Question Time - 24 June 2008 - City of Greater Geelong

geelongaustralia.com.au

Question Time - 24 June 2008 - City of Greater Geelong

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES TO QUESTION TIME

TUESDAY, 24 JUNE 2008

The following questions were addressed to the above meeting. Some

questions were adequately responded to at the meeting, however others

required a more detailed response in writing.

This document includes both verbal and written responses.

Christine Oughtred asked the following question in relation to the Waterfront Ferris

Wheel:

Council applies planning controls for residential development in this heritage area

which govern height, colour, lighting, style, noise, overlooking and sight lines. As the

Ferris Wheel is inconsistent with these criteria is Council prepared to direct the

application to an alternative site?

Stephen Wright (General Manager Major Projects) responded that the area sited for

the Ferris Wheel is a reserve for the recreation of people. Should the application go

ahead it will then be determined whether the site is appropriate.

Colin Wallace addressed Council as follows:

1) Once the traffic signals to be installed at the intersection of Pakington, Waratah

and Wellington Streets are operating, what will become of the school crossing in

Pakington Street immediately to the north of Lawton Avenue?

Peter Reeve, General Manager City Services, responded that the school crossing will

remain and be monitored. If there is a change in patterns it will be reviewed and if

any changes are proposed we will consult on the matter.

2) What is the justification for having a speed hump in First Street included on the

‘Endorsed Plan referred to in Planning Permit 1628/2004, Condition 12, Sheet 1’

(stamped 23 January 2008)?

Peter Reeve responded that it was considered the speed hump is an appropriate way

of reducing the speed of vehicles in First Street before they enter Waratah Street.

This is consistent with the panel recommendations.

The Mayor responded that a written response would be forwarded.

A subsequent written response was provided by the

General Manager City Services in the following terms:

Further to your question to Council at its meeting on the 24 th June 2008, I wish to confirm the answers

given to you at that meeting.

1. Once the traffic signals to be installed at the intersection of Pakington, Waratah and Wellington Streets

are operating, what will become of the school crossing in Pakington Street immediately to the north of

Lawton Avenue?


Answer

There is no intention to remove the school crossing once the traffic signals are installed however we

will monitor the situation to ascertain the changes in pedestrian and traffic movements. If any changes

are proposed because of this monitoring, the Council will consult with the key stakeholders before any

changes are implemented.

2. What is the justification for having a speed hump in First Street included on the ‘Endorsed Plan referred

to in Planning Permit 1628/2004, Condition 12, Sheet 1’ (stamped 23 rd January 2008)?

Answer

It is considered that a speed hump is an appropriate treatment for reducing the speed of vehicles in

First Street before they enter Waratah Street. This is consistent with the panel recommendations.

Joan Lindros asked the following questions in relation to Amendment C150:

1) When and by what process was this decision arrived at considering that the

recommendation from the 25 March meeting was:

• request an independent panel;

• refer all submissions to the panel;

• submit to the panel Council’s responses to the submission as outlined in the

officer’s report.

The Mayor responded that the questions would be taken on notice and a written

response forwarded.

A subsequent written response was provided by the

General Manager Development Sustainability in the following terms:

Thank you for your question raised at Council on Tuesday 24 th June 2008.

As you are aware the Panel Hearing is currently underway therefore all Council Officers involved in this

Amendment are in attendance and not available during business hours to respond to your question.

I apologise for any inconvenience and will forward a written response to you within the next 7 days.

Clive West asked if the local paper was accurate in reporting payment of road and

footpath repairs at the TAC site were being paid for by Council and will it happen in

the future? If this agreement applies – will it also apply to small business, i.e.

crossovers, building of private houses?

Stephen Wright responded that the report in last Friday’s paper was inaccurate in a

couple of instances. The ratepayers of Geelong will not be contributing to damage of

the construction associated with the TAC building, and that is consistent with the way

we deal with building projects, both in the past and into the future.

Agreements are made with building companies prior to commencement of works that

they are responsible for the payment for any damage incurred by them.

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines