COUNCIL AGENDA

WEDNESDAY 12 FEBRUARY 2020

COMMENCING 7 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBER, MORELAND CIVIC CENTRE, 90 BELL STREET, COBURG

D20/48480

INFORMATION ABOUT COUNCIL MEETINGS

Council encourages its citizens to participate in the local government of Moreland. Accordingly, these notes have been developed to help citizens better understand Council meetings. All meetings are conducted in accordance with Council’s Meeting Procedure Local Law 2018. WELCOME The Mayor, who chairs the meeting, formally opens the meeting, delivers an acknowledgement of country and welcomes all present. This Council meeting will be recorded and webstreamed live to Council’s website and Facebook page. This recording will also be available as Video on Demand. Although every care is taken to maintain privacy, gallery attendees are advised they may be recorded. APOLOGIES Where a Councillor is not present, their absence is noted in the minutes of the meeting. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS AND/OR CONFLICT OF INTERESTS Under the Local Government Act 1989, a Councillor has a duty to disclose any direct or indirect pecuniary (financial) interest, s/he may have in any matter to be considered by Council that evening. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES The minutes of the previous meeting are placed before Council to confirm the accuracy and completeness of the record. MINUTES/REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES Council considers reports from Special Committees that Councillors represent Council on. PETITIONS Council receives petitions from citizens on various issues. Any petitions received since the previous Council meeting are tabled at the meeting and the matter referred to the appropriate Director for consideration. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME This is an opportunity (30 minutes), for citizens of Moreland to raise questions with Councillors. COUNCIL REPORTS Officers prepare detailed reports, which are considered by Councillors and a Council position is adopted on the matters considered. The Mayor can invite firstly Councillors, secondly Officers, and then citizens in attendance to identify Council reports which should be given priority by the meeting and considered in the early part of the meeting. NOTICES OF MOTION A motion which has been submitted to the Chief Executive Officer no later than 12 pm (noon) 10 days prior to the meeting which is intended to be included in the agenda. The motion should outline the policy, financial and resourcing implications. NOTICE OF RESCISSION A Councillor may propose a motion to rescind a resolution of the Council, provided the previous resolution has not been acted on, and a notice is delivered to the authorised officer setting out the resolution to be rescinded and the meeting and date when the resolution was carried. For a decision of the Council to be rescinded, the motion for rescission must be carried by a majority of the votes cast. If a motion for rescission is lost, a similar motion may not be put before the Council for at least one month from the date it was last lost, unless the Council resolves that the notice of motion be re-listed at a future meeting. If a motion for rescission is not moved at the meeting for which it is listed, it lapses. A motion for rescission listed on a meeting agenda may be moved by any Councillor present but may not be amended. FORESHADOWED ITEMS This is an opportunity for Councillors to raise items proposed to be submitted as Notices of Motion at future meetings. URGENT BUSINESS The Chief Executive Officer or Councillors, with the approval of the meeting, may submit items of Urgent Business (being a matter not listed on the agenda) but requiring a prompt decision by Council. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS Whilst all Council and Committee meetings of Council are open to its citizens, Council has the power under the Local Government Act 1989 to close its meeting to the general public in certain circumstances which are noted where appropriate on the Council Agenda. Where this occurs, members of the public leave the Council Chamber or Meeting room while the matter is being discussed. CLOSE OF MEETING The Mayor will formally close the meeting and thank all present. NEXT MEETING DATE The next Council meeting will be held on Wednesday 11 March 2020 commencing at 7.30 PM, in the Council Chamber, Moreland Civic Centre, 90 Bell Street, Coburg. The next Council meeting designated to consider Planning and Related matters will be held on Wednesday 26 February 2020.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 2

1. WELCOME

2. APOLOGIES

3. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS AND/OR CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

4. MINUTE CONFIRMATION

The minutes of the Council Meeting held on 11 December 2019 and the Council Meeting held on 4 February 2020 be confirmed.

5. MINUTES / REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Nil.

6. PETITIONS

PET1/20 NORTH NICHOLLS TRAFFIC GROUP (D19/512600) 6

PET2/20 PETITION REGARDING MAINTENANCE AND LANDSCAPING OF DOUGLAS RESERVE, BRUNSWICK EAST (D20/8391) 10

PET3/20 PETITION TO REQUEST REMOVAL OF TWO PLANE TREES ALONG SUVLA GROVE, COBURG NORTH (D20/11084) 12

PET4/20 PETITION - ASHMORE STREET, BRUNSWICK RESIDENT PARKING PERMITS (D20/18810) 15

7. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

8. COUNCIL REPORTS

DCF2/20 MORELAND INTEGRATED TRANSPORT STRATEGY PARKING RESTRICTIONS IMPLEMENTATION (D20/29178) 17

DEP1/20 TRANSPORT ADVOCACY PROGRESS REPORT - RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF MOTION 71/19 (D20/3608) 40

EMF1/20 NAMING OF TINNING STREET PARK AND WEST STREET PARK (D20/21326) 59

DCD1/20 VICTORIAN BUSHFIRE RESPONSE (D20/34792) 67

DBT1/20 MONTFORT PARK - DAR-ALAWDA COMMUNITY CENTRE (D19/341989) 70

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 3

DCF3/20 AMENDMENT C189 CANOPY TREE PLANTING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS - DECISION GATEWAY 2 - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND REQUEST A PANEL (D19/477277) 76

DCF4/20 TREE PROTECTION IN THE PLANNING SCHEME - RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF MOTION 9/18 (D19/484711) 136

DCF5/20 COUNCIL PROVIDED BICYCLE PARKING WITHIN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS (D19/246639) 145

DCF6/20 PENTRIDGE HERITAGE INTERPRETATION OBLIGATIONS - RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF MOTION 25/19 (D19/344115) 148

EMF2/20 FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL 84 MCBRYDE STREET (D20/10936) 166

DCD2/20 AGED CARE REFORMS- REGIONAL ASSESSMENT SERVICE (D19/518972) 172

EMF3/20 PROPOSED SALE OF COUNCIL LAND ADJOINING 45 ALBERT STREET, BRUNSWICK EAST (D19/505516) 179

DCF7/20 PROPOSED PERMANENT CLOSURE OF JOHN STREET, BRUNSWICK EAST, AT ALBERT STREET (D20/3260) 187

DBT2/20 DETERMINATION OF VOTING METHOD FOR THE 2020 COUNCIL ELECTION (D20/29016) 192

EMF4/20 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2019 - CYCLICAL REPORT (D20/7673) 199

DBT3/20 GOVERNANCE REPORT - FEBRUARY 2020 - CYCLICAL REPORT (D20/30985) 211

DCI1/20 CONTRACT 870ST - COBURG CITY OVAL PAVILION - MAIN WORKS (D19/518178) 229

9. NOTICES OF MOTION

NOM2/20 IDENTIFYING PLACES AND SPACES FOR GREENING AND SOCIAL CONNECTION IN JEWELL PRECINCT (D19/463690) 234

NOM3/20 RECOGNITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF JULIAN ASSANGE (D19/479839) 236

NOM4/20 PROJECT RESPECT - STATEMENT OF ENDORSEMENT REQUEST (D19/484669) 238

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 4

NOM5/20 MODIFICATION TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES (D20/4327) 240

NOM6/20 IMPACT OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS ROLLED OUT AS PART OF THE MORELAND INTEGRATED TRANSPORT STRATEGY (D20/38732) 244

NOM7/20 VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT'S PARKING FEES AND CONGESTION LEVY NOT WORKING FOR MORELAND (D20/38754) 245

NOM8/20 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL 2019 - OPPOSING RETURN TO SINGLE MEMBER WARDS AND SEEKING ELECTION CAMPAIGN DONATION REFORM (D20/38779) 247

NOM9/20 SAVING GANDOLFO GARDENS (D20/38804) 249

NOM10/20 INCREASING BICYCLE PARKING AT TRAIN STATIONS (D20/38812) 250

NOM11/20 DEMONSTRATING REVITALISATION ON SYDNEY ROAD (D20/38822) 251

NOM12/20 CHEAP, AFFORDABLE POWER FOR MORELAND'S LOW INCOME AND CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE COMMUNITIES (D20/38831) 253

NOM13/20 INCREASE IN OPEN SPACE BUDGET FOR CONSIDERATION IN 2020/21 BUDGET PROCESS (D20/38846) 256

10. NOTICE OF RESCISSION

Nil.

11. FORESHADOWED ITEMS

Nil.

12. URGENT BUSINESS REPORTS

13. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

EMF5/20 PARK CLOSE TO HOME STRATEGY - PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF SITE (D20/4551)

Pursuant to sections 77(2)(c) and 89(2)(h) this report has been designated as confidential by the Chief Executive Officer because it relates to any other matter which the Council or special committee considers would prejudice the Council or any person.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 5

PET1/20 NORTH NICHOLLS TRAFFIC GROUP (D19/512600)

A petition (D19/512587) has been received containing 547 signatures opposing the use of righthand turn bans and/or median islands on Holden Street at Brunswick Street North and Dean Street and on Miller Street at the intersection of Miller Street and White Street to reduce through traffic as resolved by the City of Yarra in March 2019. The petition was tabled at the City of Yarra’s Council meeting on 24 September 2019. The petitioners are requesting Council work with the City of Yarra to explore other options to reduce through traffic in the area.

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Receives the petition, requesting Moreland City Council work with the City of Yarra to explore alternative options to reduce through traffic instead of the use of righthand turn bans and/or median islands on Holden Street at Brunswick Street North and Dean Street and on Miller Street at the intersection of Miller Street and White Street. 2. Refers the petition to the Director City Futures for consideration and response. 3. Notifies the lead petitioner of any outcomes in relation to the petition.

Attachment/s 1⇩ North Nicholls Traffic Group Petition D19/512587

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 6

PET2/20 PETITION REGARDING MAINTENANCE AND LANDSCAPING OF DOUGLAS RESERVE, BRUNSWICK EAST (D20/8391)

A petition (D19/515772) has been received containing 56 signatures requesting Council to review the maintenance of and landscaping elements in Douglas Reserve, Brunswick East.

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Receives the petition seeking a review of the maintenance and landscaping elements in Douglas Reserve, Brunswick East. 2. Refers the petition to the Director City Infrastructure for consideration and response. 3. Notifies the lead petitioner of any outcomes in relation to the maintenance and landscaping of Douglas Reserve.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Petition requesting maintenance of Douglas Reserve Brunswick East D20/15910

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 10

PET3/20 PETITION TO REQUEST REMOVAL OF TWO PLANE TREES ALONG SUVLA GROVE, COBURG NORTH (D20/11084)

A petition (D19/468728) has been received containing 26 signatures, requesting Council to consider the removal of 2 plane trees along Suvla Grove, Coburg North.

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Receives the petition seeking Council to consider the removal of two plane trees along Suvla Grove, Coburg North. 2. Refers the petition to the Director City Infrastructure for consideration and response. 3. Notifies the lead petitioner if any outcomes in relation to the request to remove the two plane trees in Suvla Grove, Coburg North.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Request removal of two plane trees in Suvla Grove Coburg North D20/16455 resident signatures

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 12

PET4/20 PETITION - ASHMORE STREET, BRUNSWICK RESIDENT PARKING PERMITS (D20/18810)

A petition (D20/18801) has been received containing 60 signatures requesting Council treat all properties on Ashmore Street, Brunswick impacted by the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy parking restrictions equally and allow all residents to apply for parking permits.

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Receives the petition requesting all properties on Ashmore Street, Brunswick impacted by the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy parking restrictions be treated equally and all residents be allowed to apply for parking permits. 2. Refers the petition to the Director City Futures for consideration and response. 3. Notifies the lead petitioner of any outcomes in relation to the petition.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Petition - Ashmore Street - Parking Permit Equality D20/18801

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 15

DCF2/20 MORELAND INTEGRATED TRANSPORT STRATEGY PARKING RESTRICTIONS IMPLEMENTATION (D20/29178) Director City Futures City Change

Executive Summary Council officers are currently implementing changes to on-street parking restrictions approved by Council in March 2019 (DCF12/19), generally introducing 2P 8am-11pm Monday-Friday restrictions where parking is currently unrestricted within Neighbourhood Centres and within the Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy Activity Centres, and including a buffer of approximately 200 metres from the edge of the Activity Centre zones. Implementation of new restrictions began in December 2019 in three Neighbourhood Centres (in Brunswick West, Pascoe Vale and Hadfield). The remainder of new parking restrictions were scheduled to be implemented by the end of June 2020. Consultation on this change was formally conducted between July 2018 and October 2018, as part of consultation on the Draft Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS). However, Council has received community feedback on changes on parking restrictions since that time, including through community drop-in sessions to provide information about the new parking restrictions, during exhibition of Amendment C183 (which proposes to change parking requirements for new developments in Activity Centres and Neighbourhood Centres), and through customer service and social media enquiries. In response to feedback from the community, it is proposed to make the following changes: • Revise and reduce the area to which new parking restrictions will be implemented near Activity Centres through MITS 2019, to only include streets within a 200 metre walking distance of Activity Centres (not 200 metres as-the-crow-flies, which is a larger area, previously endorsed by Council). • Approve a fast-tracked process for considering resident requests for additional parking restrictions near new MITS restrictions where spillover is occurring, in order to more quickly manage spillover issues should they arise. • Approve the issuing of temporary parking permits for nearby streets, where residents are experiencing issues parking near their homes due to spillover issues, and a request for additional parking restrictions is being considered and implemented. This report also provides a number of potential options for adjustments to parking policy for Council consideration: • Creating a new permit type for residents in properties subdivided after August 2011 (but before January 2021), which could be used to park where new parking restrictions are being introduced through MITS 2019 (i.e. currently unrestricted areas), and which would be more expensive than the standard resident permit but considerably cheaper than the user pays permit. • Reducing the cost of the daily parking permit from $10 to $2.50 in the areas near Glenroy, Merlynston and Pascoe Vale stations, which could provide more affordable options to commuters driving to train stations in Moreland’s north. • Removing the limit on the number of business parking permits that can be obtained by businesses and other organisations employing staff. • Allowing non-profit organisations and charities, schools, and early years services (child care and kindergartens) to obtain business parking permits at a 50 per cent discount – i.e. $65.55 per year for the first permit and $98.35 for subsequent permits.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 17

• Revising the parking restrictions to be introduced through MITS to finish at 9pm instead of 11pm. A number of transitional measures relating to parking changes have been approved previously by Council and the then CEO under delegation, which are to be reviewed in July 2021. This review would include the above recommendations and options, if approved. It is also proposed to postpone this review to July 2022 to enable more time to understand the impacts of changes and conduct a more effective review. This would result in a longer time that the transition measures will be in effect.

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Notes the engagement being undertaken by Council officers with organisations and the broader community affected by upcoming changes to parking restrictions being implemented as part of the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy 2019. 2. Approves revising the area around the Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy Activity Centres to which new parking restrictions will apply as part of implementing the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy 2019, to: a) A 200 metre walkable distance from Activity Centre boundaries with the following caveats: i. If the 200 metre distance is within three legal car parking bays to the nearest intersection (plus or minus), finish the restrictions at the nearest intersection. ii. That the revised area boundary does not extend past the boundary endorsed in March 2019. 3. Delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to consider resident requests for additional parking restrictions to manage spillover without needing to survey all occupiers in the street, under the following circumstances: a) Parking restrictions are requested in the area where new parking restrictions were previously approved by Council in March 2019 (DCF12/19) only. b) A parking occupancy survey is conducted and occupancy exceeds 70 per cent for a period of three or more consecutive hours in a given day. c) Additional parking restrictions are to be introduced on one side of the street only in the first instance. 4. Delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to issue temporary parking permits to residents to park in nearby streets, with discretion to determine the streets for which the permits are valid and the time period the permits are valid as appropriate, with the following conditions: a) A request for new parking restrictions is being considered to manage spillover due to parking restrictions implemented through the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy 2019. b) Residents are experiencing difficulty parking on their street due to high occupancy and cannot access nearby unrestricted parking. c) Temporary permits will be available to residents eligible for residential parking permits, whether residents currently hold these permits or not. d) Temporary permits are only issued when an occupancy survey has been commissioned and a decision on whether to introduce parking restrictions is made as outlined.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 18

5. Authorises the affixing of the common seal to the Instrument of Delegation at Attachment 3 to this report. 6. Determines the Instrument of Delegation comes into force immediately the common seal of Council is affixed to the instrument and remain in force until Council determines to vary or revoke. 7. Notes the Instrument of Delegation will be reviewed in July 2022. 8. Approves an extension on the review of transitional measures relating to parking changes from July 2021 to July 2022, with all measures to remain in effect until a further decision of Council.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 19

REPORT

1. Policy Context The Council Plan 2017-2021 states a Key Priority for Council is to facilitate a demonstrable shift to more sustainable modes of transport that also targets a long- term reduction in car use. The Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS) 2019 was adopted by Council in March 2019 (DCF12/19) and includes as a key action the expansion of parking restrictions to all streets within Neighbourhood Centres and within approximately 200 metres of the Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy Activity Centres. This change is to proactively prevent parking spillover from new development, particularly given Council is also proposing to change minimum parking requirements for new development to help slow the growth of new cars into Moreland through a planning scheme amendment (Amendment C183). The expansion of parking restrictions is identified as a key element of implementing MITS in the Council Action Plan 2019/20 (Item 38). In June 2019 (DCF38/19) Council approved a transitional approach to implementing the changes to parking detailed in MITS 2019 including a number of measures to assist the community in adjusting to significant change. At this time, Council also authorised the Chief Executive Officer to make further adjustments to parking policy based on a number of endorsed criteria. This authority has since been used to approve further changes to policy to assist people with disabilities, health care workers and others who conduct home visits, and workers who use business parking permits. 2. Background Council officers are currently implementing changes to on-street parking restrictions approved by Council in March 2019 (DCF12/19), generally introducing 2P 8am-11pm Monday-Friday restrictions where parking is currently unrestricted within Neighbourhood Centres and within approximately 200 metres of the Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy Activity Centres. The area to which parking restrictions are to apply around the three Activity Centres is intended to remove the ability for any future development to rely on on-street parking for their dwellings (as opposed to using off-street parking) in these Activity Centres, where minimum parking requirements are proposed to be removed (through Amendment C183). The area was determined through a GIS mapping process, by drawing a 200 metre buffer around the Activity Centre boundaries and in most cases extending to the end of a street block. This means the boundary of the parking restrictions area is close to 200 metres in most instances but significantly further (300 to 500 metres) in some limited instances where block lengths are larger, or where “gaps” between areas where parking restrictions will apply have been included in the parking restrictions area to avoid creating small areas of unrestricted parking surrounded by restricted parking. Implementation of new restrictions began in December 2019 in three Neighbourhood Centres (in Brunswick West, Pascoe Vale and Hadfield). The remainder of new parking restrictions were scheduled to be implemented by the end of June 2020. Consultation on this change was formally conducted between July 2018 and October 2018, as part of consultation on the Draft MITS. However, Council has received community feedback on changes on parking restrictions since that time, including through community drop-in sessions to provide information about the new parking restrictions, during exhibition of Amendment C183, and through customer service and social media enquiries.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 20

Officers are engaging with organisations within the area to be affected by parking restrictions, such as schools, childcare centres, places of worship, sporting clubs and neighbourhood houses. Council approved a number of temporary measures in June 2019 (DCF38/19), to be reviewed in July 2021, for transitional implementation of parking changes to assist the community in adjusting to these changes and particularly lessen the impact on more vulnerable people: • Allowing one additional permit per eligible household that is affected by MITS parking changes; • Allowing additional business permits to businesses and other organisations that are affected by MITS parking changes; • Providing greater flexibility to consider local conditions when applying parking restrictions (e.g. 3P rather than 2P near medical centres); • Offering a new permit type that allows parking in time restricted areas for $10 per day – the same price as paid parking; • Authorising the Chief Executive Officer to make further adjustments to parking policy based on a set of endorsed principles as follows: − Ultimately meeting the objectives of MITS 2019; − Providing time to transition to significant changes in MITS 2019 for full implementation from 2021/22; − Ensuring consistent and transparent decision making; − Considering social and economic outcomes; − Being easy to understand and administer. Under this final provision, the then CEO approved a number of further changes in late 2019, delegating details of implementing these changes to the Manager City Change: • Allowing residents with disabled parking permits to access residential parking permits, even if they live in housing subdivided after August 2011 (and otherwise not eligible for residential permits); • Allowing residents who have a need for visitors by car for reasons such as age, health, disability or social isolation to access visitor permits, even if they live in housing subdivided after August 2011; • Allowing more flexible use of business parking permits in certain time restricted parking areas to assist businesses and other organisations; • Offering a new permit type that allows health care workers and others conducting home visits to be exempt from timed restrictions when conducting visits. The flexible use of business parking permits is currently being implemented through introducing supplementary PayStay signage, along with new 2P restrictions, which indicates where these permits can be used, in addition to designated business permit zones (which can only be used by business parking permit holders). PayStay signage also indicates where the PayStay App can be used to purchase daily parking permits to park all-day. PayStay signage will indicate that a user is within one of 25 zones, shown in the map at Attachment 1. This approach allows workers to continue parking where they have been to date (i.e. in parking that has not yet had restrictions applied), while ensuring they cannot park all day in areas where restrictions had previously been introduced to provide greater priority for residents. The Manager City Change has approved a process for considering resident requests to remove PayStay signage, where greater priority is required for resident parking. PayStay signage will be removed based on resident request where parking occupancy exceeds 70 per cent for a period of three or more consecutive hours in a given day.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 21

3. Issues Proposed Changes to Implementation of Parking Changes The following section details the officer recommendations made in this report, including revisions to the MITS parking restrictions area; processes to manage potential parking spillover; and the timeframes for reviewing transitional measures for implementation of parking changes. Parking Restrictions Area A key issue raised through community feedback on the extent and nature of new parking restrictions is that parking restrictions are being introduced where no parking issues currently exist. Proactively introducing parking restrictions, including to streets that currently have relatively low parking occupancy, plans for future conditions in the context of population growth, rather than only reactively dealing with issues that exist today. Expansion of parking restrictions helps prioritise access to on-street parking for the majority of residents who are eligible for parking permits, in line with the user priority guidelines in Council’s Parking Management Policy. This takes a proactive approach to protecting the ability of those residents to park near their homes, rather than the usual reactive process of introducing restrictions only after increased parking occupancy has caused issues for local residents. The usual process also relies on achieving a level of support through surveying affected properties, including those not eligible for parking permits, meaning that not all resident requests for new restrictions are successful. By proactively introducing restrictions in and near the areas where the highest levels of growth are occurring, developers must plan and build new developments knowing that on-street parking will not be available for their owners and visitors. This will ensure that developers of new developments must make an assessment of the market for people that will buy a new dwelling with or without an off-street parking space. The expanded parking restrictions are also expected to contribute towards mode shift in their own right as a form of demand management. The original parking restrictions area (as approved by Council in March 2019) includes areas which are approximately 200 metres from an Activity Centre boundary but further by walking distance. Consistent with the transitional approach to implementation approved by Council in June 2019 (DCF38/19), it is proposed to firstly implement parking restrictions within a 200 metre walking distance only and implement the remainder of previously approved restrictions as required based on parking occupancy. This approach has the benefit of deterring new developments in Activity Centres from relying on on-street parking while retaining unrestricted parking where parking demand is lower. Attachment 2 shows the indicative location of the revised area to which parking restrictions are to be applied as proposed near the Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy Activity Centres, compared with the area originally approved by Council in March 2019. If this change is approved by Council, officers will determine the location of new signage, to be as close to 200 metres walking distance from Activity Centre boundaries as possible, except where this is within three legal parking spaces of an intersection. Where the boundary falls just short of an intersection, the remaining spaces will also have restrictions apply. Where the boundary extends less than three legal spaces past an intersection, those spaces will not have restrictions applied. This will ensure greater consistency and legibility of restrictions, while also ensuring the parking restrictions area is between approximately 180 and 220 metres of the Activity Centre boundary. No restrictions are proposed to be applied to areas outside

