorses 

1. The construction of a state of the art aquatic facility to replace Leisurelink 

over the next 3 years at a cost in the range of $24-$28m which include the 

facilities deemed mandatory and some or all of the required facilities within 

this report,: 

• Lap pool 

• Learn to swim pool 

• Hydrotherapy pool 

• Waterplay for all age groups 

• Saunas/spa 

• Gymnasium 

• Multi purpose rooms 

• Change facilities 

• Reception area 

• Meeting and staff rooms 

2. That tenders are sought from experienced Project Managers in September 

2005 to manage the design and construction of a replacement facility for 

Leisurelink. 

3. That Council determine that Pioneer Park be the preferred site for the 

construction of the aquatic facility. 

4. That further investigation, analysis and consultation is undertaken to make 

recommendations on the best use of the current Leisurelink site, following 

its de-commission post opening of the new facility. 

5. That funding is sought for the design and construction of a replacement 

facility for Leisurelink from Sport and Recreation Victoria in October 2005. 


10


APPENDIX ONE 

OPTION ONE 

(Mandatory facilities) 

Possible facility provisions for a replacement aquatic facility for Leisurelink 

OPTION TWO 

(Mandatory and desired facilities) 

OPTION THREE 

(Mandatory, desired and future facilities) 

New centre would offer: 

• A much larger gymnasium 





• Spa/sauna 

• Large and modern change areas and office space 

• Small outdoor toddler recreation space 

Advantages 

• Lowest capital cost 

• Will generally cater for most current users 

• Will have capacity for growth in health and fitness and 

for some Learn to Swim 

Disadvantages 

• Will offer no more recreation opportunities than current 

centre 

• Will be a lesser centre than most new Melbourne 

centres 

• Will not have the capacity to cater for any new 

markets/users 

• Will not attract children and young adults. 

• Will not attract more older adults 

New centre would provide Option 1, plus some or all 

of: 

• Wave pool 

• Flow rider 

• Lazy River 

• Children’ splash pads 

• Larger lap pool 

Advantages 

• Will cater for all current users 

• Will have capacity for growth in health and fitness, 

Learn to Swim and recreation. 

• Will be a centre that could be the second best centre 

in Victoria. 

• Will offer more recreation opportunities than current 

centre 

• Will not attract much more children and young adults. 

• Will have amenities not found elsewhere in Australia 

• Will attract users from outside Geelong 

Disadvantages 

• Slightly greater capital cost 

New centre would provide Option 1 & all of 2, plus: 

• State of the art waterslides and other water play 

• Two sports courts 

• Hydrotherapy facilities 

• Large 50m lap pool 

Advantages 

• Will cater for all current users 

• Will have capacity for growth in health and fitness, Learn 

to Swim and recreation. 

• Will be a centre that will be the second best centre in 

Victoria and the best water recreation venue in Victoria. 

• Will offer significant recreation opportunities not available 

elsewhere 

• Will attract much more children and young adults. 

• Will attract older adults and people with disabilities/injuries 

• Will have amenities not found elsewhere in Australia 

• Will attract users from throughout Victoria 

• Greater capital cost 

Disadvantages 


11


OPTION ONE 

(Mandatory facilities) 

Possible costs for a replacement aquatic facility for Leisurelink 

OPTION TWO 

OPTION THREE 

(Mandatory and desired facilities) (Mandatory, desired and future facilities) 

Indicative total design and construction cost 

• $22 million 

Probable cost borne by Council 

• $18.5 million 

Current budgeted amount for project 

• $430 k 

Allowance within forward cost plans 



• $24-$28 million 


• $20-$24 million 


• $430 k 


• $16 m 






• $430 k 


• $16 m 


12

ATTACHMENT 2 

Leisure Link Project Management Structure 

The Project Management Structure is proposed to take effect following Council 

committing to the Leisure Link redevelopment. 

Project Control Group 

Function 

Councillors: 

- Portfolio Holder 

- Ward Councillors 

Officers: 

- General Manager Community 

and Recreation 

- General Manager Major 

Projects 

Manager Swim Sport & Leisure 

Funding Partners Representatives 

Provides direction to project 

Decision making 

$ Value is limited to CEO 

delegated authority 

Receives Advice from PWG 

Project Working Group 

Function 

General Managers: 

- Community and 

Recreation 

- Major Projects 

Manager Swim Sport & Leisure 

Coordinator Swim Sport & Leisure 

Provides advice to PCG 

Decision Making 

$ Value is limited to GM 

delegated authority 

“Manages Project” 

Manager Finance 

Community Focus Groups 

“ User” Groups 

Representatives of the key user groups of 

the Centre 

“Expert” Groups 

Representatives of key agencies and peak 

bodies to provide ‘expert’ advice. 

Eg. Disability group 

Youth Services Agency etc. 

Function 

No Decision Making 

Provides advice and 

information to PWG

ATTACHMENT 3 

LEISURELINK REPLACEMENT PROJECT MODEL 

Current Position - 

October 05 

August 05 - June 06 June 06 

June 06 - December 06 January 07 - July 08 

Detailed Design 

Construction 

Leisurelink scoping study 

and draft possibilities 

complete 

Appoint Project Manager 

Concept 1 

Concept 1 

Schematic Design 

Business Schematic PlanDesign 

Draft Business construction Plan budget 

Draft Draft operational construction budget budget 

10 Draft year operational model budget 

10 year model 

Decision 

process 

Detailed Financial modelling 

Detailed business planning 

Establish Site 

Earthworks 

and footings 

Excavation 

Appoint 

Architect 

Appoint 

Quantity 

Surveyor 

Concept 2 

Concept 2 



Draft Business construction Plan budget 

Draft Draft operational construction budget budget 


10 year model 

Preferred 


Detailed Design 

Pool 

Ground Stabilisation 

Financial models 

confirmed 

Excavation 

Concept 

development 

Concept 3 

Concept 3 



Draft Business Construction Plan budget 

Draft Draft operational Construction budget budget 


10 year model 

Construction Brief & 

Tender Process 

Construction 

Consultation - 

Community -Partners 

Cost benefit analysis 

Appointment of builder 

Building 

Construction 

Risk Analysis 

Fit-out




5. SPORT AND RECREATION VICTORIA COMMUNITY FACILITY FUNDING - 

MAJOR PROJECT SUBMISSION 

Portfolio: 

Source: 



Sport and Recreation - Cr Mitchell 

Community and Recreation - Recreation and Open 

Space 


Subject: Sport & Recreation 

Customer: Department for Victorian Communities 

Summary 

• Sport and Recreation Victoria’s (SRV) Community Facilities Funding Program 

provides a significant opportunity for Council to secure much needed funding for 

sport and recreation projects in the municipality. 

• This report provides a recommendation regarding the preferred project for 

submission to SRV. 

Cr Mitchell moved, Cr Harwood seconded - 

That Council endorse the development of a submission for Sport and Recreation 

Victoria’s Community Facility Funding Program under the Major Facilities / 

Better Pools Funding Program for the development of the LeisureLink Aquatic 

Facility in Waurn Ponds for expenditure in 2006/07 financial year. 

Carried. 

Report 

Background 

Each year the State Government Department for Victorian Communities Sport and 

Recreation Victoria (SRV) make available funds under the Community Facilities 

Funding Program. The current program opened on August 26 th 2005 and consists of 

the following: 

Major Facilities: The Major Facilities Funding Program facilitates a co-ordinated and 

integrated approach to the development of major sport and recreation facilities 

(projects greater than $150,000). A maximum allocation of $500,000 is available from 

SRV on a matching $1SRV: $2 local contribution. 

Better Pools: The Better Pools Funding program is designed to increase the quality and 

range of sport and recreation opportunities through the planned development of aquatic 

leisure facilities across Victoria. A maximum allocation of $2,500,000 is available from 

SRV on a matching $1SRV: $2 local contribution. 

Council is able to submit a maximum of one project for consideration under either the 

Major Facilities or Better Pools category. The application closing date for these 

categories is Friday, 7 October. 

Minor Facilities: The Minor Facilities Funding Program assists local community groups, 

in partnership with Local Government, in the development and upgrade of community 

sport and recreation facilities (projects less than $150,000).





MAJOR PROJECT SUBMISSION (CONT’D) 



Planning: encourages strategic recreation planning and specific facility feasibility 

studies. 

The Minor Facilities and Planning categories close in December 2005 and a 

subsequent Council Report shall be presented detailing these applications. 

Councils are required to determine priorities for applications for each of the above 

categories. 

Discussion 

This report relates specifically to the recommended application under the Major 

Facilities / Better Pools categories. A number of potential projects exist for funding 

consideration under these categories, however the City of Greater Geelong can only 

submit one (1) application from these categories. Thus consideration must be given to 

the application that is of most benefit to the community, shall meet the adjudication 

criteria and the amount of funding available. 

In determining the recommendations SRV’s funding guidelines and criteria and the 

likelihood of success have been considered. 

Some of the key SRV evaluation criteria across both categories include: 

• Responds to identified community needs and issues and is based on broad 

consultation and support; 

• Considers community strengthening initiatives and processes and aligns to 

Government priorities; 

• Is supported by Council’s local, regional and subregional planning such as 

corporate goals, business plans and Councils strategic planning direction, 

feasibility assessment and where appropriate technical audit reports; 

• Fits the Council’s strategic plan for the provision of aquatic leisure or meets a gap 

in the local and regional provision of facilities; 

• Fosters innovation so as to maximise impact ie flexible funding arrangements, colocation 

and place management; 

• Has the potential to encourage or complement local community building initiatives; 

• Demonstrates the sustainability and viability of the project through financial 

management, business planning and identifies life-cycle costs; 

• Addresses issues around safety and risk management and compliance with 

relevant anti-discrimination legislation such as the Disability Discrimination Act; 

• Design identifies and responds to capital, operational and management issues; 

• Considers or promotes innovative environmentally friendly practice;








• Demonstrates anticipated economic impact and benefit during construction and 

operation, including employment during and after construction; 

• Is managed by an integrated team drawn from a range of areas including social 

and strategic planning, technical, engineering and economic development. 

• Improves access to quality sport and recreation opportunities particularly for those 

groups traditionally disadvantaged, eg. people with disabilities, women, young 

people, older adults, people from non-English-speaking backgrounds, indigenous 

people and the rurally isolated. 

• Will provide a facility where none exists or where existing facilities are facing 

imminent closure. 

Additional information regarding these funding programs can be obtained from the SRV 

website www.sport.vic.gov.au or can be provided to Councillors upon request. 

Leisurelink Aquatic Facility – Preferred Project for Submission 

As previously reported to Council the Aquatic Infrastructure Strategy Plan concluded 

that Leisurelink is close to the end of its useful life due to its deteriorating asset 

condition. With expected continued growth and the proposed future development of 

the Armstrong Creek area to the south of Leisurelink, the current catchment population 

of 67,000 in the areas surrounding Leisurelink could reach 100,000 in years to come. 

(Evidence: ABS figures and proposed development of Armstrong Creek Urban Growth 

Plan). Council endorsed that work commences on replacing Leisurelink within 3-5 

years. 

Council has completed a scoping study specific to the replacement of Leisurelink. This 

study concluded that Sport and Recreation Victoria funding was important to the 

funding mix proposed related to this project. 

The Scoping Study has identified a replacement facility for Leisurelink should be able 

to optimally cater for current users including the user increase that will result from the 

anticipated population growth expected over the next 10 to 20 years. Leisurelink 

currently has 375,000 visits per annum a new facility with additional amenities and 

services could easily exceed 650,000 visits per annum and operate at a significant 

operational surplus. 

A new Leisurelink Aquatic Facility would replace current facilities and services provided 

and could include some or all of: 

• Gymnasium 





• Spa/sauna 

• Large and modern change 

areas and office space 

• Outdoor toddler recreation 

space 

• Water play facilities








Council has committed funds ($430K) to facilitate the development of schematic 

designs linked to this project. 

The replacement of Leisurelink will be a significant financial investment by Council and 

will provide health, fitness and recreation services for current and future generations. It 

is supported by significant planning including the Aquatic Infrastructure Strategy Plan 

and the Leisurelink Scoping Study. 

Applications under the Major Facility / Better Pools categories need to be supported by 

well documented feasibility assessments and/or detailed concept plans. It is 

considered that extensive investigation and pre-planning has been undertaken for the 

Leisurelink Facility project to be well placed for funding under this grant program. 

As only one application can be submitted from the two grant categories, it is more 

financially beneficial to apply for the Better Pools funding, as $2.5million can be 

obtained, rather than the maximum of $500,000 for a Major Facilities Project. 

Consequently, the Leisurelink Facility project would best meet the criteria, achieve 

greater benefit to the community and Council would be able to obtain the maximum 

amount of funding available. 


If the submission is successful, Council shall have to make a commitment to 

Leisurelink project for the 2006/07 financial year which would be determined from the 

associated business case via the budgetary process. 

The Leisurelink replacement is a significant project and Council has committed $430K 

in the 2005/06 financial year to advance the design of the facility. 


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


There are no immediate risks associated with this report. A component of application 

for the Leisurelink project would clearly detail all relevant risk management matters 

pertaining to the project including the deteriorating state of assets at the existing 

facility. 


The Leisurelink Aquatic Facility would be an innovative community aquatic and fitness 

facility. The expected population growth necessitates a large community leisure centre 

that provides a social outlet for the local community.







Social Considerations (Cont’d) 

Participation in sport and recreational activities has long been recognised as an 

important contributor to community health and well being. Benefits of physical exercise 

and recreation are well documented and include improved health and fitness, 

development of social skills, increased community connectedness and enhanced selfesteem. 

Thus an application for SRV funding for any community recreation project has 

significant social benefits. 


There are no foreseeable environmental implications associated with this report, 

however during the design of a new Leisurelink centre environmentally sustainable 

design will need to be considered and integrated where appropriate. 

Communication 

Initial discussions have been held with the Regional Office of Sport and Recreation 

Victoria and the proposed project is considered appropriate for submission to SRV. 

Significant consultation with the community has occurred throughout the completion of 

the Leisurelink Scoping Study. 

Conclusion 

SRV’s Community Facilities Funding Program provides a significant opportunity for the 

Council to secure much needed funding for sport and recreation projects. The 

Leisurelink Aquatic Facility is the recommended SRV Better Pools / Major Facilities 

application as it is supported by strategic and concept plans, shall deliver extensive 

community benefit, and is considered to have an optimistic probability of success to 

achieve maximum funding.




6. WESTCONNECT – VICROADS SHARED PATH AGREEMENT 

Portfolio: 

Source: 



Infrastructure, Parks & Gardens - Cr Macdonald 

City Services - Engineering Services 

Peter Reeve 

Project: WestConnect - Technical Reference Group 

Summary 

• A proposal has been developed which provides for the construction of a shared 

path along the length of the proposed bypass. 

• Due to the grades along its route, it is only practical to construct the shared path 

from Corio to Church Street. The section from Church Street to Waurn Ponds will 

be constructed by developers and using existing Council paths. 

• VicRoads will construct the path and associated landscaping and will maintain the 

path for 2 years and the reserve for 3 years, 3 months. After this time it will 

become Council’s responsibility. 

• The proposed shared path is consistent with the Council’s strategies. 

• A formal agreement needs to be entered into for this proposal. 

Cr Macdonald moved, Cr Ansett seconded - 

That Council endorse this proposal. 

Carried. 

Report 

Background 

In early Geelong By-pass (WestConnect) planning sessions between officers of 

VicRoads and Council, a proposal, in line with other recent freeway developments for a 

shared path along the full length of the proposed by-pass were discussed. 

Construction of this path in-conjunction with the construction of the bypass was seen 

as a great opportunity to provide a recreational link across the City as well as linking 

into existing on or off-road cycle and shared paths. 

VicRoads staff were keen for Council to agree to having the path constructed for the 

full length of the bypass, as stated above, with little consideration to the grades along 

the proposed route or proximity to existing paths. Council staff raised concerns in 

relation to possible grades, particularly in Sections 2 and 3, hence usability by 

recreational bike riders in particular and insisted that easy access to existing 

bike/shared path networks was essential. 

In relation to grades encountered along the bypass, VicRoads provided further details 

and it became clear that those grades became excessive south of about Church Street, 

Hamlyn Heights in Section 2 and much of Section 3 beyond the Hamilton Highway. 

It was considered possible to link the shared path along the bypass from Church Street 

through the Riverlee Development with proposed paths and onto existing paths along 

the Barwon River at Fyansford, Queens Park to Buckley Falls and subsequently along 

the Barwon River up to the proposed bypass crossing of the Barwon River south west 

of Fyansford as indicated in the draft Barwon and Moorabool River Reserves 

Management Plan.




6. WESTCONNECT – VICROADS SHARED PATH AGREEMENT (CONT’D) 



Links along the by-pass route from the Moorabool River to the south were agreed by 

both VicRoads and Council officers to be inappropriate due to limitations posed by the 

layout of the proposed Moorabool River Bridge and excessive grades to the south of 

the Barwon River crossing. 

Given the above, a shared path is currently proposed along the Geelong Bypass route 

for the entire length of Section 1 and generally along the bypass route for the portion of 

Section 2 between the Midland Highway and the proposed Fyansford residential 

development north of the Moorabool River. 

Shared Path Responsibilities 

In order for VicRoads to include the construction of the shared path as part of the 

Bypass construction project, Council is required to agree to the “Geelong By-pass 

Cycle and Pedestrian Path Deed of Agreement” which, in essence outlines both parties 

responsibilities in the construction and future maintenance of the path within the 

lengths agreed. 

In summary, the Deed once signed requires: 

• VicRoads to construct the path and associated landscaping; 

• VicRoads to acquire all land necessary to construct the bypass and path; 

• VicRoads to Declare the path and its reserve, a municipal road, at which time 

Council assumes responsibility for the path and reserve; 

• VicRoads to maintain the path and reserve until the end of the contract (initial 

maintenance period, 2 years from Practical Completion for the path and 3 years, 3 

months from practical completion for the reserve). 

The proposed shared path is 100mm thick concrete, 2-5 metres wide. 

Current Status 

Recent discussions with VicRoads have determined that VicRoads will provide seating 

at no greater than 2km intervals along the path with at least four drinking fountains 

being provided. 

A proposal to construct a cycle / pedestrian bridge over the Barwon River adjacent to 

the bypass, south-west of Fyansford consistent with the draft Barwon and Moorabool 

River Reserves Management Plan will be put to the Minister for consideration. 

Links will be provided to the adjoining and proposed residential areas, if identified prior 

to or during the construction process. 

Access points will be provided along its length for emergency vehicles and for 

maintenance purposes. 

VicRoads will confirm that commuter cyclists will be permitted to use all sections of the 

bypass road (on road).




6. WESTCONNECT – VICROADS SHARED PATH AGREEMENT (CONT’D) 



The estimated annual maintenance costs on this project is in the order of $300,000 per 

annum. 


The construction of the bicycle / footway is consistent with the Council’s Bicycle 

Strategy and when the area is declared as a municipal road, the Council will become 

legally responsible for the path and reserve. 


The “roadway” will be entered onto Council’s asset register and will be regularly 

inspected in accordance with the Council’s adopted Road Management Plan. 


This pathway will provide a facility which will provide social benefits for the community 

in the way of sport, recreation and leisure activities. 

It is consistent with the Council’s policy of “well being”. 


The facility will provide a functional use for a reserve which would otherwise provide 

little benefit to the community and will be maintained to a higher standard. 

Communication 

The Council / VicRoads and the State Government are demonstrating their willingness 

to work together for the benefit of the Geelong community. 

Conclusion 

The initial proposal for a full length shared path along the Geelong Bypass has been 

examined in detail and found to be in some sections unachievable: 

• Due to the grades along its route, it is only practical to construct the shared path 

from Corio to Church Street. The section from Church Street to Waurn Ponds will 

be constructed by developers and using existing Council paths. 

• VicRoads will construct the path and associated landscaping and will maintain the 

path for 2 years and the reserve for 3 years, 3 months. After this time it will 

become Council’s responsibility. 

• The proposed shared path is consistent with the Council’s strategies. 

• A formal agreement needs to be entered into for this proposal.




7. SERVICE REVIEW – PARKS DEPARTMENT 

Portfolio: 

Source: 



Infrastructure, Parks and Gardens – Cr Macdonald 

City Services – Engineering Services Department 

Peter Reeve 

Subject: Corporate Management – Best Value 

Summary 

• This report presents a Best Value Service Review of the services provided by 

Council’s Parks Department which provides: 

• Management and maintenance of the Geelong Botanic Gardens, 

• Maintenance of Kardinia Park as a key sporting precinct including Skilled 

Stadium, Geelong Cricket Ground and St. Mary’s Football Ground, 

• Maintenance of Golf Courses – Queens Park, Elcho Park and Balyang Par 3, 

• Maintenance of the Geelong Baseball Centre, 

• Management of Councils tree scapes in parks, gardens, reserves, streets and 

road reserves, 

• Maintenance of Councils parks, gardens, reserves and open space network 

throughout the municipality, 

• Maintenance of conservation and natural reserves (a cross-divisional 

approach with the Environment and Natural Resources Unit), and 

• Maintenance of the Boulevards project. 

• The review meets with Council requirements under the Local Government Act 

(Best Value Principles) Act 1999, 

• The Parks Department provides a diverse range of services and is managed in a 

responsible and professional manner to ensure the principles of best value are 

reflected in services to the community, 

• The current key issues affecting the Parks Department and the ability to deliver the 

diverse range of services include: 

• Current asset growth within the parks and reserves network, 

• The funding gap between existing recurrent programs and new assets, 

• The obligations of the Road Management Act in terms of vegetation 

management on road reserves, 

• Recruitment and retention of qualified and experienced staff. 

• The Parks Department Service Review Working Group has undertaken a detailed 

assessment of the risks associated with the provision of the service and has 

identified the above risks as the key issues. 

• A SWOT analysis was undertaken to assist with identification of key aspects of the 

business and identify opportunities for future improvements to service delivery 

• An action plan has been developed to address the key issues impacting on the 

Parks Department, recommended actions, time lines and process improvements 

are incorporated into the plan.




7. SERVICE REVIEW – PARKS DEPARTMENT (CONT’D) 

Cr Macdonald moved, Cr Ansett seconded- 


1) endorses the continued provision of parks and reserves management and 

maintenance services for Council by the Parks Department. 

2) notes the findings of the Parks Departments Service Review. 

Carried. 

Report 

Background 

The Local Government (Best Value Victoria) Act 1999 requires a Council to report to its 

community at least annually on what it has done to ensure it has given effect to the 

Best Value Principles and Factors. 

This report complies with both the legislation and Council Policy – Service Review Best 

Value CPL 30.1 

The Parks Departments operations have been reviewed using the adopted model and 

has addressed the majority of issues raised through the Challenge Team process to 

improve the quality of the final report. 

The Parks Department Working Group comprised: 

• Aub Platt – Manager Parks 

• Michelle Harris – Parks Administration Officer 

• John Arnott – Director Geelong Botanic Gardens 

• Ian Rogers – Arboriculture Management Officer 

• Jon Halsall – Parks and Reserves Officer 

• Richard Dilena – Parks Maintenance Officer – North Zone 

• Grant Baverstock – Parks Maintenance Officer – South Zone 

• Adrian Cobb – Parks and Works Maintenance Officer – East Zone, and 

• Leanne McHugh – Project Officer. 

In addition to the Parks Department Working Group, the following Parks Department 

staff were engaged through the internal consultation process: 

• Paul Cotter – Supervisor - North Zone Parks 

• Peter Williamson - Team Leader - North Zone Parks 

• Steve Tippert – Team Leader - North Zone Parks 

• Louise Upton – Team Leader - North Zone Parks 

• Ray Piggott – Team Leader - South Zone Parks 

• Feliks Randone – Supervisor - South Zone Parks 

• Lee Sutton - Tractor Driver - East Zone 

• Tim Hardy - Team Leader - East Zone Parks 

• Alan Dawson – Arboriculture Technical Officer 

• Peter Arundell – Arboricultural Inspector 

• Tim Anderson – Team Leader - Elcho Park Golf Course, and 

• Tony Duffield – Supervisor - Geelong Botanic Gardens.







The core business of the Parks Department is to provide a diverse range of 

horticultural management and maintenance services across a broad network of ‘green’ 

landscape and recreational infrastructure assets to ensure that they continue to meet 

the current and future needs of the community. 

The Parks Department provides this service to the community through five operational 

service units: 

• Parks Management – Administration 

• Botanic Gardens Management 

• Turf Management 

• Arboriculture Management, and 

• Parks and Reserves Operations. 

The above operational units also include other smaller functional units within the overall 

Parks Department operations including: 

• Conservation Reserves Team – a cross divisional team operating between the 

Botanic Gardens Unit and the Environment and Natural Resources Unit. 

• Community Jobs Program – a joint partnership project with the State Government 

for long term unemployed persons, managed through the Turf Management Unit. 

• Parks and Reserves Operations – three independent units based at the Anakie 

Road, Belmont and Drysdale Operations Centres. 

Parks Department Achievements 

There are a number of significant achievements that have been completed by the 

Parks Department, that effectively improve the standard of the overall provision of 

services to the community: 

• Water Conservation – in conjunction with the Recreation and Open Space 

Department, the Parks Department has been instrumental in the upgrade of many 

individual automated irrigation systems and development of a Central Control 

Irrigation System, to provide overall systems control and management. This will 

continue to increase efficiencies in the irrigation of recreational and sporting 

facilities, maximising opportunities for water efficiencies and resource savings. 

• Improved Sports Ground Facilities - In-conjunction with the Recreation and Open 

Space Department, the Parks Department has implemented the ground renovation 

program to upgrade sporting grounds severely affected by the drought and water 

restrictions. In addition, the Parks Department have developed a software 

program to support grounds management techniques in respect to soil profile 

analysis, fertiliser and chemical applications. This program supports a consistent 

approach across all areas, by improving turf management practices, embracing 

latest technology and utilising soil science to manage nutritional status of grounds.







Botanic Gardens Management – in partnership with the Friends of Geelong Botanic 

Gardens, a number of projects and initiatives have been implemented over the past 5 

years that has seen the Geelong Botanic Gardens elevated to the international stage. 

The key achievements have included: 

• 21st Century Garden development 

• Plant Collections Management - development of living collections database 

• Community Resource Centre – Meeting Room and Library – facility has expanded 

to provide a home to 9 horticultural / environmental interest groups, operational 7 

days per week 

• Networking / Outreach Program – active membership with international, national 

and regional associations, and hosting of three significant national Botanic 

Gardens conferences 

• Community Education – developing programs with schools and interest groups to 

involve the community in horticultural and environmental education 

• Conservation Reserves Team – incorporating this new team into the existing 

operations and expanding the conservation role of the Botanic Gardens into the 

conservation and natural reserves 

• Rural Roadside Tree Management Program - the Parks Department has 

developed and implemented a rural roads tree inspection and remedial works 

program to reduce the risks of roadside trees and ensure compliance with the 

Road Management Act 

• Street Tree Inventory – a database has been developed to provide a street based 

inventory of street trees within all urban areas of the municipality, this program 

provides the base for building upon knowledge of tree management from planting 

programs through to major maintenance requirements 

• Participation in Research Programs – Parks Officers have been invited to 

participate in a number of programs including The Australian Urban Street Tree 

Evaluation Program (AUSTEP), Mundella Yellows Research Project (Department 

of Primary Industries), Palm Fusarium Wilt Research Group 

Discussion 

Parks Department Operations 

The Parks Department is responsible for the maintenance of an extensive network of 

parks and reserves assets located throughout the municipality, including the following: 

• Parks and playgrounds – 699 hectares in total area, there are 256 individual 

playgrounds with over 1000 items of play equipment, located throughout the 

municipality and maintained by Parks staff based within the three operational 

zones. 

• Sporting reserves – 207 hectares in total area, there are 83 major sporting facilities 

that provide for a range of sporting codes including football, cricket, soccer and 

baseball, maintained by Parks staff based within the three operational zones.







Tree Management – within parks, gardens, reserves, Council properties, streets and 

road reservations – it is estimated that there are 80,000 trees located within parks and 

reserves, 120,000 trees located in streets and a further 50,000 trees requiring 

maintenance in rural roads. 

Turf Management – provision of high standard turf management services to meet the 

expectations of the relevant sporting leagues and associations: 

• Kardinia Park precinct including Skilled Stadium, Geelong Cricket Ground and St 

Mary’s Football Ground 

• Golf Courses – Queens Park, Elcho Park and Balyang Par 3 

• Geelong Baseball Centre – maintenance of the 5 diamond complex to a standard 

that attracts international baseball leagues 

• Maintenance of the Boulevards project – landscape and grounds maintenance on 

the Melbourne Road from Mercer Street Geelong to Broderick Road Corio. 

In addition, there are other categories of open space that also form part of the open 

space network, including: 

• Linear and linkage reserves – 766 hectares in total area 

• Landscapes and amenities – 80 hectares 

The Parks Department Service Review provided an opportunity to undertake a complex 

evaluation of all areas that are included in the current provision of services. 

This is the first major review of the entire Parks Department operations since 1996 

when the review, restructuring and downsizing occurred in preparation for the 

Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) phase of Local Government. 

The Parks Department in partnership with the Works Department were successful in 

winning the contract as an in-house provider (known as the Roads and Parks 

Maintenance Group) for the provision of parks and works maintenance services for a 

period of 5 years. 

The downsizing of the staff resources by over 30% prior to CCT, has provided the base 

structure for the Parks Department for the following 9 years. However, an increase of 

only 10 positions during that period has not maintained a balance in resources to meet 

the increasing work commitments primarily associated with asset growth within the 

municipality. 

In order to maintain a consistent level of service during this period, the Parks 

Department has undertaken annual reviews of resources and work programs in 

preparation for each financial year budget. 

The Parks Department has implemented an ongoing program of process improvement, 

review of work practices and procedures, improvement in plant and equipment 

standards, resources sharing and maximising utilisation, by each operational unit within 

the Parks Department, has ensured that the service whilst lean in resources has been 

delivered with a reasonable level of satisfaction by the community. 

It has been identified through this service review process, that resources are the main 

issue of concern for the future, in relation to the ability of the Parks Department to 

manage the continual growth in the network of parks and reserves assets.







This review has identified a number of key issues that will impact upon the future 

success of providing this service to the community, a summary of these key issues are 

as grouped into the following categories: 

• Strategic impacts 

• Operational impacts 

• Financial impacts, and 

• Human Resources impacts. 

The key issues for each of these categories is detailed as follows: 

Strategic Issues 

• Review Parks Department Business Plan and Mission Statement, improve and 

develop in line with corporate Vision Statement and direction of City Plan 

• Improve relationships with other Departments through better communication and 

participation in planning processes 

• Implementation of the Asset Management Strategy and understanding of the roles 

and responsibilities across departments 

• Requirement for development of asset management plans in conjunction with the 

Recreation and Open Space Department 

• Addressing the business case process with a focus on the recurrent funding gap 

created with development of new capital projects without recurrent expenditure to 

fund ongoing maintenance. 

Operational Impacts 

• The future availability and costs of water required for irrigation of sporting facilities, 

to maintain surfaces in safe playable conditions 

• The increases and variances at times, in the costs of fuels required for vehicles 

and plant as essentials components of the service delivery 

• Changes in legislation, regulations and codes of practice, that continually consume 

resources in order for Council to maintain compliance, however, this has an impact 

upon supervisory and management resources 

Financial Impacts 

Asset growth within the parks and reserves network, increasing the work commitments 

without a balance in resources, creating a gradual decline in overall service delivery by 

stretching the current work programs. 

The decline in tree assets due to significant impacts of the drought, consuming 

considerable funding in tree removal projects that is impacting upon delivery of proactive 

maintenance and risk mitigation works







Human Resource Impacts 

• Recruitment and retention of skilled and experienced staff, due to the remuneration 

packages determined by the Local Authorities Award 2001, private industry 

continually attracting Parks staff with better remuneration packages. 

• Limitations in the Local Authorities Award salary bands and levels that has resulted 

in a compaction of employees in various positions at the end of Band 3, including 

Team Leaders, Plant Operators and Tradespersons. 

• A mature age work force that is engaged in a service provision that still has a 

significant component of physical work and manual handling, with potential for 

workplace injuries including strains and over-exertion. 

Customer Service Satisfaction Survey 

The Parks Department were assisted by the Corporate Customer Services Department 

in June 2005 and conducted a survey of customers in relation to measuring the 

effectiveness of customer service provided by staff. 

Customers were selected from Councils Request for Service system in relation to 

various customer service inquiries that were made to the Parks Department that fit into 

various categories within the system. 

A sample of five customers were selected from each of the 20 categories in order to 

achieve a total sample of 100 participants and the following results were received: 

The overall rating of Parks staff in meeting the customer’s needs was recorded as the 

following: 

Excellent 29% 

Very Good 41% 

Good 26% 

Fair 4% 

Poor 0% 

The above data provides a sample of the public perception of the customer service 

provided by the Parks Department. The survey also provided an opportunity for 

respondents to make any suggestions about improvements, however less than 10% 

utilised this opportunity, but re-iterated their satisfaction with the current service. 

Benchmarking 

The City of Greater Geelong participates in a national benchmarking project conducted 

by Integrated Open Space Services (IOSS), titled ’Benchmark Park User Satisfaction 

Program – Local / District / Regional Parks – Melbourne Region’. 

There are 21 Local Government Authorities in the Melbourne Region participating in 

this program, the program is conducted throughout Queensland, New South Wales and 

Victoria with further participants in other states. 

This project is funded through the Recreation and Open Space Department and the 

information is provided to the Parks Department direct from the consultants.







The Benchmarking survey focuses on four criteria in relation to our performance in 

managing parks and reserves as follows: 

• Managing the City of Greater Geelong’s Parks and Reserves 

• Managing the City of Greater Geelong’s Sports grounds 

• The City of Greater Geelong as a Playground Manager 

• Recreational opportunities in the City of Greater Geelong’s Parks, Reserves and 

Sports Grounds. 

The benchmarking data provided was extensive and is based upon survey work 

undertaken, whereby 276 separate surveys were completed within 11 parks and 

reserves during April and May 2005. 

The outcomes from this data acknowledge an improvement in performance in all areas 

over the past 12 months, and the City of Greater Geelong compares favourably with all 

other participating Councils, with a rating overall of 11 out of 21 participants. 

The Parks Department will continue to use this information for further business 

planning and will also continue discussions with other local municipalities to establish a 

local networking and benchmarking project. 


The Parks Department budget in 2004/05 had an operating cost to Council of 

$13.062m. In addition, there are a small number of Capital Projects managed by this 

Department. It is recognised that there will be future financial implications within future 

financial years, if the additional resources that are required to meet the work 

commitments and maintain the delivery of consistent services throughout the 

municipality, are provided to the Parks Department. 


This report complies with all Best Value requirements and the requirements as set 

down under Council Policy CPL 30.1 – Service Review –Best Value. 

The Parks Department is required to operate in compliance with the following: 

• The Local Government Act 1989 

• Road Management Act 2004/ Regulation / Code of Practice 

• Occupational Health & Safety Act (1985) / Regulations / Codes of Practice 

• Victorian Local Government Award 2001 

• City of Greater Geelong’s Enterprise Agreement 2003 

• City of Greater Geelong’s City Plan – Pillars: 

• 1 - Health and Wellbeing 

• 3 - Environment 

• 4 - Community Safety and Security 

• 6 - Parks Sport and Leisure, and 

• 8 - Arts Culture and Heritage 

• City of Greater Geelong’s Themes 1 and 2 (Democracy and Best Value)







The Parks Department has undertaken as part of this service review, an operational 

risk profile which has identified a number of risk areas. The review has identified 

control measures of improvement opportunities to mitigate or reduce the risk. 


The Parks Department embraces the corporate Customer Service Commitment and 

will strive to achieve compliance and consistency across all areas within the 

Department. It is acknowledged that customer service is ‘core’ business as part of the 

role in providing services to the community. We recognise that the services that are 

provided by the Parks Department, impact upon the quality of life for residents and 

visitors to this municipality, in a number of ways – from use of sporting facilities, to 

passive parklands, to appreciation of tree scapes in urban streets. 


The Parks Department regularly consult with the Environment and Natural Resources 

Unit, seeking advice in relation to Council’s environmental strategies and policies. 

The Parks Department embrace the principles of conservation and protection of the 

environment and are always aware of the concerns raised about maintenance works 

that can have a significant impact on the natural and built environment. 

Communication 

The Parks Department utilises the expertise of the Marketing and Communications 

Unit, in all media communications regarding new projects to engage the community. 

There are other forms of communication used to inform the community about 

Geelong’s community about projects including letters and notices in the media. 

Conclusion 

The Service Review provides a brief history of the Parks Department, a detailed review 

of the current services provided, benchmarking and customer survey issues impacting 

on service delivery and an action plan for future improvements. 

The Parks Department have demonstrated over the past 9 years the necessity to 

implement the principals of continuous improvement, review of work practices and 

procedures, embracing new technologies and providing personal development and 

career opportunity for staff to strengthen the skill base of the department. 

The service review has achieved an improvement opportunities action plan that will be 

implemented by the staff of the Parks Department over the next 12 months in order to 

achieve the desired outcomes and principals of best value in delivering the diverse 

range of services to the Geelong community.




8. FILM GEELONG ACTIVITY REPORT - JANUARY TO JUNE 2005 

Portfolio: 

Source: 



Economic Development - Cr Abley 

Corporate Services - Events and Marketing Services 

Peter Gould 

Economic Development/Communication Industry 

Summary 

• Film Geelong (the City’s Film Office) was established in November 2004 as a onestop 

shop for film activity within the region. 

• A Film Activity report will be produced regularly and distributed to City staff, 

Council and industry contacts. 

• This report provides Council with an update on film-related activity achieved during 

the period January to June 2005. 

Cr Abley moved, Cr Harwood seconded 

That Council notes the initiatives of Film Geelong and the Film Activity Report. 

Carried. 

Report 

Background 

During November 2005, the City as part of its Film and Television Strategy, launched 

Film Geelong as a one-stop shop for film practitioners to explore the opportunities for 

film and television production within the municipality. 

Streamlined approval processes for film production have been developed to ensure the 

pathway from exploration to production is smooth, supportive and successful. 

Film Geelong is also about maximising the opportunities for new activity and promoting 

Geelong as the premier location for film and television production and independent 

filmmaking in Victoria. 

The Film Activity Report for Film Geelong has been developed to provide a review of 

the film-related activities taking place in the municipality during the period January to 

June 2005. This activity includes projects that have been or are in process in the 

Geelong area. 

Considerable work has transpired in the period in relation to the implementation of the 

Film Geelong Strategy, continuing the partnership with Film Victoria and attracting filmprojects 

to Geelong.




8. FILM GEELONG ACTIVITY REPORT - JANUARY TO JUNE 2005 (CONT’D) 



1. Film activity for the period 

The following projects have been filmed within the municipality and liaised through Film 

Geelong. 

Start Date // (days 

filming) 

10 January, 2005 

(1) 


(1) 


(2) 

02 February, 2005 

(1) 


(2) 


(3) 

Production 

Title 

Films for 

Animals 

Subaru 

Commercial 

Jeep 

Commercial 

Shell 

Commercial 

The Roaming 

Couch 

Australian of the 

Year 

Type 

Documentary 

Stills 

Stills 

TVC 

Series 

27 March, 2005 (1) Music Tour 

2005 

Live program 

29 March, 2005 (4) Ghost Rider - 1 Feature Film 

($100M US) 

Company 

Ballarat Organisation for 

Animal Rights 

Locations Plus 



Foxtel 

Series (6 episodes) ABC Television 

Channel V // Foxtel 

Vengeance Productions 

(Sony Pictures) 

26 March, 2005 (4) One Minute Short Film Wasabi Pictures 

02 May, 2005 (1) Ford 

Documentary 50 Kalibre Films 

Documentary 

19 May, 2005 (2) ‘Un-named’ Documentary ABC Television 

23 May, 2005 (1) Ghost Rider – 2 Feature Film 

($100M US) 

1 June, 2005 (4) Ghost Rider – 3 Feature Film 

($100M US) 


($100M US) 


($100M US) 

19 June, 2005 (1) Guinness World TV Episode 

Records 

25 June, 2005 (3) Coxy’s Big 

Break 

TV Series 

(Tourism) 









Granada Productions 

(Sydney) 

Channel 7 

2. Confirmed future and potential film activity 

The following project(s) are confirmed to use locations within the municipality in the 

future, or relate to opportunities that have made contact with Film Geelong, or have 

been initiated by Film Geelong and are deemed highly likely to proceed.







There are also a number of other opportunities that given their nature are confidential 

at this stage. 

Contact Date 

Production 

Title 

20 January 2005 Bollywood 

Project 

23 June 2005 Car Shoot Stills 

(advertising) 

23 June 2005 The Garage Film reviews - 

monthly 

3. Media 

Type Company Potential 

Production Date 

Feature Film Bollywood - 

India 

Mac's Action 

Vehicles 

(The Garage) 

July 2005 

July-August 2005 

Commencing 

September 

> Geelong Advertiser: Saturday 12 February “Lara knows what action means” (with 1 photo) 

> Geelong Advertiser: Tuesday 29 March “Old jail finds a minute of fame” (with 2 photos) 

> Geelong News: Wednesday 30 March “Film shot at gaol” 

> Geelong Advertiser: Thursday 31 March “Hollywood Hits Town – Nicolas Cage in 

Anakie for action movie” – Full Front Page and page 2 (with 4 photos) 

> Geelong News: Wednesday 6 April “Cage set to ride into town” – page 22 (with 2 

images) 

> Geelong Advertiser: Monday 20 June “Iron man event taken to pool” – page 3 (with 

2 photos) 

> The Geelong Independent: Friday 24 June “Men of iron” – page 3 

> Geelong Advertiser: Friday 3 June “UnCaged in a tale of Anakie” – page 2 (with 4 

images) 

4. Film Victoria update 

Since the launch of Film Geelong, officers have been in contact with Film Victoria 

representatives on an ongoing basis. 

In summary: 

> Film Victoria are initiating a statewide campaign with the Municipal Association of 

Victoria (MAV) to launch a product to Councils to help them develop a locations 

library online. 

> Several high profile leads have been forwarded to Film Geelong via the Film 

Victoria office. 

> The Events and Marketing Unit are actively compiling further location images in 

excess of 2,000 to extend the Locations Library on the current Film Geelong 

website. Images will be more appropriately managed via the online database 

creating ease of use, as well as copies provided to Film Victoria for addition to their 

database also – to extend their collection of Geelong locations. This project is an 

ongoing key requirement of the Film Geelong Strategy.







5. Other notable information 

> The City lodged an application for funding of $20,000 via the State Government 

“Make it Happen in Provincial Victoria” initiative to enable the improvement of the 

Film Geelong website and development of associated promotional material. Advice 

was received that the application was successful and is recognition of the City’s 

strategic approach to promote the region’s television and filmmaking capabilities. 

These projects are scheduled for completion by April 2006. 

> As a result of Ghost Rider filming in the region (Geelong Bacchus Marsh Road 

location), a diversion route was required to be implemented for traffic management. 

As a result, Vengeance Productions have met the cost of asset improvements to 

City roads infrastructure. 

> The short film, ‘One Minute’ was shot on location in the Geelong Gaol. The entire 

crew stayed in Geelong, and resulted in a direct economic impact of $50K for three 

days activity. The production saw Josh Whiteman make his debut as a director (he 

has previously worked with legendary Sydney based director Alex Proyas who is 

responsible for major features such as ‘Dark City’ and ‘I, Robot’ starring Will Smith). 

> An existing relationship between Film Geelong and Russell Boyd – Australia’s 

leading features Location Manager (most recently working on ‘Ghost Rider’) has 

highlighted Film Geelong opportunities with relation to industry location managers. 

> Film Geelong have established a contact database for local industry contacts. This 

will be extended in the future and will be promoted to and provided as a resource to 

Producers looking at Geelong for their project(s). 


Film Geelong charge filming fees to cover basic services. Additional charges are 

incurred by production companies when Film Geelong have provided other services 

ranging from use of commercial facilities to infrastructure charges. This has included 

regional benefits such as asset improvements (Ghost Rider). 


All filming approvals require appropriate indemnities and insurances to be put in place. 


A thorough risk assessment must be submitted to Film Geelong related to each filming 

opportunity. The risk assessment must cover all elements of the shoot including bumpin 

and bump-out as well as nominating responsible personnel.







Where filming may impact the community, businesses or residences, a consultative 

process is coordinated with the production team. 

Activity in the region during the period has provided local benefits with industry 

professionals employed to work within the region on a range of projects. 


All film-related opportunities are thoroughly investigated to ensure there is no adverse 

affects of the environment. 

Communication 

The Film Geelong Strategy includes marketing and communications. Additionally, and 

communications analysis is conducted for each film opportunity confirmed within the 

region to ensure all stakeholders are briefed and aware of activities. 

Conclusion 

Based on the activity highlighted in this report as experienced within the first six months 

of the year, the Film Geelong initiative is working and has achieved key objectives. 

The increasing use of Geelong based locations in film, and the region’s proximity to the 

Docklands Studios in Melbourne, positions Geelong very strongly to attract further 

productions into the region.




9. 2004/2005 CARRY OVER PROGRAM 

Portfolio: 

Source: 



Governance, Communications and Finance - Cr Farrell 

Corporate Services – Financial Services 

Peter Gould 

Financial Management \ Reporting 

Summary 

• Funded from the projected operating surplus of $1.1M a review of Capital and 

Non-Capital programs indicates that $1.60M additional funding over the budgeted 

estimate is required to be carried forward into 2005/2006 being: 

1. Capital Programs net expenditure of $0.810M, carried over from the previous 

year, and 

2. Non Capital Programs net expenditure of $0.794M funded from the projected 

operating surplus of $1.1M.budget 

• It is recommended that the adopted 2005/2006 Budget be amended to account for 

the additional $1.60M (Net) carry over of the programs from 2004/2005. 

• The year end cash position is estimated at $13.1M compared to a projected 

position of $20.5M. The City’s Net cash (i.e. Loans less Cash Investments) is 

however favourable by $13.3M, due to Council’s ability reduce its interest expense 

by the effective management of cash and defer the take up of approved loan 

borrowings, ie: 

2003/04 $6.30M, and 

2004/05 $7.00M 

• Given the higher than expected percentage completion of capital works compared 

to previous years (92% of the amended budget) it is likely that the previously 

approved borrowings will (at least in part) be taken up in 2005/06 to fund the 

existing commitments. 

Cr Farrell moved, Cr Dowling seconded - 

That Council amends the adopted 2005/2006 Budget to include the carry over of 

the 2004/2005: 

1) Capital Programs as per Appendix 9-2; 

2) Non Capital Programs as per Appendix 9- 3. 

Carried.




9. 2004/2005 CARRY OVER PROGRAM (CONT’D) 

Report 

Background 

The purpose of this report is to review the preliminary financial results for 2004/2005 in 

the context of the available funding that could be allocated to carry over incomplete 

programs as planned in the 2004/2005 year. 

A review has been completed of the discretionary expenditure, (ie. Capital and Non 

Capital) that is recommended for carry over into the 2005/2006 financial year. 

The review has been undertaken in the following key areas: 

a) Carryover requirements to complete 2004/2005 Capital projects in 2005/2006. 

b) Carryover requirements to complete 2004/2005 Non Capital projects in 2005/2006. 

c) Operating result expressed in terms of June 2005 cash position and reconciliation 

to projection. 

Discussion 

1. Capital Projects Program 2004/2005 – Preliminary Status 

The Actual Gross Capital Expenditure represents 92.5% completion of the planned 

2004/2005 Capital program (79.1% in 2003/2004). 

Of the 182 projects listed in 2004/2005, project managers have advised: 

 

 

That 94 projects have been totally completed with 81 projects identified as requiring 

carryover to 2005/2006 to complete works, and 

The remaining 7 projects predominantly relate to those that are planned to be 

implemented over more than one year where the remaining budgets have been 

provided for in 2005/2006 budget. 

The chart below shows the actual phasing by month of 2004/2005 gross capital 

expenditure and commitments. 

80,000 

2004/05 CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAM 

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 

DO 

LL 

AR 

S 

(x 

100 

0) 

70,000 

60,000 

50,000 

40,000 

30,000 

20,000 

10,000 

0 

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 

Actual (Cumulative) 713 3,816 7,507 11,636 14,584 23,961 27,216 31,118 37,629 44,299 53,944 61,388 

Amend Budget 1,239 4,318 8,193 14,331 20,909 27,501 33,424 41,254 48,509 56,009 60,433 63,688 

Forecast 1,441 4,382 8,748 14,059 21,064 28,455 35,192 42,802 51,308 58,975 63,602 68,873 

MONTH







The 2004/2005 Capital program can be summarised in the following tables and charts: 

Table 1 – 2004/2005 Capital Projects Program Summary 

Expenditure 

$ 

Income 

$ 

Net 

Expenditure 

$ 

1. Adopted Budget 53,440,710 15,258,790 38,181,920 

2. Capital Program carried over from 2003/2004. 16,247,167 1,751,930 14,495,237 

3. Sub Total 69,687,877 17,010,720 52,677,157 

4. Approved Variations during 2004/2005 

(Refer to Appendix 1). 

8,975,380 3,925,649 5,049,731 

5. Skilled Stadium b/fwd expenditure from 2005/06 

Budget 

(1,262,939) 0 (1,262,939) 

6. Adjusted 2004/2005 Capital Program (Forecast) 77,400,318 20,936,369 56,463,949 

7. Actual 2004/2005 Expenditure (Refer to Appendix 2) 63,692,306 19,971,425 43,720,881 

8. Balance of approved Capital Program unspent 13,708,012 964,944 12,743,068 

9. Variance to Budget on projects in 2004/05 (397,667) 730,666 332,999 

10. Requested carryover Capital Program to 2005/06 

(Refer to Appendix 2) 

11. Budgeted 2005/06 Cash requirements to complete 

carryover capital projects 

14,105,679 1,695,610 12,410,069 

11,600,000 0 11,600,000 

12. Variation to complete 2004/05 Capital Projects (2,505,679) 1,695,610 (810,069) 

Adjusted 2005/2006 Capital Program 

Council adopted the 2005/2006 Budget on 28 June 2005 that included a gross Capital 

Projects Program of $42.79M offset by $10.68M in income – Net $32.11M. 

For Cashflow purposes an estimated net carryover allowance from 2004/2005 of 

$11.6M was included in 2005/2006 Budget ($11.6M expenditure and nil income). 

At the end of the 2004/2005 financial year, a review was carried out to determine the 

actual Capital Program carryover requirements. 

The review indicates a net carryover of $12.41(refer to Appendix 9-2 for details) 

comprising of $14.11expenditure and $1.70M income required to complete the projects 

planned for 2004/2005. 

The net variance between actual ($12.41) and estimate ($11.6M) is $0.81M as per 

table 1 above.







Table 2 – 2005/2006 Capital Projects Program – Carryover Funding Impact 

The adjusted 2005/2006 Capital Program has been adjusted to $51.05M to reflect the 

additional $14.26M carried over from 2004/05 as indicated in table 2 below. 

Council adopted 2005/2006 Budget 

- New Capital Funding 

2004/2005 Capital Program 

- Carryover Required to complete 

Expenditure 

$ 

Income 

$ 

Net 

Expenditure 

$ 

42,792,636 10,678,338 32,114,298 

14,105,679 1,695,610 12,410,069 

Adjusted 2005/2006 Capital Program 56,898,315 12,373,948 44,524,367 

Planned Carryover into 2006/2007 (June 2006) (6,000,000) (6,000,000) 

Adjusted 2005/2006 Capital Program Projection 50,898,315 12,373,948 38,524,367 

2. Non Capital Projects Program 2004/2005 – Preliminary status 

In addition to the Capital Program, Project Managers have undertaken a review of the 

Non Capital Projects budgeted for in 2004/2005 that have been requested to be carried 

over into the 2005/2006 financial year. 

The review indicated a carryover of $0.79M would be required as per Appendix 9-3. 

The Non Capital Projects can be summarised as follows: 

Table 3 

Description 

Expenditure 

$ 

Income 

$ 

Net 

Expenditure 

$ 

1. Adopted Budget 2004/2005 4,887,713 1,253,386 3,634,327 

2. Discretionary Program carried over from 2003/2004 728,045 728,045 

3. Sub Total 5,615,758 1,253,386 4,362,372 

4. Approved Variations during 2004/2005 293,674 106,300 187,374 

5. Adjusted 2004/2005 Discretionary Program 

(Projection) 

5,909,432 1,359,686 4,549,746 

6. Actual 2004/2005 Expenditure 

5,341,040 1,594,110 3,746,930 

7. Value of Capital Carryover Program into 2005/2006 568,392 (234,424) 802,816 

8. Budget Variance (286,558) 294,424 7,866 

9. Requested Discretionary Program Carryover (as per 

Appendix 3) 

854,950 60,000 794,950







3. 2004/2005 Preliminary Operating Position 

The preliminary financial results for 2004/05 indicate an operating surplus of $1.1M. 

This surplus provides the funding to complete the 2004/05 carryover “Non Capital” 

program 

These results are still to be finalised and are subject to: 

1. Any financial adjustments arising from the completion of all reconciliation’s, and 

2. The external audit review and certification. 

Council’s actual cash position as at 30 June, 2005 compared to projection developed 

for 2005/2006 Budget was an unfavourable ($7.4M) primarily due to the variation in the 

take up of loan borrowings. 

$000’s 

$000’s 

Actual 2004/2005 Closing Cash Position 13,100 

Less Cash required to Fund: 13.10 

1. Carryover Programs - Capital (12,410) 

2. Future Commitments 

• Cash Backed Reserves 

- Non Capital (795) (13,205) 

- Car Parking Reserve (381)) 

- Public Open Space (4,167) 

- Main Drainage (2,631) 

• Provisions – Long Service Leave (8,037) (15,216) 

3. Operating Statement Adjustments 

Add 

• Income in Advance (663) 

• Accrued Expenses (3,265) 

Undrawn Loans 

2003/04 6,300 

(3,928) 

2004/05 7,000 13,300 

Net Cash Position (not incl Capital C/o to 06/07) 

(5,949) 

Estimated Capital Carryover to 2006/07 6,000 

Net Cash Position 51







During 2005/2006 it is likely that the City will need to draw down on previously 

approved loans as the planned projects are finalised and the timing gap between 

completion and funding requirements is narrowed. 


As detailed within the accompanying financial reports - refer Appendices 9-1, 9-2 

and 9-3. 


Section 144A part 1 of the Local Government Act states ”A Council must prepare a 

revised budget if circumstances arise which cause a material change in the budget and 

which affect the financial operations and position of Council.” 

In the context of the total budget the recommended variation to the budget is not 

considered material. 


Capital projects by their nature are susceptible to delays for a large variety of reasons 

including weather, delays in approvals (i.e. Special Rates & Charges programs) 

contractor availability, performance, etc. 

The carryover Capital Program (refer to Appendix 9-2) if approved, will result in a gross 

capital program for 2005/2006 of $56.90M (prior to taking into account the budgeted 

$6M carryover). 


The adoption of the 2004/2005 carry over program provides the required funding to 

complete the social programs previously approved as part of the 2004/2005 budget. 


The adoption of the 2004/2005 carry over program provides the required funding to 

complete the environmental programs previously approved as part of the 2004/2005 

budget. 

Communication 

Project Managers will be advised of the outcome pending consideration of this report 

by Council. 

Conclusion 

The preliminary Financial Status report has been prepared in order to obtain approval 

for Carryover funds to be released as 2005/2006 Budget revisions for Project 

Managers to access.

APPENDIX 9-1 – SCHEDULE OF APPROVED CHANGES TO PROJECT BUDGETS 

APPROVED BUDGET + CARRYOVER 

ADJUSTMENT 

APPROVED CHANGES 

2004/2005 APPROVED FORECAST 

Expenditure 

Net 

Income Expenditure Expenditure Income 

Net 

Expenditure Expenditure 

Net 

Income Expenditure 

Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

Drainage Construction Sub Program - Flood & Drainage 1,978,840 0 1,978,840 712,947 0 712,947 1,265,893 0 1,265,893 

Management 

Heavy and Dedicated Plant Replacement Program 2,811,000 834,000 1,977,000 20,000 0 20,000 2,791,000 834,000 1,957,000 

Light Fleet Replacement Program 2,604,400 1,525,900 1,078,500 (8,400) 0 (8,400) 2,612,800 1,525,900 1,086,900 

Stores Security Upgrade 20,000 0 20,000 (20,000) 0 (20,000) 40,000 0 40,000 

Barwon River Bank Wall Improvements - Peers Cres, 

42,267 0 42,267 (112,947) 0 (112,947) 155,214 0 155,214 

Ocean Grove 

Drysdale Landfill - Cell 3 Construction 0 0 0 (200,000) 0 (200,000) 200,000 0 200,000 

Moorabool Street Drainage 0 0 0 (1,135,989) 0 (1,135,989) 1,135,989 0 1,135,989 

City Services Total 7,456,507 2,359,900 5,096,607 (744,389) 0 (744,389) 8,200,896 2,359,900 5,840,996


ADJUSTMENT 



Expenditure 

Net 


Net 


Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

Court House Roof Refurbishment 740,229 0 740,229 150,000 0 150,000 590,229 0 590,229 

Vines Road Community Centre Redevelopment 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 

Leisurelink Structural Safety Works 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 

Disability Access 339,030 0 339,030 76,420 0 76,420 262,610 0 262,610 

Minor Halls upgrade 100,000 50,000 50,000 76,228 (50,000) 26,228 23,772 0 23,772 

Austin Park Masterplan Implementation Stage 3 150,000 0 150,000 56,000 0 56,000 94,000 0 94,000 

Leopold Skate Park 49,549 35,000 14,549 49,549 (35,000) 14,549 0 0 0 

Netball Court Program 90,000 40,000 50,000 40,000 (40,000) 0 50,000 0 50,000 

Playgrounds Program 363,169 0 363,169 35,600 0 35,600 327,569 0 327,569 

Cricket Pav. Upgrade B/Heads Village Park 250,000 0 250,000 27,000 0 27,000 223,000 0 223,000 

Lara Pool Sprinkler Sys & Roof on Change Rooms 50,000 0 50,000 20,000 0 20,000 30,000 0 30,000 

Geelong Soccer Club Extensions 30,000 10,000 20,000 11,200 (10,000) 1,200 18,800 0 18,800 

Hovells Creek Walking Track 70,000 0 70,000 4,200 0 4,200 65,800 0 65,800 

Barwonside Quarry Development 70,000 0 70,000 4,200 0 4,200 65,800 0 65,800 

Corio Community Park 40,000 0 40,000 2,400 0 2,400 37,600 0 37,600 

North Shore Sports Club 25,000 0 25,000 1,500 0 1,500 23,500 0 23,500 

Stinton Oval Infrastructure Improvements 30,000 15,000 15,000 900 0 900 29,100 15,000 14,100 

Lara RSL Toilet Upgrade 0 0 0 (11,208) 0 (11,208) 11,208 0 11,208 

Sparrow Park Master Plan 60,000 0 60,000 (20,000) 0 (20,000) 80,000 0 80,000 

Waterworld Concourse Treatment 100,000 0 100,000 (20,000) 0 (20,000) 120,000 0 120,000 

Highton Senior Citizen - Extension 114,709 10,000 104,709 (35,291) 5,272 (30,019) 150,000 15,272 134,728 

Lara Lake Preschool 620,962 0 620,962 (50,000) 0 (50,000) 670,962 0 670,962 

Disability Action Plan Implementation 22,264 0 22,264 (51,420) 0 (51,420) 73,684 0 73,684 

South Barwon Pavilion Upgrade 450,000 50,000 400,000 (61,000) 0 (61,000) 511,000 50,000 461,000 

St Josephs F/Ball Clubrooms extension/alterations 450,000 170,000 280,000 (88,521) 0 (88,521) 538,521 170,000 368,521 

Corio Library Upgrade 457,596 212,000 245,596 (90,000) 0 (90,000) 547,596 212,000 335,596 

Hendy St Minor Hall Redevelopment 782,255 60,000 722,255 (100,000) 0 (100,000) 882,255 60,000 822,255 

Irrigation Replacements 0 0 0 (170,000) 0 (170,000) 170,000 0 170,000 

Community and Recreation Total 5,654,763 652,000 5,002,763 57,757 (129,728) (71,971) 5,597,006 522,272 5,074,734


ADJUSTMENT 



Expenditure 

Net 


Net 


Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

Short Term Accommodation - Gheringhap St & Myers St 0 0 0 (801,000) 0 (801,000) 801,000 0 801,000 

Minor Acquisitions Program - Core Program 250,000 0 250,000 (71,800) 1,800 (70,000) 321,800 1,800 320,000 

Relocation of Geelong and Belmont SES Depots 40,000 0 40,000 20,000 0 20,000 20,000 0 20,000 

Core Program - IT Asset Replacement 580,600 20,000 560,600 40,000 0 40,000 540,600 20,000 520,600 

Corporate Services Total 870,600 20,000 850,600 (812,800) 1,800 (811,000) 1,683,400 21,800 1,661,600 

Skilled Stadium Upgrade 11,719,072 8,000,000 3,719,072 (7,370,928) 3,900,000 (3,470,928) 19,090,000 11,900,000 7,190,000 

Western Wedge 0 0 0 (150,000) 0 (150,000) 150,000 0 150,000 

Toilet Block Upgrade at Eastern Beach 300,000 0 300,000 (72,045) 0 (72,045) 372,045 0 372,045 

Eastern Bch Enbankment & Retaining Wall 90,825 0 90,825 15,000 0 15,000 75,825 0 75,825 

Eastern Beach Pool Shade Structures 25,000 0 25,000 15,000 0 15,000 10,000 0 10,000 

Eastern Beach Seawall 40,000 0 40,000 20,000 0 20,000 20,000 0 20,000 

Steampacket Place 31,711 0 31,711 30,000 0 30,000 1,711 0 1,711 

Geelong Central Activities Area Redevelopment 8,506,145 2,535,918 5,970,227 0 143,577 143,577 8,506,145 2,679,495 5,826,650 

Major Projects Total 20,712,753 10,535,918 10,176,835 (7,512,973) 4,043,577 (3,469,396) 28,225,726 14,579,495 13,646,231 

Cowies Creek Restoration Program 0 0 0 (75,000) 0 (75,000) 75,000 0 75,000 

Western Beach Cliffs Rehabilitation 73,419 0 73,419 (46,581) 0 (46,581) 120,000 0 120,000 

Environment Reserves Capital Improvement Program 150,000 0 150,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 140,000 10,000 130,000 

Toilet block replacement 125,000 0 125,000 20,452 0 20,452 104,548 0 104,548 

Waterway Management Program 75,000 0 75,000 49,000 0 49,000 26,000 0 26,000 

Stormwater Management Plan Implementation 307,459 0 307,459 79,154 0 79,154 228,305 0 228,305 

Sustainable Development 730,878 0 730,878 37,025 10,000 47,025 693,853 10,000 683,853 

NET APPROVED CHANGES (8,975,380) 3,925,649 (5,049,731)

APPENDIX 9-2 – 2004/2005 CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAM 

ACTUAL EXPENDITURE AND INCOME 

Part A – Completed 2004/2005 Projects / Programs 

2004/2005 APPROVED FORECAST ACTUAL EXPENDITURE VARIATION COMMENTS 

Expenditure Income 

Net 


Net 

Income Expenditure Expenditure 

Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ AS AT 30/6/2005 

Engineering Design 11,547 11,540 7 0 99,062 (99,062) 11,547 87,522 99,069 Holding account only 

Asset Management Information 

80,216 0 80,216 71,051 0 71,051 9,165 0 9,165 Project Complete. 

System 

Melaluka Rd, Leopold 0 0 0 0 (1,690) 1,690 0 (1,690) (1,690) Project completed 

Orton Street, Wedge Street Ocean 

Grove 

24 0 24 1,908 49,547 (47,639) (1,884) 49,547 47,663 Project completed 

Federal Roads Program (Roads to 

Recovery) 

1,892,994 1,750,000 142,994 1,920,476 1,796,607 123,869 (27,482) 46,607 19,125 All projects completed with over 

expenditure covered by additional 

income 

Civic Centre Car Park Equipment 

168 0 168 6,668 0 6,668 (6,500) 0 (6,500) Project completed 

Upgrade 

Road Surfacing Program 2,305,886 0 2,305,886 2,373,327 36,621 2,336,706 (67,441) 36,621 (30,820) All projects completed with over 

expenditure partly offset by 

additional income 

Footpath Renewal Program 1,170,315 0 1,170,315 1,200,848 0 1,200,848 (30,533) 0 (30,533) All projects completed with over 

expenditure offset by under 

expenditure in C02308 

Kerb and Channel Renewal Program 984,680 0 984,680 934,956 0 934,956 49,724 0 49,724 Program completed with under 

expenditure to cover over 

expenditure in C02307 

Drainage Renewal Program 301,511 0 301,511 304,524 0 304,524 (3,013) 0 (3,013) Program completed 

Road Rehabilitation Program. 851,832 0 851,832 849,123 0 849,123 2,709 0 2,709 Program completed 

Roads Other 271,996 0 271,996 269,576 27,000 242,576 2,420 27,000 29,420 Program completed with 

unbudgeted income received from 

DOI for bus shelter program 

Design & Investigation Sub Program - 91,041 0 91,041 89,184 0 89,184 1,857 0 1,857 Program completed 

Drainage Projects - Flood & Drainage 

Management 

Design & Investigation Program -Road 90,468 0 90,468 81,879 0 81,879 8,589 0 8,589 Program completed 

& Street Management 

Local Roads Construction Sub 

Program - Road & Street Management 

Design & Investigation Sub Program - 

Special Rates & Charges 

914,579 0 914,579 948,754 99,899 848,855 (34,175) 99,899 65,724 All projects complete with over 

expenditure offset by income 

received. 

254,224 0 254,224 267,059 0 267,059 (12,835) 0 (12,835) Program completed



Net 


Net 


Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


Vic Roads Funded Works 200,317 200,000 317 67,420 67,100 320 132,897 (132,900) (3) Anticipated projects not funded - 

achieved income matches 

expenditure 

Landfill Sites Infrastructure Program 60,625 0 60,625 53,498 0 53,498 7,127 0 7,127 Program completed 

Major Culvert Guardrail Replacement / 100,386 0 100,386 101,777 0 101,777 (1,391) 0 (1,391) Program completed 

Installation 

Neighbourhood Shopping Centres - 

0 0 0 (4,540) 0 (4,540) 4,540 0 4,540 Program completed 

Renewal Program 

Barwon River Bank Wall Impr - Peers 158,880 0 158,880 155,214 0 155,214 3,666 0 3,666 Stage 1 complete 

Cres, Ocean Grove 

Drainage Data Verification 41,347 0 41,347 58,468 0 58,468 (17,121) 0 (17,121) Stage complete, over exp. offset 

by under exp in C05301, C00308 

Condition assessment for Drainage 81,809 0 81,809 71,415 0 71,415 10,394 0 10,394 Stage complete 

Assets 

Clifton Springs fountain renovation 29,690 0 29,690 32,743 0 32,743 (3,053) 0 (3,053) Project completed 

Drysdale Retarding Basin 70,022 0 70,022 72,620 0 72,620 (2,598) 0 (2,598) Project completed 

Light Fleet Replacement Program 2,612,800 0 2,612,800 2,637,929 0 2,637,929 (25,129) 0 (25,129) Project Complete, net saving $5K 

on C02313 & C02314. 

Heavy and Dedicated Plant 

Replacement Program 

2,791,000 0 2,791,000 2,649,765 0 2,649,765 141,235 0 141,235 Project Complete, net saving $5K 

on C02313 & C02314. 

Minor Plant & Equipment Program - 60,000 0 60,000 59,683 0 59,683 317 0 317 Project Complete. 

Replacements 

OH&S Workshop Issues 31,967 0 31,967 34,314 0 34,314 (2,347) 0 (2,347) Project Complete. 

Stores Security Upgrade 40,403 0 40,403 39,964 0 39,964 439 0 439 Project Complete. 

Additional Plant Purchases for Park 130,000 0 130,000 137,892 0 137,892 (7,892) 0 (7,892) Project completed 

Management 

Leachwood Gardens & Pevensey 73,384 0 73,384 72,347 0 72,347 1,037 0 1,037 Project completed 

Park 

Barrabool Rd Ceres Streetscape 12,103 0 12,103 8,993 0 8,993 3,110 0 3,110 Project completed 

Planting 

Upgrade Gateway entrances to Ocean 30,463 0 30,463 25,719 0 25,719 4,744 0 4,744 Project completed 

Grove 

Construction - Administration (115,965) 0 (115,965) 0 6,909 (6,909) (115,965) 6,909 (109,056) Project completed 

Construction - Internal Works 52,722 0 52,722 0 1,733 (1,733) 52,722 1,733 54,455 Project completed 

Construction - External Works 56,246 50,000 6,246 0 103,472 (103,472) 56,246 53,472 109,718 Project completed 

Drysdale Landfill Site - Resource 

7,792 20,000 (12,208) 47,175 20,000 27,175 (39,383) 0 (39,383) Project completed 

Recovery Centre and Transfer Station 

Recycling & Waste Collection System 172,376 0 172,376 169,662 0 169,662 2,714 0 2,714 Project completed 

- New Bin Supply 

Drysdale Landfill Site Development 99,571 0 99,571 66,142 0 66,142 33,429 0 33,429 Program not completed 

Program 

City Services Total 16,019,419 2,031,540 13,987,879 15,877,533 2,306,260 13,571,273 141,886 274,720 416,606

Project Name 

A&DS Accommodation & Filing 

Strategy 

Disability Action Plan Implementation 

(linked to recurrent proposal) 


Net 

Net 

Net 

Expenditure Income Expenditure Expenditure Income Expenditure Expenditure Income Expenditure 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


31,835 0 31,835 34,141 0 34,141 (2,306) 0 (2,306) Project has been completed. 

74,153 0 74,153 73,738 0 73,738 415 0 415 Activity in line with plans and 

budget. Budget transferred from 

Disability Access includes 

accessible tourism website, 

accessible events checklist and 

developers access guide. 

Art & Culture Vehicle 0 0 0 2,851 0 2,851 (2,851) 0 (2,851) Project has been completed and 

has been handed over. 

Bellarine Multi Arts Capital 175 0 175 8,124 9,993 (1,869) (7,949) 9,993 2,044 Some expenditure has been 

incurred in conjunction with 

income relating to licensee 

contributions. Business Case 

submitted for 05/06. 

Corio Library Upgrade 559,794 212,000 347,794 584,792 212,000 372,792 (24,998) 0 (24,998) Project completed. 

Lara RSL Toilet Upgrade 11,854 0 11,854 15,889 0 15,889 (4,035) 0 (4,035) Project completed. 

Lara Lake Preschool 679,792 0 679,792 715,548 0 715,548 (35,756) 0 (35,756) Project completed. Variation to 

budget to be funded from savings 

from Courthouse project. Final 

cost estimated at $782k. 

Fence Replacement program - Stage 6,026 0 6,026 4,551 0 4,551 1,475 0 1,475 Project completed. 

2 

Geelong Gaol - review and 

maintenance 

45,628 0 45,628 42,968 0 42,968 2,660 0 2,660 Project completed 

Vines Road Community Centre 

Redevelopment 

Capital Requirement Vehicle 

Purchase 

Toilets & Kitchen Upgrade - Geelong 

West Town Hall 

Austin Park Masterplan 

Implementation Stage 3 

Pavilion & facility building design 

program 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Given redevelopment of Western 

Heights secondary college. Funds 

have been reallocated to Hendy St 

Hall. 

28,000 0 28,000 27,724 0 27,724 276 0 276 Vehicle has been purchased for 

Social Planner. To be handed 

over 

81,119 0 81,119 86,903 0 86,903 (5,784) 0 (5,784) Stg 1 kitchen works completed. 

Stg 2 toilet upgrade also 

completed. Final works to be 

completed and invoices paid. 

94,637 0 94,637 94,078 0 94,078 559 0 559 Works completed. 

31,440 0 31,440 29,432 0 29,432 2,008 0 2,008 Program Completed



Net 


Net 


Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


Kardinia Park Works 0 0 0 (960) 0 (960) 960 0 960 Project has been completed. 

Transaction relates to a purchase 

returned to supplier. 

Goldsworthy Reserve Athletics Track 146 0 146 5,059 0 5,059 (4,913) 0 (4,913) Handover form to be completed 

& 

Netball Court Program 50,284 0 50,284 50,142 0 50,142 142 0 142 Works completed. 

Burdoo Reserve Pavilion 430,209 200,000 230,209 491,437 250,000 241,437 (61,228) 50,000 (11,228) $250k income transferred to 

recurrent to partially offset works 

carried out on school grounds and 

is not council asset. 

Drysdale Station Toilet Upgrade 497 0 497 8,417 0 8,417 (7,920) 0 (7,920) Project has been completed. 

Handover form to be completed. 

Sport & Recreation Victoria Minor 

Facilities Grants 

210,365 164,000 46,365 62,592 34,638 27,954 147,773 (129,362) 18,411 Ocean Grove Tennis, Barwon 

River Walking track improvements 

have been completed. Grant 

income expected to be $25k. 

Expenditure to be reduced in line 

with income. 

Bakers Oval Upgrade Stage 1 4,235 0 4,235 4,235 0 4,235 0 0 0 Works completed. 

Leopold Skate Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $15K transferred to Sth Barwon 

pavilion. Remaining funds likely to 

be transferred to other projects 

Barwon Heads Village Park (Master 13,531 0 13,531 10,206 0 10,206 3,325 0 3,325 Project has been completed. 

Plan Implementation - stage 1) 

Open Space Reserve Fund - Land 51,529 0 51,529 141,891 90,000 51,891 (90,362) 90,000 (362) Project has been completed. 

acquisition 

Irrigation Replacements 228,875 0 228,875 223,998 0 223,998 4,877 0 4,877 Project completed 

Elcho Park Golf Course 103,225 0 103,225 112,585 0 112,585 (9,360) 0 (9,360) Project completed. Project 

Handover to be completed 

Power to Lara Baseball Pitch 20,013 0 20,013 18,318 0 18,318 1,695 0 1,695 Works completed. Project linked 

with completion of Austin Park. 

Hovells Creek Walking Track 65,998 0 65,998 67,797 0 67,797 (1,799) 0 (1,799) This stage of project completed. 

Stage 2 of project has been 

funded in 05/06 

St Leonards Com Centre Feasibility 

Study 

70,000 0 70,000 0 0 0 70,000 0 70,000 Decision still to be reached in the 

St Leonards Urban Design 

framework and Bellarine Strategic 

Plan. 

North Shore Sports Club 23,500 0 23,500 27,119 0 27,119 (3,619) 0 (3,619) Project completed 

Stinton Oval Infrastructure 

Improvements 

30,083 15,000 15,083 27,275 11,280 15,995 2,808 (3,720) (912) Project has been completed.

Project Name 

Gymnasium Equipment Replacement 

Program 


Net 

Net 

Net 


$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


125,244 0 125,244 472,225 0 472,225 (346,981) 0 (346,981) Gym equipment being purchased. 

Costs may not be incurred until 

early next financial year as is 

dependant on delivery and 

installation of equipment at each 

centre. 

251,938 0 251,938 246,375 0 246,375 5,563 0 5,563 Works progressing as planned. 

Recreation Reserves - Carpark 

Resheeting Program. 

Splashdown Car Park Lights 21,184 0 21,184 20,078 0 20,078 1,106 0 1,106 Project has been completed. 

Handover form to be processed 

Arena Minor Capital Improvements 213,116 0 213,116 225,856 0 225,856 (12,740) 0 (12,740) Project expenditure completed for 

this financial year. Some incorrect 

expenditure classification will be 

rectified in Jun'05. 

Waterworld - Outdoor Area 

Renovation 

49,988 0 49,988 49,525 0 49,525 463 0 463 Complete for this year. 

Construction phase to commence 

April 2006 

Waterworld Concourse Treatment 120,964 0 120,964 120,975 0 120,975 (11) 0 (11) Works complete. Over expenditure 

will be covered through savings on 

project C05521 - Lara Pool 

upgrades 

Leisurelink Structural Safety Works 4,867 0 4,867 0 0 0 4,867 0 4,867 Unexpected emergency ceiling 

prioritised over other works. 

Lara Pool Sprinkler Sys & Roof on 

Change Rooms 

30,323 0 30,323 34,010 0 34,010 (3,687) 0 (3,687) Phase 1 Completed. Funding 

submission to reclaim water not 

successful. Project has 

commenced for installation of 

irrigation system using potable 

water and will be completed by 

end of Financial year. $20K to 

cover WW concourse. 

Aquatic Safety Fence (C04608) 2,209 0 2,209 2,021 0 2,021 188 0 188 Job completed. Handover form 

completed. 

Community & Recreation Total 3,766,776 591,000 3,175,776 4,141,915 607,911 3,534,004 (375,139) 16,911 (358,228)

Project Name 

Capital Program Project Management 

- Capitalised Salaries 


Net 

Net 

Net 


$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


0 0 0 34,014 5,287 28,727 (34,014) 5,287 (28,727) Monthly account for capitalised 

salaries. Account cleared and 

distributed to individual projects at 

the completion of each month. 

Cap requirements - G21 28,211 0 28,211 0 0 0 28,211 0 28,211 Project Cancelled 

Financial Reporting Business Solution 66,505 0 66,505 69,202 0 69,202 (2,697) 0 (2,697) Project Complete. 

SIS Extension Project 42,231 0 42,231 40,901 0 40,901 1,330 0 1,330 Project Closed 

Desktop and Printer Replacement 

62 0 62 1,005 0 1,005 (943) 0 (943) Project Closed 

Program 

Minor Hardware Acquisitions 

60 0 60 820 0 820 (760) 0 (760) Project Closed 

Programs 

Minor Software Acquisitions Program 72 0 72 548 0 548 (476) 0 (476) Project Closed 

Minor IT Infrastructure Acquisitions 

0 0 0 (490) 0 (490) 490 0 490 Project Closed 

Program 

Citrix Metaframe Project 300,387 0 300,387 312,080 0 312,080 (11,693) 0 (11,693) Project Closed 

SIS GDA Conversion 36,106 0 36,106 29,573 0 29,573 6,533 0 6,533 Surplus to offset Citrix overspend 

Minor Acquisitions Program - Core 330,173 1,800 328,373 321,398 1,800 319,598 8,775 0 8,775 Project Complete 

Program 

Core Program - IT Asset Replacement 550,429 20,000 530,429 546,485 0 546,485 3,944 (20,000) (16,056) Surplus to offset Citrix overspend 

IT Insurance Claim for Lightning Strike 168 0 168 53,404 0 53,404 (53,236) 0 (53,236) Awaiting insurance claim for 

income to offset this. 

Christmas Decorations Strategy 72,321 0 72,321 68,799 0 68,799 3,522 0 3,522 Project Complete. 

Implementation 

Licensing - Document Management 200,847 0 200,847 176,039 0 176,039 24,808 0 24,808 Project Complete. 

System 

Furniture Replacement 31,030 0 31,030 28,756 0 28,756 2,274 0 2,274 Project Complete 

Short Term Accommodation - 

Gheringhap St & Myers St 

821,352 0 821,352 829,953 0 829,953 (8,601) 0 (8,601) Gheringhap St & Myers St works 

completed (minor furniture items 

outstanding). Busport and refurb 

of old IT area completed. Plan of 

moves in City Hall prepared and 

works commenced. 

Corporate Services Total 2,479,954 21,800 2,458,154 2,512,487 7,087 2,505,400 (32,533) (14,713) (47,246)



Net 


Net 


Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


Eastern Bch Enbankment & Retaining 76,939 0 76,939 76,115 0 76,115 824 0 824 Completed 

Wall 

Toilet Block Upgrade at Eastern 382,690 0 382,690 394,359 0 394,359 (11,669) 0 (11,669) Completed 

Beach 

Eastern Beach Seawall 20,084 0 20,084 15,930 0 15,930 4,154 0 4,154 Completed 

Acquisition of GATOR 11,330 0 11,330 11,725 0 11,725 (395) 0 (395) Completed 

Eastern Beach Pool Shade Structures 10,000 0 10,000 11,157 0 11,157 (1,157) 0 (1,157) Completed 

Eastern Beach Reserve Safety 

14,388 0 14,388 12,044 0 12,044 2,344 0 2,344 Completed 

Signage - Audit implementation 

Steampacket Place 1,819 0 1,819 1,820 0 1,820 (1) 0 (1) Completed 

St. Leonards Streetscape 16,124 0 16,124 17,393 0 17,393 (1,269) 0 (1,269) Minor contract defects still to be 

completed. 

Urban Design Minor Projects Program 30,124 0 30,124 25,792 0 25,792 4,332 0 4,332 Completed 

East Geelong Streetscape 

Improvement 

319,378 70,000 249,378 261,380 0 261,380 57,998 (70,000) (12,002) Contract works completed apart 

from maintenance costs. Total 

project cost reduced by $70k due 

to external funding not being 

secured. 

Combined Waterfront Improvements 34,755 0 34,755 27,249 0 27,249 7,506 0 7,506 Completed 

Geelong Boulevards - Co-ordination & 0 0 0 0 31,900 (31,900) 0 31,900 31,900 Income from Corporate 

Impl 

Sponsorship for Boulevard project 

Major Projects Total 917,631 70,000 847,631 854,964 31,900 823,064 62,667 (38,100) 24,567



Net 


Net 


Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


Cap Requirements - Vehicle 26,000 0 26,000 25,644 0 25,644 356 0 356 Project completed 

Capital Require - Vehicles 52,000 0 52,000 49,650 0 49,650 2,350 0 2,350 Project completed 

Street Life Program for Ocean Grove 10,000 0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 Not a Capital program- see 

Traders 

N42123 

Waterway Management Program 28,166 0 28,166 35,826 0 35,826 (7,660) 0 (7,660) Project completed 

Stormwater Management Plan 

232,642 0 232,642 246,288 0 246,288 (13,646) 0 (13,646) Project completed 

Implementation 

Energy Conservation Initiatives 0 0 0 (1,547) 0 (1,547) 1,547 0 1,547 Not funded in 2004-05 

Western Beach Cliffs Rehabilitation 127,364 0 127,364 124,990 0 124,990 2,374 0 2,374 Project completed 

Clifton Springs Boating Facility 573,832 200,000 373,832 593,175 226,300 366,875 (19,343) 26,300 6,957 Project completed 

Upgrade 

Environmental Fencing Program 50,861 0 50,861 55,206 0 55,206 (4,345) 0 (4,345) Project completed 

Cowies Creek Restoration Program 76,369 0 76,369 72,389 0 72,389 3,980 0 3,980 Project completed 

Safe Harbour Infrastructure - 

387,596 0 387,596 444,653 0 444,653 (57,057) 0 (57,057) Project completed 

Limeburners Pt Boat Ramp 

Beach Safety Signage 182,187 0 182,187 188,430 0 188,430 (6,243) 0 (6,243) Project completed 

Breamlea Master Plan Implementation 107,084 0 107,084 96,224 0 96,224 10,860 0 10,860 Project completed 

Fencing for Buckley Park 20,141 0 20,141 28,629 0 28,629 (8,488) 0 (8,488) Project completed 

Moorpanyal Park Upgrade 51,184 0 51,184 54,000 0 54,000 (2,816) 0 (2,816) Project completed 

Animal Pound Facility 103,476 0 103,476 115,684 0 115,684 (12,208) 0 (12,208) Project completed 

Cap Req - Vehicle 33,000 0 33,000 23,028 0 23,028 9,972 0 9,972 Project completed 

Sustainable Development Total 2,061,902 200,000 1,861,902 2,152,269 226,300 1,925,969 (90,367) 26,300 (64,067) 

SUB TOTAL COMPLETED 

PROJECTS/PROGRAMS 

25,245,682 2,914,340 22,331,342 25,539,168 3,179,458 22,359,710 (293,486) 265,118 (28,368

Part B – Projects Requiring Carryover (No Variation From Forecast Budget) 

Project Name 

Traffic Management Construction 

Sub Program - Road & Street 

Management 

Kerb & Channel Construction Sub 

Program - Special Rates & Charges 

2004/2005 APPROVED FORECAST ACTUAL EXPENDITURE CARRYOVER COMMENTS 

Net 

Net 

Net 


$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


340,044 0 340,044 244,305 0 244,305 95,739 0 95,739 All projects complete with 

exception of Pioneer Road, 

carryover required to finalise 

330,068 100,000 230,068 26,912 654 26,258 303,156 99,346 203,810 Project commenced, carryover 

required to complete, income yet 

to be credited to account 

139,299 0 139,299 12,048 0 12,048 127,251 0 127,251 Geelong West TB commenced, 

Carryover required to complete 

Toilet Block Renewal / Replacement 

Program 

Purchase of Parking Meters 100,020 0 100,020 1,320 0 1,320 98,700 0 98,700 Carryover required for purchase of 

meters as part of CAA project 

Peers Crescent Sea Wall 101,623 0 101,623 75,197 0 75,197 26,426 0 26,426 Stage 2 to continue in 05/06, 

carryover required for landscaping 

works 

Footpath - Emperor Drive to the 

Terrace 

40,004 20,000 20,004 334 0 334 39,670 20,000 19,670 Carryover required to commence 

works, scheme declared. 

Barwon Boulevarde - works 175,192 0 175,192 81,515 0 81,515 93,677 0 93,677 Project only partly completed due 

to delays in consultation process - 

balance of funds to be carried 

forward 

Highton Shopping Ctr Carpark & 30,000 0 30,000 798 0 798 29,202 0 29,202 Funds to be carried forward 

Access Refurb 

Moorabool Street Drainage 1,148,678 0 1,148,678 1,116,828 0 1,116,828 31,850 0 31,850 Stage 1 complete, Carryover 

required for design of stage 2 to 

continue in 05/06 

Botanic Gardens Toilet Facilities 

Upgrade 

13,400 0 13,400 4,066 0 4,066 9,334 0 9,334 Carry forward $9334. Project put 

on hold May 2005 awaiting further 

information from suppliers on the 

toilet fan circulation system. Funds 

to be carried forward to undertake 

works to address ongoing issues 

with odour, offset by other works 

Botanic Gardens Community 

Resource Centre 

not proceeding. 

38,791 0 38,791 32,904 0 32,904 5,887 0 5,887 Project on hold May 2005 in 

relation to completion of access to 

building including modifications to 

covered walkway and verandah 

decking, pending outcome of 

resolution of toilet issue (see 

C03603). Funds will be expended 

to complete works as soon as 

possible.



Net 


Net 


Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


Belmont Depot - Shed demolition, 

replacement & asbestos removal 

90,440 0 90,440 28,280 0 28,280 62,160 0 62,160 Replacement shed not delivered 

to site prior to 30 June 05 

Drysdale Landfill - Cell 3 

203,322 0 203,322 178,279 0 178,279 25,043 0 25,043 Cell construction not completed 

Construction 

City Services Total 2,750,881 120,000 2,630,881 1,802,786 654 1,802,132 948,095 119,346 828,749



Net 


Net 


Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


Creating Place and Space 20,649 0 20,649 11,106 0 11,106 9,543 0 9,543 Rebinding of Geelong Advertisers 

ongoing. Purchases being made. 

Delays caused due to availability 

of specialist contractor. 

Disability Access 268,139 0 268,139 141,385 0 141,385 126,754 0 126,754 Belmont Park Pavilion hall 

installation of lift (stage 1) 

proceeding and toilet/kitchen 

(stage 2) alterations to follow next 

financial year. Carry forward 

required to complete works for 

Ocean Grove RSL $50k, Belmont 

Park $65k and other 04/05 works 

$12k. 

Springdale Community Cottage and 

Drysdale Community Hall 

redevelopment extension 

588,259 374,000 214,259 391,719 236,492 155,227 196,540 137,508 59,032 Tender awarded, construction 

underway ( 70% complete ). 

Completion expected by 

September 2005. Contract amount 

has increased to $664k plus 

additional cost of $20k for sewer 

retic, alarm $8k, $21k air 

conditioning, $30k for alterations 

to childcare rooms and $35k other 

variations. These costs will be 

offset from Courthouse project. 

Final external income claim to be 

processed closer to completion. 

Court House Project inc 82,018 0 82,018 499 0 499 81,519 0 81,519 Waiting on courthouse 

management to formulate final 

lighting requirements prior to going 

to tender. Expected completion 

date Sept '05. 

Children Services Facilities 

Upgrades 

321,782 0 321,782 66,005 0 66,005 255,777 0 255,777 This program not completed in 

current financial year due to 

contractor availability and 

continuation of service delivery 

requirements. There are multiple 

projects included in this program 

and projects have commenced, 

including design and construction 

projects (ie- Bellvue kinder, 

Greenville kinder, Bell Post Hill 

and Corio Kinder, various shade 

structures etc).



Net 


Net 


Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


Minor Halls upgrade 23,772 0 23,772 0 0 0 23,772 0 23,772 This money is allocated to the 

Disability Access project. In 

particular the Belmont Park 

Pavilion project Stg 2 (0506). 

Hendy St Minor Hall Redevelopment 883,418 60,000 823,418 48,400 0 48,400 835,018 60,000 775,018 concept design completed and 

external funding application 

lodged, announcement received. 

Project Construction now likely to 

commence until Dec 05. 

Court House Roof Refurbishment 594,059 0 594,059 244,194 0 244,194 349,865 0 349,865 Tender awarded, commencement 

Mar 05, This project is approx 

82% completed and expected 

completion date is Jul' 05. 

Ocean Grove Neighbourhood House 

Extension 

66,076 0 66,076 (3,197) 0 (3,197) 69,273 0 69,273 Works at existing site need to be 

rescoped given permit and cost 

issues and proposed relocation to 

Shell reserve. Priority works re OH 

& S , Disability Access and 

Regulations need to be 

considered. 

Osborne House Refurbishment 250,571 0 250,571 95,358 0 95,358 155,213 0 155,213 Contract for roof works awarded 

and works commenced. Detailed 

briefs currently being developed 

for civil and construction works. 

Major works to commence next 

financial year due to funding 

requirements and access to 

increased budgets. Further 

planning work required and 

funding needs to be bundled for 

larger project to avoid repeat 

disruption 

Norlane Neighborhood House 30,000 0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 Detailed design expected to be 

completed June 05 

Capital Improvements to Customer 

Service Centres 

130,444 0 130,444 37,730 0 37,730 92,714 0 92,714 Ocean Grove signage has been 

completed. Myers st building 

works commenced and due to be 

completion by Jul'05. Carryforward 

required due to program delay 

with relocation of Health & Local 

Laws. 

Playgrounds Program 327,569 0 327,569 299,249 0 299,249 28,320 0 28,320 Equipment has been purchased. 

Installation to be completed in 

coming weeks.



Net 


Net 


Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


Ground Renovation Program 346,134 0 346,134 261,258 0 261,258 84,876 0 84,876 Program currently being rolled out. 

Some slight delays due to weather 

extremes, but not expected to 

delay overall timing. Certain works 

unable to commence in this 

financial year due to unavailability 

of matched funding. 

Shell Reserve Minor Upgrade Works 

(Corio Community Park) 

Landy Field Athletics Track 

Replacement Design 

Redevelopment of Geelong 

Saleyards 

5,510 0 5,510 (3,527) 0 (3,527) 9,037 0 9,037 Budget to be fully expended on 

consultant design fees. This 

capital project associated with 

C05531. 

15,288 0 15,288 3,500 0 3,500 11,788 0 11,788 Documentation and tendering to 

be undertaken for 05/06 

203,479 0 203,479 195,931 0 195,931 7,548 0 7,548 Final stages of OH&S are being 

completed. Final payment due in 

July05. 

Open Space Strategy 301,178 0 301,178 59,219 0 59,219 241,959 0 241,959 Carryover due to unpredictable 

nature of land acquisition. 

Exploring land acquisition in Lara. 

BMX Clubroom Replacement - 

Grinter Reserve 

40,000 0 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 0 40,000 Concept plans being developed. 

Insufficient funds therefore carry 

forward to try to construct in 05/06 

Sparrow Park Master Plan 80,068 0 80,068 5,569 0 5,569 74,499 0 74,499 Contractor has been appointed in 

June. Carry forward is required as 

this project was delayed due to 

contractor availability. Works to be 

completed late July. 

Cricket Pav. Upgrade B/Heads 

Village Park 

224,551 0 224,551 216,294 0 216,294 8,257 0 8,257 Contractor appointed and work 

commenced. 

St Josephs F/Ball Clubrooms 

extension/alterations 

538,719 170,000 368,719 165,346 0 165,346 373,373 170,000 203,373 Tenders received. Came in over 

budget. Forecast variation to be 

sought. Works due to commence 

late April early May Likely to carry 

forward. Late start on site due to 

requirement for extra funding. 

Note that income of 170,000 due 

to arrive from club shortly. 

Barwonside Quarry Development 65,802 0 65,802 37,957 0 37,957 27,845 0 27,845 Paths completed, fence and park 

furniture ordered and has been 

installed. Carryforward required to 

complete drainage works and 

entrance.



Net 


Net 


Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


Corio Community Park 37,624 0 37,624 2,984 0 2,984 34,640 0 34,640 Community consultation phase 

has been completed. Costs & 

design work being reviewed due to 

large difference between available 

budget and cost estimates. New 

schedule of works has recently 

been accepted by community 

group and work due to commence. 

Geelong Soccer Club Extensions 18,816 0 18,816 11,450 0 11,450 7,366 0 7,366 Estimates indicate that minimal 

extensions can be done for the 

current budget. Likely to be 

directed towards interan refurb of 

existing conditions. Unresolved 

dispute with contractor therefore 

carry over required. 

Rescue 2006 Facility Development 4,252,587 0 4,252,587 3,372,416 0 3,372,416 880,171 0 880,171 Unforseen circumstances (floods) 

has resulted in work being pushed 

back by 2 months on plan. 

Arena Sprung Floor & Minor Cap 

Works 

525,612 174,000 351,612 487,554 137,168 350,386 38,058 36,832 1,226 Project near completion. Awaiting 

telescopic seating. 75% funding 

claim in process this year. Balance 

to be claimed early next financial 

year 

Community & Recreation Total 9,920,342 778,000 9,142,342 6,082,394 373,660 5,708,734 3,837,948 404,340 3,433,608



Net 


Net 


Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


BFMS-Investigation and Scoping 54,168 0 54,168 5,055 0 5,055 49,113 0 49,113 There have been some additional 

commitments made in June but 

expenditure will now not occur 

until the 2005/2006 financial 

period 

Mobile Computing 151,269 0 151,269 59,945 0 59,945 91,324 0 91,324 Ongoing purchase commitment for 

hardware and software for projects 

that departments agreed to delay 

eBusiness Strategy Internet 

Development (PHASE 2) and 

Customisation/Interactivity 

113,409 0 113,409 62,714 0 62,714 50,695 0 50,695 Projects running over financial 

periods 

Document Management System 189,583 0 189,583 105,992 0 105,992 83,591 0 83,591 Integration projects delayed due to 

ADI ability/agreement to schedule 

works 

Major Signage Review & 

Replacement 

Office Alteration / Improvement 

Program 

New Corio/Station Estates- 

"Voluntary Purchase Scheme" 

Roof Safety access program (incl. 

Town Hall) 

140,086 0 140,086 40,795 0 40,795 99,291 0 99,291 Delays in Planning permit process. 

Project estimated to be completed 

October 2005. 

31,860 0 31,860 19,947 0 19,947 11,913 0 11,913 New furniture for City Hall (west 

wing) on order but not yet 

delivered. Carry over will fund 

these items. 

150,511 0 150,511 65,594 0 65,594 84,917 0 84,917 Negotiations completed and 

contracts signed for acquisition of 

$256K worth of land, $206K 

(Taylor Estate) to be settled in July 

05. Carry over of unspent budget 

required to fund ongoing 

purchases. 

307,280 0 307,280 260,334 0 260,334 46,946 0 46,946 Majority of planned 04/05 works 

completed. Carry over will fund 

works which have commenced 

and are nearing completion 

(completed early July 05). 

Landlord's fitout of Customs House 842,591 0 842,591 53,417 0 53,417 789,174 0 789,174 Preferred tenant confirmed, 

construction works 

commencement subject to signing 

of lease. Some redesign works 

required before advertising Works 

out to Tender. Balance of budget 

required to be carried over to fund 

construction works.



Net 


Net 


Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


Relocation of Geelong and Belmont 

SES Depots 

20,000 0 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 0 20,000 Carry over to fund works now 

under way. 

Fire Alarm upgrade in City Hall 57,555 0 57,555 43,874 0 43,874 13,681 0 13,681 Works nearing completion. This 

stage of works to be completed in 

July 05. 

Highton Shopping Ctr Land 

Purchase 

280,000 0 280,000 0 0 0 280,000 0 280,000 Awaiting further instructions from 

Engineering Services for planning 

permit or alternative site. Carry 

over required to fund land 

purchase if a decision is made that 

it is feasible. 

Corporate Services Total 2,338,312 0 2,338,312 716,667 0 716,667 1,620,645 0 1,620,645



Net 


Net 


Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


Central Region Youth Precinct 660,067 250,000 410,067 77,306 4,364 72,942 582,761 245,636 337,125 Project delayed due to objections 

to planning permit. Budget 

carryover required for completion 

of works in 05/06. 

Carousel Cooling System 42,423 0 42,423 0 0 0 42,423 0 42,423 Project delayed due to OH & S 

requirement to remodel staff office 

accommodation . Budget 

carryover required for completion 

of works in 05/06 in conjunction 

with approved capital budget for 

office modifications. 

High Street Belmont Streetscape 1,726,661 203,262 1,523,399 1,240,408 34,457 1,205,951 486,253 168,805 317,448 High St contract works still 

progressing. Due for completion in 

September 2005. Final grant from 

DIIRD to be claimed on 

completion of works. 

Hitchcock Avenue, Barwon Heads 72,030 0 72,030 12,979 0 12,979 59,051 0 59,051 Detailed design documentation 

has commenced. Budget required 

to finalise this phase of the project. 

Portarlington Shopping Centre 

Streetscape Stage 3 

30,003 0 30,003 16,392 0 16,392 13,611 0 13,611 Project commenced in late May 

and due to be completed by mid 

August. 

Western Wedge 150,915 0 150,915 22,509 0 22,509 128,406 0 128,406 State funded project delayed due 

to planning and design changes 

required by Dept of Infrastructure. 

Major Projects Total 2,682,099 453,262 2,228,837 1,369,594 38,821 1,330,773 1,312,505 414,441 898,064



Net 


Net 


Net 


Project Name 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ 


Toilet block replacement 104,548 0 104,548 88,133 0 88,133 16,415 0 16,415 Carry Over required-Permit and 

Power delays; still need to connect 

underground electricity to Swan 

Bay toilet and build retaining 

walls/landscaping to complete 

project. Estimated timeframe by 

mid August 2005. 