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 22

the boundary originally approved by Council in March 2019, even if these are within 200 metres of an Activity Centre. The proposed revised area includes some “gaps” in the Brunswick area where streets are more than 200 metres from the Activity Centre areas close to Sydney Road, Lygon Street and Nicholson Street. Given these “gaps” are larger under a 200 metre walkable distance buffer (as opposed to a 200 metres as-the-crow-flies buffer), it is proposed to retain these as unrestricted parking for the time being. As these areas are further from Activity Centres, it is less likely that spillover would occur from newer residential developments or other users such as shoppers and people visiting restaurants. However, some spillover may occur from nearby residential streets, such as from visitor parking or where residents are seeking to avoid paying for a parking permit. Options to address this are considered in the next section. Process to Manage Potential Spillover If the revised parking restrictions area is approved by Council, it is also proposed to introduce a fast tracked process to consider requests for further parking restrictions to be able to deal with any spillover issues in a timely manner, and to address reductions in PayStay areas that may arise from time to time when greater priority for resident parking is implemented. It is proposed that authority be delegated to officers to introduce parking restrictions within the original parking restrictions area (as approved by Council in March 2019) where occupancy exceeds 70 per cent for a period of three consecutive hours or more in a given day. Parking restrictions would be initially introduced on one side of the street only, with the ability to consider restrictions on the other side at a later stage if parking issues persist. This will allow Council to respond to resident requests for parking restrictions more quickly than requiring a survey of affected properties or 80 per cent occupancy to be exceeded for a period of four or more hours, as per the usual process in the Parking Management Policy. It is also proposed to delegate authority to officers to issue temporary permits to eligible residents to be able to park on nearby streets while requests for changes to parking restrictions on their street are being considered and actioned. These permits would be made available to residents eligible for residential parking permits whether these residents currently hold these permits or not. It is recommended that this delegated authority includes determining the street or streets where these temporary permits apply, and the duration for which the temporary permit is valid, to enable decisions to be made based on the particular circumstances. If Council introduces additional permit types for residents or makes changes to residential parking permit eligibility, it is proposed that temporary permits be available to these residents as well. For consistency, it is proposed these additional delegated authorities be reviewed together with other transitional measures for implementation of parking changes. Currently, these measures are to be reviewed on 1 July 2021, however this report proposes an extension of time for this review to 1 July 2022. This proposal is described in the following section of this report. Extension of Transitional Measures In June 2019 (DCF38/19), Council approved a suite of transitional measures to allow the community to adjust to significant changes to parking, including delegation to the CEO to make further adjustments consistent with a set of endorsed principles. All transitional measures approved by Council, and those subsequently approved under delegation by the CEO, are currently due to be reviewed on 1 July 2021.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 23

This date may not allow sufficient time for impacts to be understood and an effective review to be undertaken, given the complexity of changes being introduced. As such, it is proposed to extend the date of this review by one year to occur in July 2022, with all transitional measures to remain in effect until a further decision of Council. This review would also include any of the recommendations or options in this report that are approved by Council. Potential Options for Further Changes to Implementation of Parking Changes The following section details potential options for adjustments to parking policy for Council consideration, including suggested wording of Council resolutions to enact these options if required. Option A: New Permit Type for Residents of Post-2011 Housing Current Policy Since its initial adoption in August 2011, the Parking Management Policy has stated that residents of properties subdivided after August 2011 (“post-Aug-2011 housing”) are ineligible for resident or visitor permits, in order to protect residents of older properties (i.e. existing prior to the adoption of the Policy, “pre-2011 housing”) from the impacts of population growth and to enable them to continue to park on-street near their homes. This policy is similar to that of many other councils in Melbourne, for example: • Yarra City Council does not provide resident or visitor permits for properties constructed after December 2003 which resulted in an increase in the number of occupancies. • Darebin City Council does not provide resident permits for properties constructed after December 2004 (NB: Darebin does not offer visitor permits). • Moonee Valley City Council does not provide resident permits for properties where residential density has increased after January 2006, however residents of these properties may purchase visitor permits (“temporary parking vouchers”). • Maribyrnong City Council does not provide resident permits for properties of three or more dwellings within the Footscray area, however residents of these properties who previously held parking permits may continue to do so (new residents moving into the property are ineligible). Such properties in other areas of the municipality are eligible for permits. However, in these cases, unrestricted parking is often available for residents without permits (as is currently the case in Moreland), or parking restrictions have been progressively introduced over time. Moreland residents with disability parking permits are able to access resident parking permits, even if they live in post-Aug-2011 housing. Other residents in post-Aug-2011 housing are able to access a user pays permit ($100 for first month, $300 per month for subsequent months in a twelve-month period – 2019-20 cost) to park all-day in time restricted areas Moreland residents living in post-Aug-2011 housing who have special needs such as age, disability, health or social isolation are also able to apply for access to daily and weekly visitor permits, with a supporting letter from a health care professional, social worker or case worker. Community Feedback Community feedback has indicated many residents of post-2011 housing were unaware that their property was not eligible for resident parking permits, and some people called for all properties existing at the time MITS parking restrictions were introduced to be eligible for resident permits (i.e. for the eligibility date to be changed from August 2011 to July 2020).

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 24

It is not recommended to make this change, as the current permit policy provides protection for residents in pre-2011 housing from population growth that has occurred since this policy was first introduced. Where parking restrictions have been introduced based on resident requests, this has ensured that this parking cannot be used long-term by residents of new development. Particularly where high density development has occurred, this change could allow many more permits issued than parking spaces on a street. Details of Option A Instead, a potential option could be to offer a new permit type (“Residential A permit”) for residents in properties subdivided after August 2011 but before 1 January 2021, which could be used only where new parking restrictions are being introduced through MITS and therefore where residents currently enjoy unrestricted parking. These are the same locations where business parking permits are able to be used and will be indicated through PayStay supplementary signage (which also indicates where the PayStay app can be used to purchase a daily parking permit to park all- day). If Council approves the creation of this new permit, it is proposed that it be more expensive than the standard resident permit in order to manage demand and recognising that Council’s expectation since 2011 has been that these properties cater for parking demand through off-street parking. Demand management is particularly important in areas of high demand, due to population density or high rates of vehicle ownership. It is proposed that the Residential A permit, if approved, be the same price as business permits, with 50 per cent concession discounts to apply similarly to standard resident permits. This cost structure is shown in the below table: Permit type Residential Permit Residential A Permit Cost for residents Equivalent Potential cost for Equivalent weekly of pre-2011 weekly cost residents of cost (2019-20 housing (2019-20 (2019-20 properties prices) prices) prices) subdivided after August 2011 but before January 2021 (2019-20 prices)

First permit $41.20 $0.79 $131.10 $2.52 First permit - $20.60 $65.55* concession $0.40 $1.26 Subsequent $116.50 $196.70 permits $2.24 $3.78 Subsequent $58.50 $98.35 permits - $1.13 $1.89 concession

*Note: Disability parking permit holders are (already) eligible for the pre-2011 (lower cost) resident permit even if they live in post-2011 housing. If a new ‘Residential A Permit type was introduced, it would not be necessary to limit the number of permits per household, as this permit is more expensive and could only be used in areas designated by supplementary PayStay signage. This supplementary signage is able to be removed based on high occupancy to give greater priority to residents of pre-2011 housing and a ‘spillover’ mechanism would provide for this to be extended into unrestricted areas

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 25

As the supplementary signage is area-based (not particular to a street), removal of this signage on a street means holders of a Residential A permit could park on nearby streets with capacity. This is similar to what currently occurs where introduction of timed restrictions on a street may result in some cars moving to unrestricted parking in a nearby street. The Residential A permit could also be made available to residents of pre-2011 housing, to provide them with a permit option if they have more vehicles than can be stored off-street and using standard residential permits. This would benefit families with adult children or group households (share-houses) while managing demand, encouraging use of off-street parking, and sharing on-street parking more fairly between households. It is not recommended to allow all residents of post-2011 housing to obtain daily and weekly visitor permits (in the same way that residents of pre-2011 housing may), as this may cause issues in areas where there is high parking occupancy or where there is a high proportion of post-2011 housing. However, residents in post-2011 housing would be able to purchase additional Residential A permits for use for visitors as needed. This is similar to some other councils which offer visitor permits on an annual basis, rather than the option for daily or weekly permits as needed, which has been the case in Moreland to date. Impacts of Option A The advantages of introducing a new permit type, as described above, for residents of post-Aug-2011 housing would be: • To represent a more affordable long-term parking option for post-2011 residents (no more than $196.70 per year, compared to $3,400 for a user-pays permit) • Restricting where these permits can be used continues to protect pre-2011 residents in the areas where they current enjoy greater priority • To allow post-2011 residents to continue to park where they are likely to be parking (but at a cost in order to manage demand). • Greater flexibility for households with higher rates of vehicle ownership (e.g. families with adult children, sharehouses) while still managing demand. The disadvantages of introducing this permit would be: • It is likely that the transport mode shift away from car use would be reduced. • Greater complexity would be introduced into the permit scheme, which may be difficult for residents to understand. Suggested Wording to Enact Option A If Council wished to introduce a new permit type for post-2011 residents as described above, it could resolve to: • Approve the creation of a new permit type (“Residential A permit”) for residents living in housing subdivided after August 2011 but before January 2021, which can only be used to park in areas where new parking restrictions are being introduced through MITS 2019 and indicated with supplementary signage, to be reviewed in July 2022. • Modify the Fees and Charge Schedule 2019/2020 to include the following permit types and costs: − Residential A Permit – First No Concession: $131.10 per year − Residential A Permit – First Concession: $65.55 per year − Residential A Permit – Subsequent No Concession: $196.70 per year − Residential A Permit – Subsequent Concession: $98.35 per year

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 26

Option B: Reduced Cost Daily Parking Near Some Train Stations Current Policy Commuters who wish to park all-day in time-restricted areas are able to access the daily parking permit where PayStay signage applies. The cost of the daily parking permit is $10 per day in 2019-20. PayStay signage is only being applied where new restrictions are being introduced through MITS, and would not allow commuters to access a daily parking permit to park in any areas where restrictions currently exist (i.e. where pre-2011 residents currently enjoy greater priority over other users). As detailed in Section 2 of this report, the Manager City Change is able to remove the option to access daily parking permits (through removing PayStay supplementary signage) where there is a request from a resident and a high occupancy which impacts on the ability of residents to park near their homes. This is similar to the current process for introducing timed restrictions to unrestricted parking to give greater priority to residents where they are experiencing issues. Community Feedback Community feedback has indicated that introduction of restrictions near train stations may present a barrier to accessing train stations. This was particularly the case for the north of Moreland, where there is greater reliance on cars to access train stations due to more people living outside walking distance of stations and lower public transport quality including connecting bus services. Feedback also indicated that the daily parking permit ($10 per day in 2019-20) is a prohibitive cost for commuters requiring parking near the station each weekday, and may result in some people driving all the way to their destination, rather than driving to the station and catching the train. Details of Option B A potential option is to reduce the cost of the daily parking permit in Zones 1, 2, 6 and 7 as shown in Attachment 1 (near Glenroy, Merlynston and Pascoe Vale stations respectively) to $2.50 per day (2019-20 price) to provide a more affordable option for commuters in these areas. It is not practical to offer a discounted permit option only to commuters (i.e. require them to provide proof of interchange to public transport) so this option will be available for any user in these areas. If this option was adopted by Council, it is not recommended to provide discounted parking options near other stations in Moreland. Stations in the north of Moreland (Gowrie, Fawkner, Batman, Jacana and Oak Park) will experience no or little impact from new MITS restrictions. Stations in the south of Moreland (Coburg, Moreland, Anstey, Brunswick and Jewell) have a lower proportion of station users arriving by car, access to all-day off-street car parking, and/or higher quality public transport alternatives and connecting services. Impacts of Option B The advantages of providing a discounted daily parking permit option near Glenroy, Pascoe Vale and Merlynston stations are: • This would represent a more affordable daily parking option for commuters in these areas ($2.50 per day or $12.50 per five-day working week, compared to $10 per day or $50 per five-day working week) • This would be less likely to deter people from catching public transport when compared to all day parking costs at their destination. The disadvantages of providing this discounted permit option are: • It is likely that the transport mode shift away from car use would be reduced.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 27

• Greater complexity would be introduced into the permit scheme, which may be difficult for residents to understand. Suggested Wording to Enact Option B If Council wished to introduce a discounted daily parking permit option for commuters as described above, it could resolve to: • Approve a reduction in the cost of the daily parking permit from $10 per day to $2.50 per day for PayStay zones 1, 2, 6, and 7 as shown in Attachment 1, to provide a more affordable option for commuters driving to Glenroy, Merlynston and Pascoe Vale Train Stations respectively, and to be reviewed in July 2022. • Modify the Fees and Charge Schedule 2019/2020 to include the following permit types and costs: • Daily Parking Permit (Commuter Area): $2.50 per day Option C: Removal of Limit on Business Permits Current Policy To date, there has been a limit on the number of business parking permits that can be accessed by a business or other organisation; the general limits has been two permits, with Council approving a temporary (until 30 June 2021) increase to five permits in June 2019 (DCF38/19). This limit has been required as, to date, business parking permits have only been able to be used in a limited number of designated business permit zones (generally within off-street car parks, with on-street bays in some places such as near Lygon Street). Expanding the number of business bays would limit parking for customers and residents, particularly since business permit bays can only be used by business permit holders. In November 2019, the then Acting CEO approved a policy change (under delegation given by Council in June 2019 – DCF38/19) whereby business parking permits could also be used in areas where new parking restrictions are being introduced through MITS, and will be designated with PayStay supplementary signage. Community Feedback Feedback from several organisations has indicated they would like to access more than five permits. For example, schools that have limited off-street parking typically rely on all-day on-street parking for teachers, with limited ability for teachers to move cars during the day. Details of Option C Given business parking permits are now able to be used in more locations without needing to designate parking for business permit holders only, an option would be to remove the limit on permits per business or organisation. As detailed previously in this report, the Manager City Change is able to remove the option to use business permits (through removing PayStay supplementary signage) where there is high occupancy which impacts on the ability of residents to park near their homes. As business permits cannot be used in parking where timed restrictions have been applied to date, this option would not weaken the priority afforded to pre-2011 residents by these restrictions and the permit scheme. Impacts of Option C The advantages of removing the limit on business permits are: • The parking needs of larger organisations where more than five employees require all-day on-street parking could be accommodated. • This would allow workers, volunteers, etc. to continue to park where they are likely to be parking (but at a cost in order to manage demand).