Sustainable Development Total 104,548 0 104,548 88,133 0 88,133 16,415 0 16,415 

SUB TOTAL CARRYOVER - No 

variation from Forecast budget 

17,796,182 1,351,262 16,444,920 10,060,574 413,135 9,647,439 7,735,608 938,127 6,797,481

Part C – Projects Requiring Carryover (with Variation From Forecast Budget) 

Note: Positive variation = saving in expenditure / over budget income, Negative variation = over budget expenditure / under budget income. 

Project Name 

Street Construction Sub Program – 


Footpath Construction Sub Program – 


Design & Investigation Sub Program – 

Catchment Augmentation - Flood & 

Drainage Management 

Drainage Construction Sub Program – 

Flood & Drainage Management 

Design & Investigation Program - Traffic 

Management Projects - Road & Street 

Management 


Expenditure 

$ 

Net 

Expenditure 

$ 

Net 

Expenditure 

$ 

Net 

Expenditure 


Income 

$ 

Expenditure 

$ 

Income 

$ 

Expenditure 

$ 

Income 

$ 

2,529,370 1,800,000 729,370 1,326,825 1,125,499 201,326 1,202,545 600,000 602,545 Carryover expenditure required to finalise Buckley Grove. 

Tenders awarded Batman St, John Pl. Grove Rd 

declared. Income carryover for anticipated income for 

Presidents ave, Orana Rd, Boundary Rd, Batman St, 

John Pl, Grove Rd. 

363,539 132,000 231,539 220,657 34,370 186,287 142,882 87,000 55,882 Carryover expenditure required Tender awarded 

Kensington Rd. Income carryover for anticipated income 

for Surfcoast Hwy, Princes Hwy, Kensington Rd 

279,087 0 279,087 240,008 194 239,814 39,079 0 39,079 Studies commenced and ongoing, funding required to 

complete, Moolap, Barwon Heads 

1,273,592 0 1,273,592 926,979 80,825 846,154 346,613 0 346,613 Carryover expenditure required to finalise Coronae Dr, 

Peppermint Gr landscaping, Village Walk, Jetty Road, 

Prestige Park, Flood Gates. Unbudgeted income 

received. 

60,077 0 60,077 41,143 26,706 14,437 18,934 0 18,934 Design funding required to prepare 2005/06 programs. 

Unbudgeted income received. 

VARIATION FROM APPROVED 

FORECAST 

Net 

Expenditure Income Expenditure 

$ $ 

$ 

0 (74,501) (74,501) 

0 (10,630) (10,630) 

0 194 194 

0 80,825 80,825 

0 26,706 26,706 

City Services Total 4,505,665 1,932,000 2,573,665 2,755,612 1,267,594 1,488,018 1,750,053 687,000 1,063,053 0 22,594 22,594 

Highton Senior Citizen - Extension 154,898 15,272 139,626 152,763 0 152,763 0 15,272 (15,272) Project completed. Income to be received from Seniors. 2,135 0 2,135 

Children Services Facilities Upgrades 321,782 0 321,782 66,005 0 66,005 137,777 0 137,777 This program not completed in current financial year due 118,000 0 118,000 

to contractor availability and continuation of service 

delivery requirements. There are multiple projects 

included in this program and projects have commenced, 

including design and construction projects (ie- Bellvue 

kinder, Greenville kinder, Bell Post Hill and Corio Kinder, 

various shade structures etc). 

Replacement of Regothermic Ovens 109,200 84,000 25,200 83,950 40,375 43,575 10,000 0 10,000 Outstanding grant income -$42k. Half of this grant was 15,250 (43,625) (28,375) 

received in the previous financial year in advance of 

forecast. Ovens are here in Australia and installation has 

been completed. Final Electrical and installation account 

to be paid. 

Geelong Special Playspace 151,149 0 151,149 54,440 60,000 (5,560) 96,709 0 96,709 Design works 04/05. Plans nearing completion. Work is 

0 60,000 60,000 

currently out to tender. Funding required for construction 

in 05/06. Income received in advance. 

South Barwon Pavilion Upgrade 513,453 50,000 463,453 293,767 45,455 248,312 219,686 0 219,686 Contractor appointed. Works commenced. Forecast 

0 (4,545) (4,545) 

variation submitted. Delay in site start due to late issue of 

building permit/variations to contract 

Community & Recreation Total 1,250,482 149,272 1,101,210 650,925 145,830 505,095 464,172 15,272 448,900 135,385 11,830 147,215 

EPathway 75,988 0 75,988 43,873 15,438 28,435 32,115 0 32,115 Saving resulted from unplanned income from a grant. To 

0 15,438 15,438 

be utilised for future ePathway projects particularly 

Planning lodgement 

Corporate Services Total 75,988 0 75,988 43,873 15,438 28,435 32,115 0 32,115 0 15,438 15,438 

Skilled Stadium Upgrade 18,007,456 11,900,000 6,107,996 19,594,809 12,106,939 7,487,870 (1,262,939) 0 (1,262,939) Major building works completed. Minor compliance 

(324,414) 206,939 (117,475) 

works, cricket store, etc to be completed in 05/06. 

Expenditure brought forward creating a negative 

carryover against 2005-06 budget of $2m. 

Geelong Central Activities Area 

10,372,738 2,679,495 7,693,243 4,911,484 2,805,031 2,106,453 5,376,406 55,211 5,321,195 Forecast change for deferred expenditure of $3.79m in 84,848 180,747 265,595 

Redevelopment 

04-05. This is now included in carryover figure 

Major Projects Total 28,380,194 14,579,495 13,801,239 24,506,293 14,911,970 9,594,323 4,113,467 55,211 4,058,256 (239,566) 387,686 148,120 

Environment Reserves Capital 

Improvement Program 

146,125 10,000 136,125 135,861 38,000 97,861 10,264 0 10,264 Carry Over required-Minor works yet to be completed 

due to Buckley Falls Master Plan -delay in consultation 

process. 

0 28,000 28,000 

Sustainable Development Total 146,125 10,000 136,125 135,861 38,000 97,861 10,264 0 10,264 0 28,000 28,000 

SUB TOTAL CARRYOVER - variation 34,358,454 16,670,767 17,687,687 28,092,564 16,378,832 11,713,732 6,370,071 757,483 5,612,588 (104,181) 465,548 361,367 

from Forecast budget 

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 77,400,318 20,936,369 56,463,949 63,692,306 19,971,425 43,720,881 

TOTAL CARRYOVER 14,105,679 1,695,610 12,410,069 (397,667) 730,666 332,999

APPENDIX 9-3 – 2004/2005 NON CAPITAL (Discretionary) PROJECTS PROGRAM CARRY OVER 

Cost Cost Centre 

Ctr Description 

CITY SERVICES 

3660 Infrastructure 

Management 

Job Description 

2004/2005 

Actual 

$ 


Budget 

$ 


Projection 

$ 

Var Proj 

to Actual 

Fav/(Unfav) 

$ 

2005/06 

Adopted 

Budget 

$ 

Carryover 

Request 

$ Comments 

D36630 - Traffic Studies 0 0 90,000 90,000 0 90,000 Allocated to Ocean Grove traffic study commenced end of 

June 05 to be completed September 05. Traffic study 

funding for locations in City area planned Feb - May06 

Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Expenditure 0 0 90,000 90,000 0 90,000 

0 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 15,000 

6310 Parks Management D63105 - Geelong Botanic 

Gardens - Stage 2 

Income 0 (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) 0 0 $15,000 funded by Friends of Geelong Botanic Gardens 

2004/05, direct payment of consultant services as first 

stage of project 

Expenditure 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 15,000 $15,000 required for CoGG (Parks) to fund second stage 

of project in with consultants/ contractors in 2005/06 

CITY SERVICES TOTAL (NET) 0 15,000 105,000 105,000 0 105,000

Cost 

Ctr 

Cost Centre 

Description Job Description 

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 

4130 Strategic Planning D41307 - Retail Strategy 

Review 


Actual 

$ 


Budget 

$ 


Projection 

$ 

Var Proj 

to Actual 

Fav/(Unfav) 

$ 


Adopted 

Budget 

$ 

Carryover 

Request 

$ Comments 

1,000 0 30,000 29,000 68,100 29,000 The project was delayed as the project was only identified 

as a priority by Councillors and attributed funds in the 

latter half of 04/05. The lack of available staff to manage 

the project further delayed the project in 04/05. Some 

funds were expended in 04/05 as consultants Essential 

Economics were appointed to assist in the project, 

however $29,000 remained unexpended. This amount 

would add to the successful 05/06 business case of 

$68,100 to ensure that the budget reflects the projects 

scope. As the project is currently being conducted it is 

expected that full expenditure will occur early in the next 

calendar year. 

Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Expenditure 1,000 0 30,000 29,000 68,100 29,000 

4130 Strategic Planning D41317 - Armstrong Creek 

Mt Duneed Future Growth 

Area 

10,766 201,987 186,987 176,221 235,000 171,221 The project was delayed in 04/05 due to the late 

appointment of staff to manage the project. Additionally 

some specific elements of the project were to commence 

in 04/05 but sign off on the specialist consultants brief by 

other units was not able to be achieved until late in 04/05. 

The project has commenced with designated officers and 

established Technical working Working Group, Internal 

Management Group and project Steering Committee. 

Additionally a large consultancy tender is to be advertised 

on the 9 July 2005. Out of the budget in 04/05 of 

$201,987 there remains $171,221. This amount would 

add to the successful 05/06 business case of $235,000 to 

ensure that the budget reflects the projects scope. The 

consultancy tender is for all technical elements of the 

project and has a budget range of $350,000 to $450,000. 

The project will continue into the 06/07 and 07/08 

financial years due to the complex nature of the project, 

multiple stakeholders and the need for a Planning 

Scheme Amendment to implement the plan. 

Income (5,000) 0 0 5,000 0 0 

Expenditure 15,766 201,987 186,987 171,221 235,000 171,221

Cost Cost Centre 

Ctr Description 

4210 Economic 

Development 


D42122 - Investment 

Attraction 


Actual 

$ 


Budget 

$ 


Projection 

$ 

Var Proj 

to Actual 

Fav/(Unfav) 

$ 


Adopted 

Budget 

$ 

Carryover 

Request 

$ Comments 

34,870 60,000 60,000 25,130 0 25,130 A critical component of the Economic Development Unit’s 

activities is to attract new investment to the municipality 

and encourage further investment from our existing 

business base. The City is competing at a global level for 

investment opportunities. The City needs to ensure its 

investment attraction activities and materials are relevant, 

informative and cutting edge. Unfortunately during the 

year, resources have been directed to unplanned 

activities being undertaken by the EDU such as RMIF and 

Export Adviser Program, which has meant that our range 

of publications and material has not been updated. It is 

therefore critical that this is completed in 05/06, with the 

finalisation of our Economic Development Strategy. 

6110 Environment & 

Natural Resources 

6110 Environment & 

Natural Resources 

Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Expenditure 34,870 60,000 60,000 25,130 0 25,130 

D61140 - Review of EMS 10,526 21,858 21,858 11,332 0 11,332 The strategy is currently with the community for feedback. 

It was anticipated that this program would be completed 

before the end of financial year. To allow for the 

publication and launch of the strategy once adopted by 

Council it is requested that carry over funds be provided 

to allow this. 

Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Expenditure 10,526 21,858 21,858 11,332 0 11,332 

D61160 - Geelong Region (117,103) 0 0 117,103 0 91,830 The program is proceeding on time and budget however 

Wetlands Project 

as funds have been received in 2004-05 for expenditure 

in 2005-06 a carry over is requested and necessary. This 

project is a wholly funded external program from the 

CCMA and subject to a contract for services with the City. 

The terms of the contract has a notional completion time 

well after the financial year. The project has a number of 

milestones or outcomes which must be completed in 

accordance with the grant income. A dedicated Officer is 

required to administer this program, the carry over 

expenditure reflects this. 

Income (165,273) 0 (140,000) 25,273 0 0 

Expenditure 48,170 0 140,000 91,830 0 91,830 

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TOTAL (NET) (59,941) 283,845 298,845 358,786 303,100 328,513

Cost 

Ctr 

Cost Centre 


COMMUNITY & RECREATION 

5410 Family & Youth 

Services Admin. 

5510 Aged & Disability 

Services Admin. 


Actual 

$ 


Budget 

$ 

2004-2005 

Projection 

$ 

Var Proj 

to Actual 

Fav/(Unfav) 

$ 


Adopted 

Budget 

$ 

Carryover 

Request 

$ Comments 

D54100 - Best Start 

Program 

(22,774) 60,330 60,330 83,104 74,819 17,548 Best Start is fully funded program by DHS. Is going into 

final year in partnership with several external parties. The 

facilitation (and expenditure) has been delayed pending 

decisions from committee of management. 

Income (102,603) (102,858) (102,858) (255) (30,000) 0 

Expenditure 79,829 163,188 163,188 83,359 104,819 17,548 

D55130 - In There (16,331) 11,432 11,432 27,763 0 27,763 Program is fully funded by DHS. Additional funding 

provided in 04/05 was not fully expended due to the late 

notification by DHS and commencement of project. 

Attached is letter from DHS requesting the budget be 

carried forward and expensed in 05/06. 

Income (39,640) 0 0 39,640 0 0 

Expenditure 23,309 11,432 11,432 (11,877) 0 27,763 

5530 HACC Other D55300 - Culturally 

Equitable Gateways 

Strategy 

(25,000) 0 0 25,000 (2,326) 12,500 Culturally Equitable Gateways is fully funded program by 

DHS. Service provision has been contracted out to 

Geelong Ethnic Community Council. One quarter is 

currently outstanding and will be paid in Jul'05 

Income (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) 0 (52,326) 0 

Expenditure 25,000 50,000 50,000 25,000 50,000 12,500 

5710 Community 

Development 


Development 


Development 

D57115 - Responding to 

Drugs 

36,955 51,601 51,601 14,645 0 7,000 Late notice provided by DHS regarding funding for drug 

action week. 

Income (22,545) (55,000) (55,000) (32,455) 0 (5,000) 

Expenditure 59,501 106,601 106,601 47,100 0 12,000 

D57133 - Bellarine 

73,035 0 150,000 76,965 0 76,965 Bellarine Peninsula strategic plan has completed the first 

Peninsula Strategic Plan 

4 stages as well as several significant components. 

Several components to be completed in 05/06 include 

township and rural areas vision 2005 to 2016, Bellarine 

Peninsula overall vision 2005 to 2016 and other 

components as per council report. 

Income 0 0 (50,000) (50,000) 0 (50,000) 

Expenditure 73,035 0 200,000 126,965 0 126,965 

D57145 - Regional 

Migration Incentive 

Program 

(69,265) 0 0 69,265 0 69,265 Regional Skilled Migration Fund (RMIF) project funding 

forms part of CoGG's contractual obligation with the 

Department of Victorian Communities. Invoices were 

requested by the department at the end of 04/05 financial 

year relating to rollout of program in future periods. 

Income (81,000) 0 24,300 105,300 0 0

Cost 

Ctr 

Cost Centre 

Description 

Var Proj 

to Actual 

Fav/(Unfav) 

$ 


Adopted 

Budget 

$ 



Actual 

$ 


Budget 

$ 

2004-2005 

Projection 

$ 

Expenditure 11,735 0 24,300 12,565 0 69,265 

5810 Heritage Centre D58100 - Geelong Heritage 

Centre - 12 month staffing 

position 

Carryover 

Request 

$ Comments 

10,951 50,000 50,000 39,049 0 39,049 Second stage of Stock take of material stored off site at 

PROV Ballarat.( Collection Implementation Strategy) 

Project funded by Department of Victorian communities - 

Public Records of Victoria 

6610 Recreation & Open 

Space 

Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Expenditure 10,951 50,000 50,000 39,049 0 39,049 

D66111 - Regional Sports 43,143 23,000 45,903 2,760 0 2,760 The Regional Sports Development Plan project is 

Dev`t & Infra Plan 

underway. The project is part funded by the State 

Government and the G21 Local Government partners. 

The plans are approx 40% complete and are expected to 

be finalised by Dec'05 

Income (14,941) (37,000) (37,000) (22,059) 0 0 Funds still to be claimed from State Government Grant on 

completion of project. 

Expenditure 58,084 60,000 82,903 24,819 0 2,760 Consultant currently undertaking completion of Regional 

Sports Development Plan. 

COMMUNITY & RECREATION TOTAL (NET) 30,715 196,363 369,266 338,551 72,493 252,850

Cost 

Ctr 

Cost Centre 


MAJOR PROJECTS 

7210 Urban Design D72105 - Eastern Park 

Mineral Springs 

7320 Central Geelong City 

Management 


Management 


Management 


Management 


Actual 

$ 


Budget 

$ 


Projection 

$ 

Var Proj 

to Actual 

Fav/(Unfav) 

$ 


Adopted 

Budget 

$ 

(25,024) 40,000 70,000 95,024 0 95,024 

Carryover 

Request 

$ Comments 

Income (25,024) (60,000) (30,000) (4,976) 0 (5,000) $5k external income will be received this year to total 

$60k received from external partnerships. 

Expenditure 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 $100k required to cover Contract commitment for Bath 

House Study. 

D73200 - Central Geelong (272,530) (242,157) (272,157) 373 (298,418) 0 

Admin 

Income (476,615) (456,187) (456,187) 20,428 (469,873) 0 As at 30 June 2005 unexpended income available for 

Expenditure 204,084 214,030 184,030 (20,054) 171,455 0 

Carry over was $13,563. Special Rate income is to be 

D73201 - Central Geelong 200,225 148,028 178,028 (22,197) 216,186 13,563 

Marketing 

Income (4,132) 0 0 4,132 0 0 Fully spent under the terms of this agreement. 

Expenditure 204,357 148,028 178,028 (26,329) 216,186 13,563 

D73202 - Central Geelong 34,424 80,000 80,000 45,576 25,700 0 $13,563 will be allocated to Central Geelong Marketing 

Projects 

Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project expenditure 

Expenditure 34,424 80,000 80,000 45,576 25,700 0 

D73203 - Ctral Glg - 

69,918 59,729 59,729 (10,189) 56,532 0 

Farmers Market 

Income (27,350) (18,091) (18,091) 9,259 (22,200) 0 

Expenditure 97,267 77,820 77,820 (19,447) 78,732 0 

MAJOR PROJECTS TOTAL (NET) 7,013 85,600 115,600 108,587 0 108,587 

GRAND TOTAL (NET) (22,213) 580,808 888,711 910,924 375,593 794,950




10. CAPITAL PROJECT SITE TRANSFER (C06529) 

Portfolio: 

Source: 



Sport & Recreation - Cr Mitchell 

Community & Recreation - Recreation & Open Space 


Subject - Sport & Recreation 

Property – Thomson Reserve – 2A Godfrey Street, 

Thomson, Vic, 3219 

Property - St Albans Reserve – 203 St Albans Road, St 

Albans, Vic, 3219 

Summary 

• The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement for the transfer of 

Capital Project funds from the Thomson Football Club Lighting Oval #2 Project 

(C06529) to light the netball courts at St Albans Reserve. 

• During discussions with Cr Mitchell, pursuant to the rollout of capital project 

C06529 it was indicated that lighting netball courts at St Albans Reserve was a 

higher priority in his ward than lighting the second football oval at Thomson 

Reserve. 

• Council resolution is required to formally facilitate this change. 

Cr Mitchell moved, Cr Saunderson seconded - 

That Council endorse the transfer of Capital Project funds from the Thomson 

Football Club Lighting Oval #2 Project (C06529) to lighting netball courts at St 

Albans Reserve. 

Carried. 

Report 

Background 

The 2005-06 Council budget allocated fund to the following sports lighting upgrades 

and installations at Thomson Reserve: 

• Football Oval #1- upgrade of sports lighting $20,000 (C06530) 

• Football oval #2 - installation of sports lighting $20,000 (C06529) 

• Netball Courts - installation of sports lights and shelter $25,000 (C06528) 

Since the adoption of the 2005-06 Council budget, Cr Mitchell has requested the 

transfer of funds from the lighting football oval #2 (C06529) at Thomson Reserve, to 

install sports lights on the netball courts at St Albans Reserve. 

Discussion 

The introduction of football/netball competitions over the past five years has meant an 

increased level of requests for lit netball courts at football reserves. The aim is to create 

a family atmosphere with participation opportunities for both makes and females at 

each reserve.




10. CAPITAL PROJECT SITE TRANSFER (C06529) (CONT’D) 



The netball courts at St Albans Reserve currently have no existing sports lighting. 

Lighting the netball courts will enable night training by the netball club alongside their 

affiliated football team. 

Thomson Oval #2 is secondary to the main oval which is also to receive a lighting 

upgrade this financial year. Given its role as a secondary oval and that St Albans 

Netball courts have no lighting, it is considered desirable to re-allocate the funds as 

proposed on the basis of broader community benefit. 

Cr Mitchell has advised he has discussed this issue with Thomson Football Club who 

are comfortable with the proposed re-allocation. 


There are no financial implications. No increase in funding is being sought, rather, a 

change in project location. 


As the 2005/06 budget was brought down via a Council resolution it is necessary for a 

resolution of Council to enable funds to be reallocated. 


All appropriate risk management measures will be taken in the development of this 

project. 


The lighting of the netball courts at St Albans Reserve will enable night training by the 

netball club alongside their affiliated football team thereby fostering the community 

family club. 


There are no known environmental implications. 

Communication 

Once this reallocation is approved a letter will be sent to both clubs informing them of 

the decision. 

Conclusion 

The reallocation of Project C06529 from Thomson Reserve to St Albans Reserve has 

been the request of the Ward Councillor based on a reassessment of priorities within 

his Ward.




11. MEMBERSHIP OF ECOBUY ENVIRONMENTAL PURCHASING PROGRAM 

Portfolio: 

Source: 



Environment & Waste Services - Cr O'Connor 

Corporate Services - Financial Services 

Peter Gould 

Subject/Contracts 

Summary 

• Council has for the past three years been a member of the ECO-Buy 

Environmental Purchasing Program. 

• The ECO-Buy program was established by the Municipal Association of Victoria in 

2001 to further the use of recycled goods and services within local government 

throughout Victoria. 

• Based on the ECO-Buy reporting regime the City is currently spending in the order 

of $4.3M annually on recycled, environmentally friendly and reused goods and 

services. 

• Membership for ECO-Buy is due for renewal and Council approval is sought to 

sign a new Memorandum of Understanding. 

Cr O’Connor moved, Cr Harwood seconded - 

That Council renew its membership of the ECO-Buy Environmental Purchasing 

Program for a further three-year period. 

Carried. 

Report 

Background 

In 2000 the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) with the support of EcoRecycle 

Victoria and the State Government (through the Victorian Greenhouse Strategy), 

created the ECO-Buy Program. The primary aim of the program being to develop a 

coalition of local governments committed to increasing the use of green products in 

their operations and services. 

In 2001, the Council signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to become a 

member of the ECO-Buy program. This MOU expired in late 2004 and ECO-Buy has 

requested that Council sign a new Memorandum to continue this membership and to 

further contribute to the use of environmentally friendly and recycled goods and 

services. 

The ECO-Buy Program aims to: 

 

 

 

Use the combined purchasing powers of local government to stimulate demand for 

greenhouse friendly and recycled products; 

Create a partnership of local governments committed to green purchasing; 

Increase awareness in local government about the range and quality of greenhouse 

friendly and recycled products;





(CONT’D) 



 

 

 

 

Reduce local government’s greenhouse gas emissions; 

Stimulate local government’s participation in greenhouse abatement activities; 

Support sustainable long-term markets for recyclable materials collected from 

kerbside; 

Encourage the sustainable use of resources. 

Discussion 

Under the Terms of the Memorandum of Understanding membership of the ECO-Buy 

program requires Council to undertake or participate in the following activities: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commit to the implementation of a green purchasing program that includes: 

 

 

 

 

 

Developing, adopting and implementing a green purchasing policy; 

Adopting an ECO-Buy Action Group; 

Developing and implementing an action plan; 

Establishing a tracking system to monitor the purchase of green products; 

Providing a written report to ECO-Buy every 12 months. 

Become a part of a network of Councils willing to share their knowledge, 

experiences and achievements; 

Participate in expos, seminars and forums that will educate staff about the use and 

application of green products; 

Utilise the ECO-Buy logo to promote Council’s commitment to the program; 

Nominate a member/s of staff to manage the development and implementation of 

the ECO-Buy program; 

Provide resources to implement the ECO-Buy program. 

In return for membership ECO-Buy provide the following resources: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support, advice and education from the ECO-Buy resource staff and from a 

network of 20 regional education officers employed by the various Regional Waste 

Management Groups; 

A Guide to Green Purchasing which gives guidance on policy and purchasing of 

recycled, environmentally friendly and reusable products and services; 

An online database of manufacturers and suppliers of green products; 

Expos and access to suppliers and manufacturers of green products; 

Network meetings of ECO-Buy members; 

An ECO-Buy website that provides relevant and up to date information on green 

purchasing; 

Access to other EcoRecycle and Victorian Greenhouse Strategy information and 

resources.





(CONT’D) 



In conjunction with the Environment Unit, the Contracts and Purchasing Unit have 

achieved or are currently working towards meeting the terms of the MOU. Council is 

currently developing a stand-alone green purchasing policy, however in the interim 

Council’s current purchasing policy has an overall green statement that will form the 

basis of the green policy. 

As a result of the continued education and evaluation within the City the purchasing of 

environmentally friendly materials continues to increase. Finalisation of the annual 

report to ECO-Buy for the 12 month period to 30 June 2005 reflects the significant 

increase in spend levels compared to the previous 12 months. 

A summary of some of the major green purchasing areas allowed by the ECO-Buy 

guidelines is as follows: 

• Bituminous scrap rubber seal resealing program $1,409,000 

• Downgrade from 6 cylinder to 4 cylinder vehicles $501,624 

• Purchase of LPG vehicles $417,016 

• Supply of energy rated multi-function devices $352,424 

• Supply of recycled content mobile garbage bins $261,402 

• Printing of brochures etc on recycled paper $202,931 

• Supply of energy rated computing equipment $142,070 

• Supply of recycled printer toners and cartridges $129,385 

• Installation of recycled plastic signage and bollards $79,944 

• Supply of retread tyres $77,228 

• Purchase of recycled copy paper $59,435 

• Supply of recycled mulch $47,684 

• Purchase of green power $26,000 

Altogether a total spend of $4,395,000 will be reported to ECO-Buy on the 2004-2005 

Annual Report. This spend represents approximately 3.5% of Council’s total annual 

spend on works, goods and services. It also represents an increase of 500% on the 

spend reported to ECO-Buy in the 2003-2004 Annual Report. 

Part of the ECO-Buy program includes an annual awards presentation evening. 

Council was recently successful in winning the ECO-Buy ‘Walk the Talk’ Award for the 

Western Beach Boardwalk project. 


Membership of the ECO-Buy Program is free. The only financial implications 

associated with membership is the provision of staff time to undertake the activities 

required by the MOU (viz., attend network meetings, put together the annual report 

etc.) It is estimated that the equivalent of three weeks annually for one member of staff 

is required to facilitate the undertakings of membership of the ECO-Buy program.





(CONT’D) 



A review of ‘green’ expenditure for 2004-2005 indicates that Council is paying little or 

no premium for the purchase of ‘green’ product. By way of example it is now cheaper 

to purchase a ream of 100% recycled copy paper than it is to purchase a ream of nonrecycled 

copy paper. 


There are no legal or statutory implications associated with being a member of the 

ECO-Buy program. Membership is not compulsory. 

There are however policy implications associated with membership and these 

principally include the need to have or put in place ‘green’ purchasing policies and 

procedures. 


There are no risk issues associated with the membership of this program. 


Whilst there are no social considerations associated with the membership of this 

program, the outcomes are aimed at improving the long term quality of life for residents 

as part of the global community. 


All of the requirements associated with membership of the ECO-Buy program 

contribute to actions within Council’s current and future Environment Management 

Strategies. 

Membership of the program will contribute significantly to actions within the draft 2005- 

2010 Strategy relating to the development of Council purchasing policy and the use of 

recycled products and materials in Council services and projects. 

Communication 

There are no communications issues associated with the membership of this program. 

Conclusion 

It is recommended that Council sign the new Memorandum of Understanding with 

ECO-Buy to further develop and promote Council’s commitment to the purchase of 

recycled and environmentally friendly goods and services.




12. WASTE MANAGEMENT FUTURE DIRECTIONS STRATEGY 

(previously agenda item 13) 

Portfolio: 

Source: 



Environment & Waste Minimisation - Cr O'Connor 

City Services - Infrastructure Operations (Waste 

Management) 

Peter Reeve 

Subject: Waste Management - Strategy Waste 

Minimisation 

Summary 

• On 14 June 2005 Council noted the preparation of the draft Waste Management 

Future Directions Strategy (WMFDS) and resolved to place this document on 

public exhibition. 

• A three week exhibition period expired on 8 July 2005. Two formal submissions 

were received along with a verbal request and comment from Council’s Litter 

Prevention Advisory Committee. 

• Each of the issues raised in these submissions has been considered in this report 

and subject to the outcome of this consideration the Strategy has been amended 

or item noted. 

• It is now recommended that Council adopt the draft WMFDS. 

• Upon adoption by Council the WMFDS will establish Council’s position with regard 

to the future provision of waste management services and will inform the current 

review of the Barwon Regional Waste Management Plan of this Council’s position. 

Cr O’Connor moved, Cr Harwood seconded - 

That following public exhibition and consideration of submissions received 

Council adopt the Waste Management Future Directions Strategy Report. 

Carried. 

Report 

Background 

A draft Waste Management Future Directions Strategy (WMFDS) was submitted to 

Council on 14 June 2005 and subsequently placed on public exhibition from 18 June 

until 8 July 2005. 

Two formal submissions were received. 

The first submission was from the St Leonards' Progress Association and 

complimented Council on the waste management improvements implemented over the 

past four years and raised the issue of packaging as a major contributor to litter as the 

Association’s single item of concern. 

The second submission was from the owner of property on Becks Road Drysdale, the 

access road to the Drysdale Landfill site, raising the following issues: 

Concern that little attention given to the possible future increase in demand for landfill 

and therefore the likelihood of increased use of the Drysdale Landfill site and 

particularly an increase in traffic access. Proposes that a landfill site be sought to 

replace the Corio landfill.




12. WASTE MANAGEMENT FUTURE DIRECTIONS STRATEGY (CONT’D) 




 

 

 

 

Concern that the provision of a ‘sale of recovered goods’ facility at the Drysdale 

Landfill site will become a ‘point of sale’ for recycled goods and change the 

purpose of the area. This facility would be best located in an industrial zone. 

The Drysdale Landfill site would not be a suitable location for a waste to energy 

facility and that this should be in an industrial area. 

Advocates continued involvement of Council in landfill operations as it has a 

responsible approach to waste reduction that may not exist in the private sector. 

Raising the need to address the long term supply of water to the Drysdale Landfill 

site. Current supply is from the private system to this particular neighbouring 

property under an agreement between Council and the property owner. This 

agreement expires in four years. 

A verbal request has also been received from this party for the provision of slow vehicle 

passing lanes on the Murradoc Hill to assist with traffic movement, as impacted on by 

larger vehicles en route to the Drysdale Landfill site. 

Also, Council’s Litter Prevention Advisory Committee has requested that the role of 

enforcement in the provision of litter prevention and other community education 

programs be recognised through the Waste Management Future Directions Strategy. 

Discussion 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed in the following comments: 

Packaging as a major contributor to litter. 

Officer’s Comment: 

The draft WMFDS does not specifically identify packaging as an issue. However, ‘to 

encourage consumers to be smarter shoppers by buying products with recycled 

content that are recyclable with minimal packaging and promoting alternatives to plastic 

bags’ has been identified as a strategy within the current Barwon Regional Waste 

Management Group Business Plan under the section Sustainable Consumption. 

Actions resulting from this strategy are: 

 

 

 

Participate in and further develop the green shop program and prepare a green 

shopping guide 

Encourage towns to become ‘plastic bag free’ 

Lobby state and federal government in support of the National Packaging Covenant 

It is considered that this issue is best dealt with at the regional level and the WMFDS 

recommended action (Action No. 4) supporting the programs of the BRWMG 

adequately covers this issue. St Leonards could also be considered for inclusion in the 

plastic bag free township program as this program develops. 

This submission also identified an issue with cigarette butt litter in St Leonards however 

it also noted that this issue is being addressed by Council’s Litter Prevention Advisory 

Committee.








Concern that little attention given to the possible future increase in demand for landfill 

and therefore the likelihood of increased use of the Drysdale Landfill site and 

particularly an increase in traffic access. Proposes that a landfill site be sought to 

replace the Corio landfill. 


The Strategy advocates an investigation for the provision of a solid industrial waste 

resource recovery centre to replace the Corio Landfill site with the intent of maintaining 

the same level of service for existing Corio Landfill customers and meeting the State 

Government’s Towards Zero Waste Strategy targets. A desired outcome of this facility 

would be to attract maximum waste from the whole of the municipality thereby reducing 

current use and access traffic to the Drysdale site. 

It is anticipated that residual waste from the recovery centre would be directed to the 

Drysdale site but this would be reduced as a result of the materials recovery process 

and would be delivered in lesser but larger vehicles. 

Recognition of the Drysdale site as a regionally significant site may have an impact on 

site usage however development of the recovery centre as a regional facility will help 

offset any potential increase in traffic access to the Drysdale site. 

To fully address this issue the investigation for the recovery centre should include an 

analysis of the impact on usage of the Drysdale site of replacing the Corio site with the 

recovery centre in both a municipal and regional context. While it would be difficult to 

justify a new landfill site in the context of the Towards Zero Waste Strategy and the 

current commercial landfill climate an analysis of how this would compare to the 

establishment of a resource recovery centre should also be included in the 

investigation. 

The ultimate status of the Drysdale Landfill site will be determined by the Barwon 

Regional Waste Management Plan, currently under review. 

The Strategy has been amended to acknowledge the impact on usage of the Drysdale 

Landfill site as a criteria in the investigation. 

Concern that the provision of a ‘sale of recovered goods’ facility at the Drysdale Landfill 

site will become a ‘point of sale’ for recycled goods and change the purpose of the 

area. This facility would be best located in an industrial zone. 


The intent of the sale of recovered goods facility is to receive only items removed from 

the waste stream for reuse. No items will be purchased for on-selling from the facility. 

Items in the facility may be available for sale or collection and in some cases may be 

transferred to other similar facilities for sale (eg: the recovered goods section of the 

Geelong Resource Recovery Centre). The focus of this facility is materials recovery not 

second hand dealing. 

Issue noted for future reference but no amendment to the Strategy. 

Drysdale Landfill site would not be a suitable location for a waste to energy facility and 

that this should be in an industrial area.









The actual location of a waste to energy facility would be the subject of the feasibility 

and design process for the facility. It is anticipated that such a facility would be located 

closest to the source of feed stock material (ie: the resource recovery facility) and 

where the energy derived could be best utilised. 

Issue noted for future reference but no amendment to the Strategy. 

Advocates continued involvement of Council in landfill operations as it has a 

responsible approach to waste reduction that may not exist in the private sector. 


The WMFDS recognises this aspect by advocating the continued operation of the 

Drysdale landfill site by Council and the investigation for the development of the solid 

industrial waste resource recovery centre. 

It is therefore considered that the WMFDS adequately covers this issue. 

Raising the need to address the long term supply of water to the Drysdale Landfill site. 

Current supply is by agreement from the private system of this particular property. This 

agreement expires in four years. 


Agreed that this item of infrastructure should be acknowledged for future consideration. 

Strategy amended to include this item. 

With regard to the provision of slow vehicle passing lanes on Murradoc Hill, this has 

been included on the infrastructure for investigation list within the Strategy and 

recognition of the role of enforcement in litter and community education programs has 

also been incorporated into the final draft document. 

Upon final adoption by Council the WMFDS will establish Council’s forward planning 

position for waste management and will be the vehicle for Council input to the review of 

the Barwon Regional Waste Management Plan, as currently underway and 

programmed for release of a draft document in September/October this year. 

In summary the key elements of the Strategy remain as: 

a) Pursuit of a Central Resource Recovery Facility primarily for commercial and 

industrial customers to cover the gap created by the closure of Corio Landfill and 

meet the requirements of the State’s Solid Industrial Waste Management Plan. 

b) No change in the overall kerbside collection system with the start of a second 

contract using the existing mobile bin stock. 

c) Pursuit of EPA Works Approval to extend the Drysdale Landfill into the adjacent 

Council owned quarry by 2013, following the finalisation of commercial stone 

extraction. 

d) Subject to outcomes of the G21 investigations into the feasibility of a waste to 

energy plant, the use of this technology for residual waste.








The Strategy Action Plan is attached to this report and a copy of the final draft Waste 

Management Future Directions Strategy document is available for inspection at the 

Mayor and Councillor’s office. 

It should also be noted that Appendix 3 Objectives, Targets and Actions has been 

added. This Appendix creates the relationship between the actions, the measurable 

targets (performance indicators) and the objectives that are then linked to City Plan 

pillars. 


The anticipated financial implications resulting from the adoption of this Strategy are 

outlined in the Action Plan. The actions proposed by the Strategy are either part of 

existing operations or would be subject to normal Council budget processes prior to 

implementation. In many cases any future commitment would be subject also to 

feasibility studies to determine the need for and funding methodology for the particular 

infrastructure and/or service. 


The WMFDS has been prepared within the framework of City Plan under the 

Environment pillar and the best Value theme and the waste management direction 

established by the State Government Towards Zero Waste Strategy. 

The WMFDS has no direct legal or statutory implication however it will provide the 

opportunity to not only set the direction of Council’s operations but will enable the 

Council to influence the provision of waste management services by the private sector. 

It will also inform the current review of the Barwon Regional Waste Management Plan 

of Council’s preferred direction. As the Regional Plan is approved by the Minister under 

the Environment Protection Act adoption of any aspects of the City’s strategy in the 

Regional Plan will provide significant planning and service provision control. 

As an environmental issue waste management is also an element of the Council’s 

Environment Management Strategy (EMS). This Strategy is currently under review. 

The WMFDS acknowledges this review and foreshadows a number of the proposed 

outcomes of the EMS as these relate to waste, recycling and reuse. 


The WMFDS provides direction for the future provision and development of the City’s 

essential waste management services. As a strategic document it will contribute 

significantly to the reduction of risk to the Council by establishing the forward planning 

framework for the provision of these services. 

A key element of the WMFDS is the recognition of the need to be flexible to enable the 

incorporation of new technologies and to meet the needs of the community. To this end 

critical review milestones have been identified. This aspect will also enable Council to 

reassess any risk prior to commitment to any particular project.








By embracing the City’s new residential kerbside recycling and waste collection system 

the Geelong community has clearly shown that it wishes to contribute to the 

sustainability of our environment. The WMFDS supports that direction and provides a 

framework for further involvement of the community by source separating materials, 

participation in programs and utilisation of services. 


The Strategy advocates replacement of the Corio Landfill site with a resource recovery 

centre and possible waste to energy plant. The resultant impact on local employment is 

likely to be positive and general amenity improved. 

The main thrust of the WMFDS is protection and sustainability of our environment. This 

may be achieved by adherence to waste minimisation/reduction and best practice 

principles and alignment to the State Government’s Towards Zero Waste Strategy. 

Communication 

Upon adoption the WMFDS will be forwarded to the Barwon Regional Waste 

Management Group as Council’s strategic position on waste management for 

consideration as part of the review of the Barwon Regional Waste Management Plan 

and will also be available as a reference document to the community. 

All parties making a submission to the draft Strategy will be advised in writing of the 

outcomes and the details of consideration of their submissions. 

Conclusion 

Over the past four years Council has significantly improved the provision of its waste 

management services. This has occurred within a framework of best practice and best 

value and has been extremely successful in meeting environmental targets and 

community needs. 

What has been missing however is a statement of Council’s strategic waste 

management position. Over the next ten years critical decisions will have to be made 

with regard to waste disposal, residential collections and the use of new technologies. 

It is therefore essential that Council establish a future direction and a process to 

continually incorporate changes that may occur in the waste management field. 

The City of Greater Geelong Waste Management Future Directions Strategy provides 

that framework and also enables Council to make a significant contribution to the 

development of the Barwon Regional Waste Management Plan and to ensure that its 

position is clear. 

Having been exposed to public comment and following consideration of the 

submissions received it is now recommended that the Waste Management Future 

Direction Strategy be adopted by Council.




13. 2005-2006 GENERAL INSURANCE RENEWAL REPORT 

(previously agenda item 12) 

Portfolio: 

Source: 



Governance, Communication and Finance 

Cr Jan Farrell 

Corporate Services - Marketing and Administration 

Peter Gould 

Subject/Risk Management Program 

Summary 

• Council has eight insurance policies that cover areas of the organisation’s 

operations. 

• These policies are reviewed annually to ensure their relevance and suitability. 

• The review of the 2005-2006 policies has been completed and is referred to 

Council for endorsement. 

Cr Farrell moved, Cr Dowling seconded - 

That Council endorse: 

1) the Insurance Policies (Appendix 13-1) for the 2005-2006 insurance year as 

outlined in this report. 

2) a full market review of insurance policy premiums prior to 2006-2007 

renewals. 

Carried. 

Report 

Background 

This report outlines the policies that comprise Council’s insurance coverage and details 

changes in those arrangements. Two major policies make up 81% of the total premium 

expenditure, being: 

1. Public liability, products liability and professional indemnity $555,423, and 

2. Jardine Mutual Asset Protection Plan (JMAPP) $466,554. 

Discussion 

The insurance market indicates the insurance cycle has reached its peak with stability 

returning to most classes. 

1. Public Liability and Professional Indemnity Insurance 

Council has renewed its membership with Civic Mutual Plus (CMP) for 2005-2006. 

Quotations were requested from CMP, based on a range of increased excess options 

with the view to reducing premiums in line with ongoing effective management of risk. 

Following an analysis of the City’s claims experience, it was determined that the City 

should increase its claims deductibles from $10,000 to $50,000 for each and every 

claim.




13. 2005-2006 GENERAL INSURANCE RENEWAL REPORT (CONT’D) 




1. Public Liability and Professional Indemnity Insurance 

A premium of $555,423 based on this higher excess is payable for 2005/06 resulting in 

a reduction of premium compared to 2004-2005 of 23.33%. 

CMP have advised that they are considering a three year policy term commencing 

2006-2007 in order to maintain premium stability. To ensure that the City maintains the 

best terms on offer it is proposed that a full market analysis be undertaken next year 

similar to the extensive process followed prior to 2004-2005 renewals. 

2. Property Insurance 

Council has renewed its membership in the JMAPP Local Government Property 

Scheme for the 2005-2006 financial year, based on the $100,000 aggregate 

deductible. Increase of 16.56% is due to increased asset values and inclusion of 

Skilled Stadium under Council insurance programme. 

3. Fidelity Guarantee 

Is a fund managed by the Municipal Association of Victoria on behalf of Local 

Government and has experienced an increase in premiums of 37.31% due to a higher 

level of industry claims. 

4. Other 

Jardine Lloyd Thompson arrange cover via competing quotations on Council’s behalf 

for the following: 

• Motor Vehicle Fleet 

• Councillors and Officers Liability and Employment Practices Liability 

• Personal Accident/Corporate Travel – Councillors and Volunteers 

• Public Liability – Hirers of Council Owned or Controlled Facilities. 

A complete list of Council’s Insurance’s and associated costs provided with 

Appendix 13-1. 


The cost of the insurance premiums has been included within the 2005-2006 budget. 


The insurance coverage meets Council’s statutory requirements under Section 76A of 

the Local Government Act 1989, which requires that: 

Councils must take out and maintain insurance against 

• Public liability for an amount of at least $30m or such higher amount as may be 

fixed by the Order of Council. Council’s policy is for $240m for any one occurrence 

• Professional liability for an amount of at least $5m or such higher amount as may 

be fixed. Council’s policy is for $200 million.




13. 2005-2006 GENERAL INSURANCE RENEWAL REPORT (CONT’D) 




Appropriate cover has been negotiated for Council’s major exposures. 


Council’s insurance program provides protection to community assets. 


The insurance taken out by the City includes Sudden and Incidental pollution. 

Communication 

There are no communication requirements arising from this report 

Conclusion 

The level of insurance coverage afforded by the various policies provides adequate 

treatment to mitigate the known insurable risks faced by Council.




Insurance Portfolio 2005-2006: 

Appendix 13–1 

Policy 

Public & Products 

Liability, Professional 

Indemnity 

Property (Building & 

Contents & Con. Loss) 

Premium 

05/06 

Premium 

04/05 

Variance 

$ 

555,423 724,454 -169,031 

(1) 

Var. Comments 

% 

-23.33 Reduction in 

contribution as a result 

of increasing the 

deductible amount from 

$10,000 to $50,000 per 

claim. 

466,554 400,279 66,275 16.56 Declared asset 

valuation increase and 

now includes Skilled 

Stadium 

Motor Vehicle 128,544 120,536 8,008 6.64 Declared valuation for 

2005-2006 increased 

from $15.5 mill to $16.5 

Councillors and 42,086 41,578 508 1.22 

Officers Liability & 

Employment Practices 

Liability 

Personal Accident / 6,043 5,836 207 3.55 

Corporate Travel - 

Councillors & 

Volunteers. 

Personal Accident - 6,600 6,393 207 3.24 

Community 

Organisations 

Public Liability – 

Facility “Hall” Hirers. 

31,379 30,653 726 2.37 

Fidelity Guarantee 23,250 16,932 6,318 37.31 Mutual fund subject to 

increase in the number 

and level of industry 

claims over the last 5 

years. 

Total Premium Paid 1,259,879 1,346,661 -86,783 -6.44 

Note: (1) : Saving is retained in budget to provide for increase claims costs associated 

with the higher deductible.




14. RENAMING SECTIONS OF SOMMERS PLACE, GEELONG 

TO MERRELL LANE AND LONG LANE, GEELONG 

Portfolio: 

Source: 



Governance, Communications & Finance - Cr Farrell 

Corporate Services - Financial Services 

Peter Gould 

Subject/Financial Management - Reporting 

Subject/Roads, Footpaths & Streets 

Summary 

• There are currently three adjoining roads that are known as Sommers Place, 

Geelong. Due to property development within the location changes to the street 

naming is required, refer to Appendix 14-1. 

• The name Sommers Place emanated from the marriage between ex Mayor Horace 

Frank Richardson and Edith Harriet Sommers, second daughter of William 

Sommers and Ann Merrell. 

• In keeping with this theme, Historical Records suggested Merrell Lane for the 

western section of Sommers Place, Geelong since this was Edith’s mother’s 

maiden name. 

• Mr Harry Buskens, who originally put the submission to Council, suggested the 

name of Long Lane in honour of Geelong Surgeon Alec Long (deceased) who 

saved his sons life. It is proposed to rename the eastern section of Sommers 

Place, Geelong as Long Lane. 

• Renaming of these roadways was advertised in the Geelong Advertiser 

Newspaper on 4 June 2005. 

• Consultation has been held with all adjoining landowners to the roadways. 

Submissions were received and following further consultation all are now in 

agreeance to the proposed road names. 

Cr Farrell moved, Cr Abley seconded - 

That Council approves the renaming of two sections of Sommers Place, Geelong 

(refer to Appendix 14-1) as follows: 

1) Western section to be renamed to Merrell Lane, Geelong, and 

2) Eastern section to be renamed to Long Lane, Geelong. 

Carried. 

Report 

Background 

Currently there are three adjoining roadways known as Sommers Place, Geelong (refer 

Appendix 14-1).





TO MERRELL LANE AND LONG LANE, GEELONG (CONT’D) 



The roadways are: 

1) A section running parallel to Ryrie Street and Park Street. 

2) A western section running parallel to Swanston Street and intersecting with Ryrie 

Street and Park Street. 

3) An eastern section running parallel to Fitzroy Street, also intersecting with Ryrie 

and Park Street. 

Consequently over time there has been a great deal of confusion in deliveries for 

properties fronting these three roadways. 

A submission was received from a Sommers Place resident requesting Council rename 

these roadways due to the problems that continue to arise. 

Discussion 

In accordance with the Council Street Naming policy and to avoid ongoing confusion 

for property owners, it is proposed to rename the eastern and western sections of 

Sommers Place, Geelong. 

Mr Harry Buskers, who originally put the submission to Council, suggested a name of 

Long Lane in honour of Geelong Surgeon Alec Long (deceased) who saved his sons 

life. It is proposed to rename the eastern section of Sommers Place, Geelong as Long 

Lane. 

With regard to the western section of Sommers Place, Geelong, Council contacted the 

Historical Records Centre to obtain a suitable name. The name Sommers Place was 

originally derived from the marriage between ex Mayor Horace Frank Richardson and 

Edith Harriet Sommers, second daughter of William Sommers and Ann Merrell. In 

keeping with this theme, Historical Records suggested Merrell Lane for the western 

section of Sommers Place, Geelong since this was Edith’s mother’s maiden name. 


Council is responsible for street signage and notification to relevant authorities. 

The costs to Council will be to place street signs at a cost of $82.35 each and to notify 

the relevant authorities by mail. 


All Geographical Place Names Act 1998 and Australian New Zealand Address 

Standards AS/NZS 4819-2003 requirements and Council guidelines have been 

followed and met. 

The suggested namings are not duplicated within the City of Greater Geelong or within 

any adjoining municipality. 

The proposed new namings were advertised in the Geelong Advertiser on 4 June 2005 

and the submissions received have been suitably handled.





TO MERRELL LANE AND LONG LANE, GEELONG (CONT’D) 



Council’s proposal to rename these roadways minimises the risk of emergency 

services not being able to locate properties abutting these roadways. 