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 28

The disadvantages of removing the limit are: • It is likely that the transport mode shift away from car use would be reduced. Suggested Wording to Enact Option C If Council wished to remove the limit on the number of permits that can be accessed by businesses and other organisations, it could resolve to: • Approve the removal of a limit on business parking permits that can be obtained by businesses and other organisations, to be reviewed in July 2022.

Option D: Discounted Business Permits for Non-Profit Organisations, Schools, Etc. Current Policy Businesses and other organisations are able to access business permits at a cost of $131.30 per year for the first permit and $196.70 per year for subsequent permits (2019-20 prices). There is no concession discount applied to business parking permits in the same way a resident or visitor permits. Community Feedback Some organisations have indicated that the cost of business permits is overly expensive for them or their staff, particularly for non-profit organisations with limited funding. This has also been raised as an issue where staff with responsibility for children (e.g. schools, childcare centres) are not able to leave the premises to move their cars every few hours, and would require a permit to park all-day if they rely on on-street parking. Details of Option D A potential option would be to allow registered not-for-profit organisations and charities, schools (including both government and non-government schools), and early years services (including childcare centres and kindergartens) to access a 50 per cent discount on business permits ($65.55 for the first permit and $98.35 for subsequent permits in 2019-20). It is not recommended to make permits free as this would provide no incentive to rethink travel behaviour where possible and would be contrary to the objectives of MITS. Impacts of Option D The advantages of providing discounted business permits are: • Reduced financial impact on non-profit organisations and organisations where staff have responsibility for children. The disadvantages of removing the limit are: • It is likely that the transport mode shift away from car use would be reduced. Suggested Wording to Enact Option D If Council wished to provide a concession discount on business permits for non-profit organisations and organisations where staff have responsibility for children, it could resolve to: • Approve a 50 per cent discount on the cost of business permits for registered not for profit organisations and charities, schools (including both government and non-government schools), and early years services (including childcare centres and kindergartens). • Modify the Fees and Charge Schedule 2019/2020 to include the following permit types and costs: • Business/Trader Parking Permit – First Concession: $65.55 per year

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 29

• Business/Trader Parking Permit – Subsequent Concession: $98.35 per year. Option E: Earlier Finishing Time for New Parking Restrictions Current Policy In March 2019 (DCF12/19), Council approved introducing the 2P 8am-11pm Monday-Friday restriction to all unrestricted on-street parking within certain areas. This restriction ends later than many restrictions across the municipality, with the exception of some areas such as near restaurant precincts. It is intended to remove the ability for a person without a parking permit to store their vehicle long term on- street, while allowing short term use and greater flexibility at night-time and on weekends when the restrictions do not apply. For example, if restrictions applied only 8 am-6 pm, a new resident not eligible for a parking permit could store their vehicle on-street and comply with the restrictions by leaving for work by car each day before 10 am and returning after 4 pm. 2P restrictions finishing at 11pm allow for overnight parking from 9pm. In June 2019 (DCF38/19), Council delegated authority to the Manager City Change to apply an alternative restriction (i.e. other than 2P 8am-11pm Monday-Friday) where the following conditions are met: • The parking is within the MITS parking restrictions area; • Users of adjoining non-residential land uses who arrive by car generally require parking in excess of that allowed by the 2P 8am-11pm Monday-Friday restriction; • The alternative restriction would not permit a resident ineligible for residential parking permits to store a vehicle on-street long term instead of in an offstreet space; • The alternative restriction would not result in insufficient turnover; and • The alternative restriction is practicably able to be enforced by Council officers. This delegated authority does not permit the Manager City Change to apply an alternative restriction in relation to residential uses or where this would facilitate a resident without a parking permit relying on on-street parking instead of an off-street space (e.g. by driving to work each weekday). Community Feedback Feedback on the hours of operation for new parking restrictions has included that the 11pm finishing time would make it more difficult for residents to receive guests in the evening (as they would need to obtain visitor permits), and that this could pose a barrier to the movement of people (particularly women) who use cars at night due to safety concerns. Some people providing this feedback have indicated they would prefer restrictions finishing at 6pm, which are more common throughout the municipality. This type of restriction deters all-day parking by commuters and increases turnover during the daytime. However, it would have no impact on parking usage after 4 pm in the afternoon and significantly reduces the impact of MITS in reducing car use and congestion. Details of Option E A potential option would be revise the finishing time of new parking restrictions to 9pm. This would allow overnight parking from 7pm, and deter some residents without parking permits from relying on-street parking instead of off-street parking, but to a lesser extent than the restriction originally approved by Council in March 2019. It is strongly recommended not to revise the finishing time to earlier than 9pm as this would further reduce this deterrence and increase the likelihood that residents of new developments would rely on on-street parking rather than obtaining off-street parking. This would likely cause issues for pre-2011 residents currently relying on the resident