The renaming of these roadways will provide assistance in locating properties, 

particularly for emergency and utility services. 


There are no environmental issues arising from this report. 

Communication 

The proposed renaming of these roadways was advertised in the Geelong Advertiser 

newspaper on 4 June 2005. 

Consultation has been held with all adjoining landowners to the roadways. 

Submissions were received and following consultation all are now in agreeance to the 

proposed road names. 

Subject to Council approval and Geographical Place Names acceptance, the relevant 

authorities will be notified of the new street names. 

Conclusion 

The renaming of these roadways will allow both existing properties and future 

development to have an identifiable property address. Confusion for both emergency 

services and visitors to the area will be reduced. 

Since this proposal has met all guidelines and the submissions received have been 

suitably handled, the following renaming is recommended to Council: 

1) The eastern section of Sommers Place, Geelong to be named Long Lane, 

Geelong. 

2) The western section of Sommers Place, Geelong to be named Merrell Lane, 

Geelong.




Appendix 14-1 

This section is to be 

renamed Merrell 

Lane, Geelong. 

This section is 

to be renamed 

Long Lane, 

Geelong.




15. DELEGATION – DECLARATION OF A DOG AS BEING MENACING 

Portfolio: 

Source: 



Governance, Communications & Finance – Cr Farrell 

Sustainable Development – Health & Local Laws 

Stuart Walker 

Subject – Animal Management 

Subject – Dogs 

Summary 

• The Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 allows all Victorian 

municipalities to declare a dog as being menacing when actions by the dog meet 

certain circumstances prescribed in the Act. 

• The owner of a dog/s that has been declared menacing will have to abide by 

certain conditions when the dog is outside the premises of the owner (eg: must be 

muzzled and controlled by means of chain cord or leash). 

• Where such circumstances exist it is desirable to expedite proceedings in the 

interests of the dog owner and the general well being of the community 

• To achieve a system that is fair, but is more expeditious, it is recommended that a 

council resolution made on 24 April 2001 be revoked and an alternative procedure 

be put in place which in no way diminishes the right for an individual to make an 

appeal but streamlines the entire process to reach an earlier conclusion. 

• The new process will still retain appeal rights to the Victorian Civil and 

Administrative Tribunal. 


That Council resolution of 24 April 2001 that reads: 

1) That the Co-ordinator Local Laws and Traffic, or any person acting in that 

position, be delegated to declare a dog, or dogs, as being menacing 

pursuant to Sections 41A, 41B and 41C of the Domestic (Feral & Nuisance) 

Animals Act 1994. 

2) Submission Review Panel be the responsible forum to consider and make a 

recommendation to Council on any submission (either verbal or written) 

which may be received by Council from the owner of the dog(s), or the 

owner’s representative, pursuant to Section 41B of the Domestic (Feral and 

Nuisance) Animals Act 1994, as a result of a proposal to declare a dog(s) as 

menacing. 

Be revoked; 

1) That the Co-ordinator Local Laws, or any person acting in that position 

from time to time, be delegated authority to declare a dog/s as being 

menacing pursuant to Sections 41A, 41B and 41C of the Domestic (Feral 

and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994; 

2) That the Manager – Health and Local Laws, or any person acting in that 

position from time to time, be delegated the authority to consider and make 

a determination on any submission (either written or verbal) which may be 

received as a result of a proposal to declare a dog/s as menacing. 

Carried.





(CONT’D) 

Report 

Background 

Section 41A of the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 provides that 

Council may declare any dog as being a menacing dog if that dog has: 

 

 

rushed at any person; or 

if the dog has been declared a menacing dog by another municipality 

The Act provides that Council may delegate the power to declare a dog as being 

menacing to an authorised officer. 

A court may also declare a dog as being menacing. 

Where a dog has been declared menacing, the following constraints may apply when 

the dog is outside the premises of its owner: 

 

 

the dog is to be muzzled 

the dog is to be restrained by means of chain, cord or leash 

The Act provides that an owner of a dog that Council is proposing to be declared a 

menacing dog has the right to make a verbal or written submission to the proposal. The 

Act does not specify a time frame in which submissions must be received, however a 

period of not less than fourteen (14) days is allowed which is consistent with Section 

223 of the Local Government Act. 

The Act also provides that when a dog has been declared as menacing that 

appropriate notice is to be given to the owner of the dog. 

Discussion 

Council only has a few dogs that have been declared as menacing as a result of a dog 

rushing at a person. 

However, not unlike declaring a dog as being dangerous, it is desirable to re-engineer 

the current process to provide a system that is expeditious, reasonable and fair whilst 

simultaneously providing natural justice to the owner of the dog. 

This report recommends a process change that permits the Manager – Health and 

Local Laws to make a determination on any submission that is received by the owner 

of a dog where it is proposed that that dog be declared as menacing. 

The approach proposed allows for a speedy determination on any submission 

received, which is in keeping with the safety and well being of the general community. 

As the proposed system allows for different staff to make a final assessment on a 

submission the aspects of procedural fairness and natural justice remain in tact. At 

other Councils (eg Whitehorse, Nillumbik) the decision to declare a dog as being 

dangerous and make decisions on subsequent appeals rests solely with the Manager 

of the department. Following the decision on a submission, the next avenue of appeal 

is to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. 


There are no financial implications for Council.





(CONT’D) 



The recommendations put forward are consistent with the Domestic (Feral and 

Nuisance) Animals Act 1994. 


The present system, which can become protracted in reaching a conclusion, results in 

greater time being spent between the original proposal to declare a dog as being 

menacing and any final determination to be made in the event that a submission is 

received. 

The owner of a dog that has been declared as menacing will have certain obligations in 

regard to their dog when it is outside the owner’s premises. It is imperative that should 

it be decided that such conditions are to be imposed that it is done so quickly and fairly 

in the interests of public safety. 


There are no requirements to identify a dog as being declared menacing or identify the 

property at which a menacing dog is kept. 

Therefore, there are no untoward social considerations that need to be considered. 


There are no environmental implications to be considered. 

Communication 

The Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 defines a process of 

communication which must be followed to legitimise any proposals and/or declarations. 

This includes appropriate notification to the owner of a dog that is proposed to be 

declared as a menacing dog. 

Conclusion 

The delegation of powers in this report provides a fair and balanced process in relation 

to any proposal to declare a dog as being menacing. 

The process proposed is consistent with the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals 

Act 1994. The recommendations in this report will in no way impinge on any dog 

owner’s right to make a submission and be heard in support of that submission. This is 

also supportive of the philosophies of procedural fairness and natural justice. 

The recommendations in this report will also allow for speedier determinations of any 

proposal to declare a dog as being menacing which is in the interest of the general 

safety of community members.



SECTION B - REPORTS Page 113 

16. DELEGATION – DECLARATION OF A DOG AS BEING DANGEROUS 

Portfolio: 

Source: 



Governance, Communications & Finance – Cr Farrell 

Sustainable Development – Health & Local Laws 

Stuart Walker 

Subject – Animal Management 

Subject – Dogs 

Summary 

• The Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 provides for dogs to be 

declared dangerous by Council given a certain set of circumstances. 

• Where such circumstances exist, it is desirable to expedite proceedings in the 

interests of community and general public safety. 

• To achieve this it is recommended that a council resolution of 13 January 1999 be 

revoked and a more expeditious system be put in place that in no way diminishes 

the rights of individuals to make submissions on any proposal to have their dog/s 

declared as being dangerous. 

• The new process will still retain appeal rights to the Victorian Civil and 

Administrative Tribunal. 


That Council resolution of 19 January 1999 that reads: 

That: 

1) the Chief Executive Officer and the General Manager Development and 

Strategy each be delegated the authority to declare a dog, or dogs, as being 

dangerous pursuant to Sections 34, 35 36(1) and (2) of the Domestic (Feral 

and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994; 

2) each time a decision is made by the Chief Executive Officer or General 

Manager Development and Strategy to declare a dog as dangerous a 

standard document be completed by the delegate; 

3) the Submission Review Panel be the responsible forum to consider and make 

a recommendation to Council on any submission (either verbal or written) 

which may be received by Council, pursuant to Section 36(3) of (Feral and 

Nuisance) Animals Act 1994, as a result of a dog being declared dangerous. 

be revoked; 

That: 

1) the Manager Health and Local Laws (or any person acting in that position 

from time to time) be delegated the authority to declare a dog, or dogs, as 

being dangerous pursuant to Sections 34, 35, 36 (1) and (2) of the Domestic 

(Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994; 

2) each time a decision is made by the delegate to declare a dog/s as being 

dangerous that a standard format document be completed and signed by the 

delegate;





(CONT’D) 

Resolution (Cont’d) 

3) the General Manager Sustainable Development (or any person acting in that 

position from time to time) be delegated the authority to consider and make a 

determination on any submission (either written or verbal) which may be 

received, pursuant to Section 36(3) of the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) 

Animals Act 1994, as a result of a proposal to declare a dog/s as being 

dangerous. 

Carried. 

Report 

Background 

Section 34 of the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 provides that a 

Council may declare a dog as being dangerous if the dog: 

 

 

 

 

has caused serious injury to a person or animal by biting, attacking, worrying, 

rushing at or chasing that person or animal 

has been trained to attack people or animals for the purpose of guarding either 

persons or property, or is kept as a guard dog for the purpose of guarding nonresidential 

premises 

has been declared dangerous by another municipality 

for any other reason as prescribed 

In terms of injury to a person the injury must be in the nature of broken bones, 

lacerations requiring multiple sutures or cosmetic surgery, or the total or partial loss of 

sensation or function in a part of the body. In terms of another animal the injury inflicted 

must be serious. 

Section 35 of the Act provides the procedure for declaring a dog as being dangerous 

including a voluntary application from the owner or by Council initiated action. If the 

Council proposes to declare a dog as being dangerous appropriate notice of the 

proposal must be given to the owner of the dog. 

Pursuant to the Act the owner of the dog which the council is proposing being declared 

as a dangerous dog has the right to make either a verbal or written submission. The 

Act does not specify a time frame for receipt of submissions, but generally a minimum 

of fourteen (14) days is allowed which is consistent with Section 223 of the Local 

Government Act 1989. 

Section 36 of the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 provides for the 

necessary notification to be given to the owner once a dog has been declared as being 

dangerous. Such notice must be forwarded by registered mail. 

Discussion 

Council, for its size and dog population, has very few dogs that are declared as being 

dangerous. The majority of dogs that are declared dangerous are in fact guard dogs 

that are guarding non-residential premises. These dogs are declared dangerous under 

the express provisions of the Act and are not subject to appeal.





(CONT’D) 



It is desirable to put into place an appeal mechanism which is based on fairness but 

which at the same time is neither cumbersome nor lengthy from its commencement to 

its conclusion. The current system involves the Submission Review Panel hearing any 

submissions, following which a report and recommendation is placed before council. 

This report recommends a process change that allows the Manager-Health and Local 

Laws to initiate the proposal to declare a dog as being dangerous and, subsequently, 

the General Manager Sustainable Development to consider and make a determination 

on any appeal that may be forthcoming on that proposal. This approach allows a 

speedy resolution on proposals/submissions which is in the interest of community 

safety and well being. The process of escalation also provides for different views to be 

espoused and considered as each matter may progress. This is in keeping with due 

process and the view of natural justice. At other Councils (eg Whitehorse, Nillumbik) 

the decision to declare a dog as being dangerous and make decisions on subsequent 

appeals rests solely with the Manager of the department. Following the decision on a 

submission, the next avenue of appeal is to the Victorian Civil and Administrative 

Tribunal. 


There are no financial implications for Council 


The recommendations put forward are consistent with the Domestic (Feral and 

Nuisance) Animals Act. 


The current system, which is somewhat protracted, means that are greater time is 

spent between the original proposal to declare a dog as being dangerous and any 

decision that needs to be made as a result of submission being heard and ultimately 

considered. 

As the owner of a dog that has been declared dangerous has certain obligations under 

the Act in terms of housing of he animal, and muzzling of the dog when outside the 

premises of the owner, it is in the best interest of the community that decisions are 

made quickly and without diminishing or form of fairness or reasonableness. 


The decision to declare a dog as being dangerous places certain obligations on the 

dog owner, including the dog being required to wear a specific type of collar and the 

owner’s property clearly displaying a sign at each entrance to the property that 

indicates that a dangerous dog resides at the property.





(CONT’D) 



There are no environmental implications. 

Communication 

The Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 provides a process for the 

declaration of a dog as being dangerous which includes written notification of the 

proposal and the right to make an appeal; and subsequently written communication 

that a dog has been declared dangerous (by registered post). 

Council is obliged to follow due process in this regard. 

Conclusion 

The delegation of powers in this report provides a fair and balanced process in relation 

to the proposal to declare a dog as being dangerous. 

The process proposed is not inconsistent with the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) 

Animals Act 1994 nor does it impinge on any dog owner’s right to a fair and equitable 

system premised on due process and natural justice. 

The process proposed also allows for a speedier resolution of matters to the benefit of 

the broader community and the owner of the dog/s.




17. CONSIDERATION OF TENDER SUBMISSIONS TENDER NO. T05130 

CONSULTANT SERVICES ARMSTRONG CREEK URBAN GROWTH PLAN 

Portfolio: 

Source: 




Urban Planning - Strategic Planning 

Kate Sullivan 

Armstrong Creek UGP 

Summary 

• Council has sought tenders from consultants experienced in the development of 

planning studies to undertake the preparation of an Urban Growth Plan for the 

Armstrong Creek Mount Duneed urban growth area. 

• The designation of Armstrong Creek - Mount Duneed as a growth corridor 

originated from planning work undertaken in the 1980’s by the Geelong Regional 

Commission including the Geelong Region Development Strategy 1988. This was 

followed in 1994 by the Mount Duneed Armstrong Creek Urban Development 

Study. The area’s status as Geelong’s future urban growth corridor was further 

confirmed in the City’s Urban Growth Strategy 1996 and is currently supported by 

a range of current Council documents including the Municipal Strategic Statement. 

• The Study Area covers approximately 4300 hectares of land. According to the 

Mount Duneed Armstrong Creek Urban Development Study 1994, due to a 

number of natural and man made constraints including flood prone areas, it is 

considered that there is potentially 2300 hectares of developable land which could 

accommodate more than 70,000 people. 

• The focus of the Urban Growth Plan is likely to be within the area north of 

Armstrong Creek, which is traditionally considered as the southern urban growth 

boundary for Geelong. However, future direction and policy is required for the 

entire Study Area and the suitability of Armstrong Creek as the growth boundary is 

to be reviewed as part of the urban growth planning process. The Urban Growth 

Plan will provide a development framework for this area and will provide overall 

direction on infrastructure, built form and the type and location of land uses in the 

area. Sustainability and integration are key themes to be addressed in the 

planning and development of the Armstrong Creek area. 

• The preparation and approval of the Urban Growth Plan by the successful 

Consultant team is estimated to take 12 to 18 months to complete. This will be 

followed by a Planning Scheme Amendment process that is estimated to take up 

to one year. 

• Key milestones include: preparation of a detailed Background Report, Vision and 

Public Launch, submission of a Draft Urban Growth Plan, Public Display, 

completion of a Final Urban Growth Plan. This will be followed by a Planning 

Scheme Amendment. 

• Seven tender submissions were received to undertake the work associated with 

this consultancy. 

• Following a detailed evaluation of each of the tenders that were received and 

interviews with three shortlisted tenderers it is considered that the tender 

submission from David Lock Associates Pty Ltd is preferred.






(CONT’D) 

Cr Saunderson moved, Cr Mitchell seconded - 

That Council resolve to: 

1) accept the tender from David Lock Associates Pty Ltd for the Provision of 

Consultant Services associated with the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan 

for the fixed lump sum fee of $431,184 exclusive of GST; 

2) sign and seal the contract documents. 

Carried. 

Report 

Background 

Tenders for the provision of consultant services associated with the preparation of the 

Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan were invited via public advertisement in the 

Geelong Advertiser, The Age and The Australian on Saturday 9 July 2005. 

At the close of submissions on Friday 5 August 2005 the following tender submissions 

were received: 

Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd $ 420,000 

Clifton Coney Group Pty Ltd $ 450,000 

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd $ 520,593 

David Lock Associates Pty Ltd $ 545,000 

Hassell Pty Ltd $ 664,700 

GHD Pty Ltd $1,156,597 

WBCM Pty Ltd 

Range of Price 

Each of the tenders has been submitted exclusive of GST. 

David Lock Associates Pty Ltd also submitted an alternative tender for an amount of 

$497,000. 

The fee proposal from WBCM has been submitted on the basis of a range of price from 

$368,750 - $474,125. This fee proposal is considered non-conforming as no detail has 

been provided on the reasons for the range of price. 

Discussion 

The tender submissions associated with the provision of these consultant services 

were evaluated by a technical working group and an overall tender evaluation panel. 

The technical working group consisted of Council staff from the following areas: 

• Built Environment 

• Economic and Employment 

• Community and Social 

• Cultural Heritage 

• Natural Environment 

• Open Space and Recreation 

• Movement and Access 

• Physical Infrastructure 

• Flooding and Drainage






(CONT’D) 



The technical working group reported their evaluation findings to the overall evaluation 

panel. 

The overall evaluation panel comprised the following members: 

Kate Sullivan Director Urban Planning 

Joanne Van Slageren Manager City Development 

Bernie Cotter Manager Environment 

David Hannah Manager Engineering Services 

Paul Jamieson Manager Community Development 

Ricky Bell 

Acting Manager Open Space and Recreation 

Kim McGough Group Manager Planning Dept. Sustainability & Environment 

Aaron Garrett Co-ordinator Strategic Planning 

Ian Clifton 

Co-ordinator Contracts and Purchasing 

The overall evaluation panel were supported by the internal project managers for this 

project – Peter Smith and Damien Drew. 

The submissions generally met all of the requirements set down in the tender 

documents. 

Tenders were assessed using the weighted attribute method based on the tenderer’s 

performance in the following areas: 

Methodology and Task Appreciation 20% 

Relevant Experience 20% 

General Track Record 20% 

Technical Skill and Resource 20% 

Management Skills 10% 

Time Performance 10% 

100% 

Following initial assessment of the tenders each of the companies achieved the results 

as follows: 

David Lock Associates Pty Ltd 70.9% 

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd 69.4% 

Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd 65.6% 

GHD Pty Ltd 59.0% 

Hassell Pty Ltd 53.5% 

WBCM Pty Ltd 52.6% 

Clifton Coney Group Pty Ltd 51.4% 

Following a review of the submissions received and a review of the scope of the project 

it was considered that the three highest ranked tenders of David Lock Associates, 

Maunsell Australia and Ratio Consultants should be shortlisted and invited to attend for 

interview and further detailed evaluation. 

Following presentations by the three shortlisted tenderers it was considered that the 

tender from David Lock Associates was preferred.






(CONT’D) 



David Lock Associates are a Melbourne based planning consultancy with significant 

relevant experience in urban and strategic planning work. They have assembled a 

very competent team to undertake the development of this Urban Growth Plan. David 

Lock Associates have capably demonstrated an understanding of the work to be 

undertaken within this project. They have a clear understanding of the issues and 

challenges faced and have proposed a methodology which meets with the expectations 

of the evaluation panel. David Lock Associates clearly articulate the tasks, 

responsibilities and outputs required for each component of the Urban Growth Plan. 

The technical skills of the consultants to be involved with the development of the Urban 

Growth Plan are consistent with the work required on a project of this nature. David 

Lock Associates have proposed a project timeline which is within the requirements of 

the Consultant Brief. Based on discussions the timeline shows completion of a draft 

Urban Growth Plan by December 2006 

In view of the available budget a review of the submission by David Lock Associates 

and a review of the scope of work to be undertaken has occurred. Further discussions 

have been held with David Lock Associates with a view to achieving a fee proposal that 

meets the requirements of the budget. A revised fee proposal has been submitted 

based on the alternative proposal mentioned above. This proposal changes the 

emphasis of the scope in some areas but does not affect the overall outcomes 

associated with the development of the Plan. The revised fee proposal from David 

Lock Associates is $431,184. 

Reference checks have been undertaken with past and current David Lock Associates 

clients and these have proven to be satisfactory. 

The submissions based on lower fee proposals (viz., those of Ratio Consultants, Clifton 

Coney Group and WBCM) have not been able to fully satisfy the evaluation panel of 

their capability to undertake this work and they have consequently not been 

recommended. 


The funding required for this consultancy is $450,000 over 3 years. This includes a 

contingency on top of the $431,184 in consultants fees. This will be drawn from the 

allocation of $235,000 in the 2005-2006 City Development Recurrent Budget and a 

carry over of $171,000 from the 2004 - 2005 financial year. A further $44,000 will be 

required to conclude the project in 2006-2007. These additional funds will be 

requested as part of the 2006-2007 budget and State Government funding will also be 

sought from DSE. 


There are no policy, legal or statutory implications associated with the acceptance of 

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

met.






(CONT’D) 



All risks associated with undertaking this project have been incorporated into the 

contract documentation and become the responsibility of the successful tenderer upon 

award of contract. 


There are no social considerations directly associated with the acceptance of this 

tender however there will be significant social considerations resulting from the 

development of work through the course of this consultancy. 


There are no environmental implications directly associated with the acceptance of this 

tender however there will be significant environmental considerations resulting from the 

development of work through the course of this consultancy. 

Communication 

There are no communications issues directly associated with the acceptance of this 

tender however there will be significant communication considerations resulting from 

the development of work through the course of this consultancy. 

Conclusion 

Following a very detailed evaluation of the tenders received for this project it is 

considered that the tender submitted by David Lock Associates is preferred. 

Acceptance of the tender from David Lock Associates is therefore recommended.




18. CONSIDERATION OF TENDERS FOR TENDER NO. T05131: CLEANING OF 

AQUATIC CENTRES 

Portfolio: 

Source: 



Sport and Recreation - Cr Mitchell 

Community and Recreation - Swim, Sport and Leisure 


CPU - T05131 

Summary 

• The works associated with this tender include the day to day cleaning of Council’s 

three aquatic centres Leisurelink, Splashdown and Waterworld 

• A total of ten tender submissions were received 

• A full evaluation of the tender submissions received has been undertaken by an 

evaluation panel comprising Council Officers as outlined in the body of this report 

• Following evaluation, it is considered that the tender submission provided by 

Wayne Cleaning Systems Pty Ltd is preferred 

Cr Saunderson moved, Cr Mitchell seconded - 

That Council resolves to: 

1) accept the tender submission for Cleaning of Council’s Aquatic Centres from 

Wayne Cleaning Systems Pty Ltd for the fixed annual lump sum fee of 

$142,158 (per annum (GST excl). 

2) sign and seal the contract documents. 

Carried. 

Report 

Background 

Tenders for the provision of cleaning services associated with Leisurelink, Splashdown 

and Waterworld Aquatic Centres were invited through public advertisement in The Age 

and Geelong Advertiser on Saturday, 2 July 2005. 

At the close of submissions on Friday, 22 July 2005 the following tender submissions 

were received: 

Clean and Secure Pty Ltd $119,030 

Elynwood Pty Ltd $135,596 

Ultimate Hygiene Pty Ltd $135,620 

Wayne Cleaning Systems Pty Ltd $142,158 

The Pickwick Group (Vic) Pty Ltd $142,414 

Centre Point Cleaning Pty Ltd $158,150 

Clearwater Business Services $176,500 

Hot – Pol Cleaning Services Pty Ltd $183,840 

BBE Services Pty Ltd $232,008 

ICM Property Services Pty Ltd $273,146





AQUATIC CENTRES (CONT’D) 


Discussion 

An evaluation panel comprising the following Council Officers has undertaken a full and 

comprehensive analysis of each of the tender submissions received based on the 

methodologies proposed, relevant experience, general track record and technical 

capacity of the companies providing a submission. The evaluation panel members 

included: 

David Smith 

Brian Happ 

Ron Hill 

Co-ordinator - Swim, Sport and Leisure 

Recreation Assets Coordinator - Swim, Sport and Leisure 

Contracts Officer - Contracts and Purchasing 

Tenders were assessed by the above evaluation panel using the weighted attributes 

method based on the tenderer’s performance in the following areas: 

Service Delivery 35% 

Quality 10% 

Occupational Health and Safety 15% 

Customer Service 10% 

Price 30% 

Total 100% 

Following assessment of each submission scores for each of the tenderers is as 

follows: 

Wayne Cleaning Systems Pty Ltd 80.5 

The Pickwick Group (Vic) Pty Ltd 78.5 

Clearwater Business Services 73 

ICM Property Services Pty Ltd 72.5 

Centre Point Cleaning Pty Ltd 71 

Hot – Pol Cleaning Services Pty Ltd 68.5 

BBE Services Pty Ltd 66 

Clean and Secure Pty Ltd 61 

Elynwood Pty Ltd 60.5 

Ultimate Hygiene Pty Ltd 60.5 

Following initial evaluation of the tenders received, it was considered that the 

submissions from The Pickwick Group and Waynes Cleaning Systems demonstrated 

an excellent understanding of the service and possessed very good relevant 

experience. Several other submissions also were able to demonstrate these attributes, 

however their fee submissions precluded them from further consideration given the 

available budget. The Pickwick Group and Waynes Cleaning Systems were 

subsequently invited to present to the evaluation panel. Elynwood currently clean the 

aquatic centres, however their performance has not been satisfactory. Additionally they 

do not wish to continue with the work at the current financial arrangement due to 

increased labour costs.








At the conclusion of the interviews, it was considered that the tender submission 

provided by Wayne Cleaning Systems provided Council with a best value outcome. 

Wayne Cleaning Systems possess significant relevant experience in the type of work 

required by the specification. They have demonstrated a thorough appreciation of the 

requirements of the service and have proposed methodologies that will provide Council 

with the required outcomes. 

Even though three tenderers submitted lower fee proposals than Wayne Cleaning 

Systems, they were unable to demonstrate that they had the same understanding of 

the service. This subsequently exposed some elements of the service to risk that may 

adversely affect the quality of the appearance of the aquatic centres. The evaluation 

panel considered the service could not be exposed to risks of this nature. The lowest 

tenderer was also found to not be a registered business. 

As the fee proposal from Wayne Cleaning Systems is over the available budget, it has 

been agreed with the companies representatives to make every effort to reduce costs 

via efficiency gains (such as reduced work on the weekends) over the course of the 

contract. 


Funding for the provision of these services will be drawn from an annual allocation of 

$120,000 in the Aquatics Recurrent Budget. 

This budget is less than the preferred tender due to the current cleaning contractor 

(Elynwood) not wishing to continue with the works due to increased labour costs. This 

occurred only after budgets for 05/06 were submitted. 


There are no policy, legal or statutory implications associated with the award of this 

tender. All tender requirements of the Local Government Act have been complied with. 


All risks associated with the award of this tender are covered by the contract 

documentation and as such become the responsibility of the successful tenderer. 


There are no social considerations associated with the award of this tender. 


There are no environmental implications associated with the award of this tender.







Communication 

There are no communications issues associated with the award of this tender. 

Conclusion 

Following evaluation of tenders received for this service it is considered that the 

submission of Wayne Cleaning Systems Pty Ltd is preferred and is therefore 

recommended.




19. APPOINTMENT OF EXTERNAL REPRESENTATIVES ON THE AUDIT 

COMMITTEE 

Portfolio: 

Governance, Communications & Finance, Cr Farrell 

Source: 

Risk Assessment and Audit 

Chief Executive Officer: Kay Rundle 

Index Reference: Audit CG - Internal 

Summary 

• The Audit Advisory Committee allows for up to two external members to be 

appointed by Council to the Committee. 

• The appointment of external representatives to the Audit Advisory Committee 

provides the Committee with commercial expertise from a private sector 

perspective. Currently Mr Michael Dowling and Mr Peter O’Callaghan fill these 

positions. 

• Both external representatives term has expired. Mr Dowling has extensive 

commercial experience. He is a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. 

Mr Dowling is the principal of Dowling Corporate Consulting which specialises in a 

variety of corporate affairs and commercial operations. Mr Dowling’s knowledge 

and experience is evident by the contribution that he provides at meetings. 

• Mr Peter O’Callaghan has expertise in finance, audit and risk management. Mr 

O’Callaghan is the principal of Wyndarra Consulting and specialises in risk 

management and audit. Mr O’Callaghan has demonstrated his knowledge and 

experience as an active contributor in respect of all items considered by the 

Committee. 

• Both external representatives have been on the Committee for 5 to 6 years. They 

have worked very effectively with past Mayors (Chairpersons) in ensuring the 

effective operation of the Committee. This Committee received high praise from 

the Victorian Auditor-General who attended a Committee meeting on 19 November 

2002. Mr Cameron commended Council staff and Committee on the 

comprehensive and disciplined governance processes that had been implemented. 

• The Audit Advisory Committee Terms of Reference (TOR) seek external 

independent persons with senior business or financial management and reporting 

expertise. They need to be conversant with statutory and other reporting 

requirements. The TOR enable the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to source 

potential members, by public advertisement bearing in mind the skills referred 

above. 

• In accordance with the Best Practice Guidelines – Local Government Entity Audit 

Committee, it is proposed that Council increase its external representation on the 

Audit Advisory Committee from two to three. It is proposed that Council seek 

expression of interest for this position. 

• The Audit Advisory Committee terms of reference (Appendix 19-1) have been 

amended to allow for up to six members to be appointed to the Committee. The 

composition of the membership being up to three Councillors and up to three 

external representatives. An increase in external membership will cost an 

additional $5750 per annum.





COMMITTEE (CONT’D) 

Summary (Cont’d) 

• The last remuneration increase to members was March 2002. Currently they 

receive $5,500 for attendance and preparation which equates approximately 44 

hours/$125 per hour. Given the demands placed on the members combined with 

Council’s desire to attract suitably qualified persons to the Committee it is 

recommended that a modest increase to $5,750 per annum be approved. 


That Council approves: 

1) the offer of re-appointment of Mr Dowling and Mr O’Callaghan to the Audit 

Advisory Committee for a further three year term terminating on 1 September 

2008. 

2) the appointment of a third external member to the Audit Advisory Committee. 

Council will publicly seek expressions of interest for the position and 

applicants will be assessed against the selection criteria outlined in the Audit 

Advisory Committee - Terms of Reference (Appendix 19-1). The term will be 

three years terminating on 30 November 2008. 

3) an increase in the remuneration payable to the external members from $5,500 

to $5,750 per annum. 

4) Approves the change to the Audit Advisory Committee Terms of Reference 

(Appendix 19-1) to allow for up to six members on the Committee, comprising 

up to three Councillors and up to three external representatives. 

Carried. 

Report 

Background 

The Audit Advisory Committee’s – Terms of Reference (TOR) currently allows for up to 

two external members to be appointed by Council to the Committee. 

In accordance with the Best Practice Guidelines – Local Government Entity Audit 

Committee, it is proposed that Council increase its external representation on the Audit 

Advisory Committee from two to three. It is proposed that Council seek expression of 

interest for this position via public advertisement. 

The Audit Advisory Committee terms of reference attached have been amended to 

allow for up to six members to be appointed to the Committee. The composition of the 

Committee membership now allow for up to three Councillors and up to three external 

representatives. An increase in external membership will cost an additional by $5750 

per annum. 

The Committee TOR seek external independent persons with senior business or 

financial management and reporting expertise. These prospective persons need to be 

conversant with statutory and other reporting requirements. Council is also seeking 

persons with good strategic and analytical skills. The TOR enable the Mayor and Chief 

Executive Officer to source potential members, by public advertisement.







Discussion 

Both current external member terms expired on 31 March 2005. Mr Dowling has 

extensive commercial experience. He is a fellow of the Institute of Chartered 

Accountants. Mr Dowling is the principal of Dowling Corporate Consulting, which 

specialises in a variety of corporate affairs and commercial operations. Mr Dowling’s 

expertise is evident at Committee meetings by his contribution and assessment of 

reports tabled for consideration. Outside the meetings he regularly converses with the 

Manager, Risk Assessment and Audit to keep abreast of issues confronting Council. 

His significant Board appointments current and previous are as follows. He has also 

held numerous honorary positions in the capacity as board member or secretary. 

SIGNIFICANT BOARD APPOINTMENTS: 

Former: 

• Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the Audit Committee, Avalon Airport Geelong 

• Limited and a subsidiary company. (A Commonwealth Government Business 

Enterprise). 

• Director, Secretary and Public Officer in several companies in the ASP Pacific 

• Holdings Pty Ltd Group. (International ship owners and ship managers.) 

• Deputy Chairman Victorian Channels Authority (1996 – 2004) 

Current: 

• Chairman, Victorian Regional Channels Authority 

• Chairman, GMHBA Limited (A Geelong based health insurance fund.) 

• Chairman, Shore Securities Limited. 

• Director, Southern Finance Limited 

• Director, Broderick Road Investments Pty Ltd 

Mr O’Callaghan is an expert in finance, audit and risk management. Mr O’Callaghan is 

the principal of Wyndarra Consulting. Mr O’Callaghan is an industry specialist in risk 

management. Mr O'Callaghan has demonstrated his knowledge and experience at 

Committee meetings. Mr O’Callaghan is very forthright member of the Committee who 

continually offers valuable advice and seeks clarification of Council’s governance 

processes. Similar to Mr Dowling, Mr O’Callaghan regularly discusses matters with the 

Manager, Risk Assessment and Audit. His significant Board appointments current and 

previous are as follows. In addition undertakes numerous consultancies across both 

the private and public sector. 

Current 

Australian Institute of Management (AIM) 

CSIRO- Governance and Policy services 

Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development (DIIRD)- Risk 

management integration with business planning 

Moreland Community Health Services- Risk management consulting and business 

assurance services








National Research Council, Canada- Risk Management and Governance consulting 

Prince Henrys Institute of medical Research- Ongoing risk management 

consulting and business assurance services. Board Audit Committee attendance & 

presentation 

Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre- Ongoing risk management and business 

assurance services Board Audit Committee attendance & presentation 

Southern Health-Ongoing risk management contract since 1997; Implementation of 

risk management program; internal audit reviews and services; Board Audit Committee 

attendance & presentation: Risk management software implementation. 

The operation of this Committee received high praise from the Victorian Auditor- 

General who attended a meeting on 19 November 2002. Mr Cameron commended 

Council staff and Committee on the comprehensive and disciplined governance 

processes that had been implemented. 

Since the last Council report of March 2002 the external representatives have had no 

increase in remuneration. Current remuneration is $5,500 per annum for 

approximately 44 hours of preparation and attendance at meetings. Note this does not 

take into consideration any discussions or meetings with the Manager, Risk 

Assessment and Audit. It is proposed that a modest increase of $250 per annum be 

approved by Council. This would take annual remuneration from $5,500 to $5,750. 


Increase in external member remuneration from $5,500 to $5,750 per annum. 


This report is consistent with the requirements of the Audit Advisory Committee terms 

of reference. 


The appointment of suitably qualified external members assists Council in discharging 

its governance responsibilities to the various stakeholders. 


Nil 


Nil



SECTION B - REPORTS Page 130 




Communication 

Council will publicly seek expressions of interest for the Audit Advisory Committee 

position. The advertisement will outline the selection criteria that Council will assess 

applicants against. 

Conclusion 

Mr Dowling and Mr O’Callaghan have demonstrated their value to the Committee in 

overseeing governance of Council’s operations. It is recommended that we offer 

reappointment to the existing members. Further it is recommended that Council 

approve the appointment of a third external member to the Committee. This 

appointment will be sourced by public advertisement. The proposed increase in 

remuneration is modest, given the last increase was March 2002. This level of 

remuneration ensures that Council continues to attract professionals with appropriate 

knowledge and experience.

COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE 

Document No: CTR550.1 

Approval Date: 28 January 2003 

Audit Advisory Committee Approved By: Council 

Review Date: 13 September 

2005 

Responsible Officer: 

Manager, Risk Assessment and Audit Version No: 01 

Authorising Officer: Chief Executive Officer 

1. SUMMARY 

An Audit Advisory Committee is a sub-committee of Council and as such it 

assists members of Council to discharge Council’s responsibilities in the areas of 

finance, governance, risk management, internal controls and compliance. 

Members of Council and auditors, both external and internal, therefore, have a 

vested interest in the effectiveness of its Audit Advisory Committee, as it can help 

them to meet their legal and professional responsibilities. 

The role of a properly constituted Audit Advisory Committee is strengthened if all 

relevant participants have a clear understanding of the committee’s objectives. 

Disclosure of the existence and role of the committee in Council’s financial 

reports will also enhance the credibility of those reports. 

2. OBJECTIVES 

2.1. Audit Advisory Committee Charter 

The Audit Advisory Committee is an independent Advisory Committee of 

Council. The primary objective of the Audit Advisory Committee is to assist 

Council in the effective conduct of its responsibilities for financial 

reporting, management of risk, maintaining a reliable system of internal 

controls and facilitating the organisation’s ethical development. 

The Audit Advisory Committee is established to assist the co-ordination of 

relevant activities of management, the internal audit function and the 

external auditor to facilitate achieving overall organisational objectives in 

an efficient and effective manner.

3. DEFINITIONS 

As part of Council’s governance obligations to its community, Council has 

constituted the Audit Advisory Committee to: 

• Enhance the credibility and objectivity of internal and external financial 

reporting; 

• Assist the Council in its management of financial and other risks and 

the protection of Council assets; 

• Ensure compliance with laws and regulations as well as use of best 

practice guidelines; 

• Provide an effective internal audit function; 

• Provide an effective means of communication between the external 

auditor, internal audit, management and the Council. 

4. TERMS OF REFERENCE 

4.1. Establishment of the Audit Advisory Committee 

The Audit Advisory Committee is a formally appointed sub-committee of the 

Council and is responsible to that body. The Audit Advisory Committee does 

not have executive powers or authority to implement actions in areas over 

which management has responsibility and does not have any delegated 

financial responsibility. 

The Committee’s role is to report to Council and provide appropriate advice 

and recommendations on matters relevant to its Charter to assist Council in 

its decision making in relation to the discharge of its responsibilities. 

4.2. Membership 

4.2.1. The Audit Advisory Committee will comprise up to six members, 

being, three Councillors and three external independent persons. All 

members shall have full voting rights. 

4.2.2. External independent persons will have senior business or financial 

management/reporting knowledge and experience, and be conversant 

with financial and other reporting requirements. The Mayor and Chief 

Executive Officer will source potential members, by public 

advertisement and will take into account the experience of the 

candidate and their likely ability to apply appropriate analytical and 

strategic management skills. Recommendation(s) for appointment 

and termination will be put to Council for approval. 

4.2.3. The terms of the appointment will be for a minimum of three years 

and should be arranged to ensure an orderly rotation and continuity of 

membership despite changes to Council’s elected representatives.

4.2.4. If the Council proposes to remove a member of the Committee, it 

must give written notice to the member of its intention to do so and 

provide that member with the opportunity to be heard at a Council 

meeting that is open to the public, if that member so requests. 

4.2.5. Remuneration will be paid to each independent member on an annual 

fee basis. The CEO and Mayor will determine variation to external 

member fees. 

4.2.6. Either the Mayor of the day or one of the external independent 

persons can chair the Committee. In the absence of the appointed 

Chairperson from a meeting, the meeting will appoint an acting 

Chairperson from the external members present. 

4.2.7. A quorum shall be three members. 

4.2.8. The Chief Executive Officer and internal auditor should attend all 

meetings, except when the Committee chooses to meet in camera. 

Other members of Council may attend meetings as an observer only. 

Council staff may be invited to attend at the discretion of the CEO or 

Committee to advise and provide information when required. 

4.2.9. Representatives of the external auditor should be invited to attend at 

the discretion of the Committee but must attend meetings considering 

the draft annual financial report and results of the external audit. 

4.2.10. The CEO will provide secretarial and administrative support to the 

Committee. 

4.3. Meetings 

4.3.1. The Committee shall meet at least quarterly. 

4.3.2. A schedule of meetings will be developed and agreed to by the 

members. As an indicative guide, meetings would be arranged to 

coincide with relevant Council reporting deadlines, for example in 

June to coincide with the approval of corporate plans, annual plans 

and budgets and in August to coincide with the finalisation of the 

financial statements and the draft annual report to the Minister. 

Additional meetings shall be convened at the discretion of the 

Chairperson or at the written request of any member of the 

Committee, internal or external auditor. 

4.4. Reporting 

4.4.1. The Audit Advisory Committee shall after every meeting forward a 

copy of the confidential minutes of that meeting to the next ordinary 

meeting of the Council, including an Audit Summary Report explaining 

any specific recommendations and key outcomes.

4.5. Duties and Responsibilities 

The following are the duties and responsibilities of the Audit Advisory 

Committee in pursuing its Charter: 

4.5.1. To review the scope of the internal audit plan and the effectiveness of 

the function. This review should consider whether, over a period of 

years, the internal audit plan systematically addresses: 

• Internal controls over significant areas of risk, including nonfinancial 

management control systems; 

• Internal controls over revenue, expenditure, assets and liability 

processes; 

• The efficiency, effectiveness and economy of significant Council 

programs; and 

• Compliance with regulations, policies, best practice guidelines, 

instructions and contractual arrangements. 

4.5.2. Review the appropriateness of special internal audit assignments 

undertaken by internal audit at the request of Council or Chief 

Executive Officer. 

4.5.3. Review the level of resources allocated to internal audit process and 

the scope of its authority. 

4.5.4. Facilitate liaison between the internal and external auditor to promote 

compatibility, to the extent appropriate, between their audit programs. 

4.5.5. Review, critically analyse and follow up any internal or external audit 

report that raises significant issues relating to risk management, 

internal control, financial reporting and other accountability or 

governance issues, and any other matters relevant under the 

Committee’s terms of reference. Review management’s response to, 

and actions taken as a result of, the issues raised. 

4.5.6. Monitor the risk exposure of Council by determining if management 

has appropriate risk management processes and adequate 

management information systems in place. 

4.5.7. Monitor ethical standards and related party transactions by 

determining whether the systems of control are adequate.

4.5.8. Review Council’s draft annual financial report, focusing on: 

• Accounting policies and practices; 

• Changes to accounting policies and practices; 

• The process used in making significant accounting estimates; 

• Significant adjustments to the financial report (if any) arising from 

the audit process; 

• Compliance with accounting standards and other reporting 

requirements; 

• Significant variances from prior years. 

4.5.9. Recommend adoption of the annual financial report to Council. 

Review any significant changes that may arise subsequent to any 

such recommendation prior to the signing of the financial report. 

4.5.10. Discuss with the external auditor the scope of the audit and the 

planning of the audit. 

4.5.11. Discuss with the external auditor issues arising from the audit, 

including any management letter issued by the auditor and the 

resolution of such matters. 

4.5.12. Review the annual performance statement and recommend its 

adoption by Council. 

4.5.13. Review issues in relation to financial reporting by Council business 

units and comparative performance indicators. 

4.5.14. Identify and refer specific projects or investigations deemed 

necessary to the Chief Executive Officer, the internal auditor and the 

Council if appropriate. Oversee any subsequent investigation, 

including investigations of any suspected cases of fraud within the 

organisation. 

4.5.15. Monitor the progress of any major lawsuits facing the Council. 

4.5.16. Address issues brought to the attention of the Committee, including 

responding to requests from Council for advice that is within the 

parameters of the Committee’s terms of reference. 

4.5.17. Report to Council after each meeting, in the form of minutes and Audit 

Advisory Summary Report. 

4.5.18. Seek information or obtain expert advice on matters of concern within 

the scope of its responsibilities, on approval from the Chief Executive 

Officer and authorisation from the Council.

4.6 Pecuniary or Conflict of Interest 

4.6.1 In accordance with Council’s pecuniary interests policy, if a Committee 

Member has a Pecuniary or Conflict of Interest in any matter which is to 

be considered at a meeting of the Audit Advisory Committee then that 

person must: 

4.6.1.1 If he or she intends to be present at the meeting, disclose the 

nature of the interest immediately before the consideration or 

discussion ; or 

4.6.1.2 If he or she does not intend to be present at the meeting, 

disclose the nature of the interest to the Chief Executive or 

Chairperson of the Audit Advisory Committee at any time before 

the meeting is held. 

4.6.1.3 While any vote or discussion is taken on the subject matter the 

Member must: 

4.6.1.3.1 Leave the room and notify the Chairperson that he or she is 

doing so; and 

4.6.1.3.2 Remain outside the room and any gallery or other area in 

view or hearing of the room. 

4.6.1.4 The Chairperson of the Audit Advisory Committee must record 

the declaration and the nature of the interest in the minutes of 

the meeting. 

5. QUALITY RECORDS 

Quality Records shall be retained for at least the period shown below. 

Record 

Retention/Disposal 

Responsibility 

Retention 

Period 

Location 

6. ATTACHMENTS 

• Internal Audit Charter – FRM550.1




20. AUDIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY REPORT 

Portfolio: 

Governance, Communications & Finance, Cr J Farrell 

Source: 

Risk Assessment and Audit 

Chief Executive Officer: Kay Rundle 

Index Reference: Audit CG - Internal 


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

report be considered at the conclusion of all other business, at which time the 

meeting be closed to members of the public. 

Carried.




21. CIVIC ACCOMMODATION 

Portfolio: 

Source: 



Governance, Communication & Finance - Cr Farrell 

Corporate Services - Corporate Property 

Peter Gould 

Subject Property/Accommodation 


That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (g) and (h) of the Local Government Act 

1989, this report be considered at the conclusion of all other business, at which 

time the meeting be closed to members of the public. 

Carried.




22. HAYMARKET CAR PARK - FEASIBILITY STUDY (CONFIDENTIAL) 

Portfolio: 

Source: 



Economic Development – Cr Abley 

Major Projects 

Stephen Wright 

Subject – Parking 

Property – 140 Myers Street 


That in accordance with Section 89 (2)(e) and (g) of the Local Government Act 

1989, this legal matter relative to a Council property be considered at the 

conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members 

of the public. 

Carried.



SECTION C – COMMON SEAL REGISTER Page 134 

COMMON SEAL REGISTER 

Cr Abley moved, Cr Harwood seconded - 

The following documents are required to be signed and sealed by Council and 

are hereby presented accordingly. 

Carried. 

1. SECTION 173 AGREEMENT BETWEEN GREATER GEELONG CITY 

COUNCIL AND TRAINOS & MARY ILIOPOULOS: 1485-1575 

GEELONG/BALLAN ROAD, ANAKIE 

Portfolio: 


Source: 

City Development – Urban Development 

Director Urban Planning: Kate Sullivan 

Index Reference: Subject: Council Meetings – 13/9/2005 

Customer: Trainos & Mary Iliopoulos 

Property: 1485-1575 Geelong/Ballan Road, Anakie 

Application: 386/2004 

Officers’ Comments 

This Agreement pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, is 

to allow the use and development of a detached dwelling on the abovementioned site 

and the development of the site with an intensive animal husbandry facility. 

The Agreement was required by Condition 2 of Planning Permit No. 386/2004 issued 

on 15 February 2005. 

The application was for the construction of a detached dwelling and development of the 

site with an intensive animal husbandry facility in a Rural Zone. A planning permit 

application was required for the use and development of a dwelling on the site as the 

property is under the minimum land size specified under the Rural Zoning for which no 

permit is required to use land for a dwelling and also for the use of the site for intensive 

animal husbandry. 

The purpose of the Agreement is to ensure the implementation of a farm management 

plan as required for such developments by Council’s policy outlined in Clause 22.06 of 

the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.



SECTION C – COMMON SEAL REGISTER Page 135 

2. SECTION 173 AGREEMENT BETWEEN GREATER GEELONG CITY 

COUNCIL AND PETER EDWARD & LYNETTE MARY BERRISFORD OF 4 

DE BURGH ROAD, DRYSDALE 

Portfolio: 


Source: 

City Development – Urban Development 



Customer: Peter Edward & Lynette Mary Berrisford 

Property: 4 De Burgh Road, Drysdale 



This Agreement pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, is 

to register on the title the approved environmental management plan. 


on 29 April, 2005 which allowed the construction of a dwelling garage and gazebo in 

Rural Zone. 

The purpose of the Agreement is register the environmental management plan on the 

title. Before construction commences on site for the dwelling, garage and gazebo 

application must be made to the Registrar of Titles to register the Section 173 

Agreement on Title to the land under Section 181 of the Act. 

3. SECTION 173 AGREEMENT BETWEEN GREATER GEELONG CITY COUNCIL AND 

MICHAEL FRANCIS ZAMPATTI AND GAIL MAUREEN ZAMPATTI OF 80 RANDLES 

ROAD, CONNEWARRE 

Portfolio: 

Infrastructure and Planning - Cr Saunderson 

Source: 

Urban Planning 



Customer: Michael & Gail Zampatti 

Property: 127-165 Lower Duneed Road, Mt Duneed 



This Agreement pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987, is to 

allow the construction of a dwelling on the abovementioned site. 


on 20 January 2004 for the construction of a dwelling. 

The application was for the construction of a dwelling in a Rural Zone. As the site has 

an area of less than 50 hectares, a Planning Permit application was required for the 

construction of a dwelling on a site under the minimum land size. 

The purpose of the Agreement is to ensure that the staff amenities building is not used 

for accommodation or sleeping purposes.



CLOSE OF MEETING Page 136 

The Meeting was closed to the public at 8.52 p.m. 

A record of the proceedings of this section of the meeting is contained in a 

Confidential Minute Book. 

The Meeting was opened to the public at 9.20 p.m. 

CLOSE OF MEETING 

As there was no further business the meeting closed at 9.20 p.m. Tuesday, 13 

September 2005. 

Signed: 

Date of Confirmation:

Council Minutes - 13 September 2005 - City of Greater Geelong

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?