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 30

permit scheme to help them park near their home, particularly in areas where significant population growth is occurring. Impacts of Option E The advantages of changing new parking restrictions to finish at 9pm instead of 11pm are: • Greater flexibility for visitors (to residents, restaurants, etc.) accessing longer- term parking in the evening without needing to move their car. • Greater flexibility for people who use cars at night due to safety concerns. The disadvantages of changing the parking restriction are: • It is likely that more residents without parking permits would rely on on-street parking rather than off-street parking, which would cause issues for existing residents particularly where higher rates of development and growth are occurring. • It is likely that the transport mode shift away from car use would be reduced. Suggested Wording to Enact Option E If Council wished to revise the hours to which MITS parking restrictions apply, it could resolve to: • Revise the parking restriction generally to be introduced as part of MITS implementation to “2P 8am – 9pm Monday – Friday”. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The human rights impacts of changes to parking restrictions and parking policy were comprehensively considered in an assessment conducted in and noted by Council in December 2019 (DCF90/19). This assessment identifies the relevant rights in the Charter. This report recommends changing the area to which new parking restrictions would apply and approving processes for managing any potential spillover. These changes would mean fewer people would be impacted by parking restrictions, and reduced disruption due to any spillover issues. This would positively impact the relevant rights assessed in December 2019, particularly for those who most need to drive such as due to health or disability issues. The report also presents a number of potential options for Council consideration, which if adopted would also positively impact on these rights. It is not considered that any of the recommendations or options for change in this report would negatively impact on any relevant human right. The previous human rights assessment identified the importance of communicating parking options and changes to policy, which can be complex, in a way that can be understood by broad range of communities within Moreland. This includes cohorts such as elderly people, people with low English proficiency, and people who do not have access to the Internet or smartphones. The recommendations and options for change in this report would provide additional permit options but introduce greater complexity into Council’s parking policy. Officers will work to ensure communication of any changes approved by Council is effective and accessible to a broad range of audiences. Officers are currently developing a strategy for communicating parking changes and options to Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) communities. All permit options being offered can be accessed without access to a smartphone or the Internet through support from Council’s customer service officers.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 31

4. Consultation The recommendations and options in this report were informed by the following sources (formal and informal) of engagement with the Moreland community: • Submissions made on Amendment C183 which related to parking restrictions or permit policy (rather than the planning scheme changes proposed by the Amendment) • Community drop-in sessions held in November and December 2019 on parking restriction changes in Brunswick West, Pascoe Vale and Hadfield • Feedback provided to Council through phone, email and social media • Engagement with organisations to be affected by expansion of parking restrictions Officers are in the process of engaging with organisations such as schools, early years centres (child care and kindergarten), sports clubs and places of worship, to make sure they understand changes to parking and the options available to them. Feedback from these organisations may inform future adjustments to policy, as appropriate. Further community drop-in sessions will be held in March 2020, ahead of the next phase of implementing new parking restrictions beginning in April. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The recommendations and options in this report can be actioned within existing resources. If approved by Council, the recommendation in this report to revise the area to which parking restrictions will apply in the short-term, and the options to potentially provide more affordable permit options for residents of housing subdivided after August 2011 and non-profit organisations, are likely to result in reduced permit revenue compared to if these changes were not approved. The change to the area where parking restrictions are being introduced would result in projected cost savings as fewer new signs would need to be installed. 7. Implementation The recommendations and options in this report would be implemented through changes to Council’s parking permit policy, and through the rollout of new parking restrictions which were scheduled to occur by the end of June 2020. Any changes resolved by Council to the parking restrictions boundary area or to parking permits will be implemented through the e-permit system to which Council is currently transitioning. This will cause a delay to the commencement of the e-permit system, which may mean the e-permit system is not implemented in full at the introduction of new parking restrictions in and within 200 metres of the Brunswick and Coburg Activity Centres, which is currently expected to occur from April 2020. Any changes resolved by Council would be communicated through information provided in letters to affected properties, through Council’s website, and engagement with organisations and the broader community. It is not proposed to revise the Parking Management Policy 2019 to document any policy changes given the transitional measures period, but instead, prepare an Addendum to the Policy which is updated as policy adjustments are made and which is to be read in conjunction with the Policy. The Parking Management Policy will be updated to incorporate changes that are accepted post the transition measures period in July 2022.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 32

Attachment/s 1⇩ Zones for Daily and Business Parking Permits D20/46442 2⇩ Current and Proposed Boundary Areas for MITS Parking Restrictions D20/46441 3⇩ Proposed Instrument of Delegation Moreland Integrated Transport D20/47632 Strategy (MITS) Parking ~ February 2020

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 33

DEP1/20 TRANSPORT ADVOCACY PROGRESS REPORT - RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF MOTION 71/19 (D20/3608) Director Engagement and Partnerships Advocacy and Partnerships

Executive Summary At the Council Meeting on 11 December 2019, Council resolved (NOM71/19) to receive a report on plans for public transport advocacy, including advocacy for the duplication of the Upfield Railway Line and improvements to bus and tram services. This follows the adoption of the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS) Transport Advocacy Plan (Attachment 1), as amended, at the 12 June 2019 Council Meeting (DCF38/19). Following these decisions, the Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Director City Futures met with the Minister for Public Transport, Melissa Horne, to present four brief advocacy papers, included at Attachment 2, relating to train (Upfield), tram (Pascoe Vale) and bus improvements (Fawkner) in the north of the municipality. These items were well received. However, following advice from the Minister, correspondence was also sent to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Jacinta Allan in relation to train and tram items as these were considered more relevant to that Ministerial portfolio. Council has also been working on advocacy initiatives at a regional level, through the development of the Northern Region Transport Strategy Plan, an initiative involving the Northern Council’s Alliance (NCA) to collaborate on advocacy work in the pursuit of better public transport outcomes in the greater northern region.

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Notes the Transport Advocacy Progress Report – Response to Notice of Motion 71/19. 2. Continues advocacy with relevant Ministers seeking improvements to the Upfield line, Pascoe Vale tram improvements, and bus improvements in the north of the municipality. 3. Holds a Councillor workshop to review advocacy progress and strategies.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 40

REPORT

1. Policy Context The formulation, prioritisation and pursuit of transport advocacy is derived from the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy 2019 (MITS) and the Transport Advocacy Plan. The Transport Advocacy Plan was adopted by Council at its meeting 12 June 2019 (DCF38/19) and is included as Attachment 1. 2. Background This report responds to Notice of Motions NOM11/19 (13 March 2019) and NOM71/19 (11 December 2019). Specifically, Council resolved in NOM 11/19: That Council supports the campaign to urgently bring forward the duplication of the Upfield Line. This support would include Council: 1. Supporting community actions to duplicate the Upfield Line by publicising the actions on Council’s social media and website. 2. Providing free access to a Council meeting space in Coburg, (such as the Concert Hall meeting rooms at the Coburg Civic Centre) free of charge for an Upfield Transport Alliance public meeting on a night in 2019 to give a bigger public profile to the campaign. 3. Providing fortnightly free access to meeting spaces for the Upfield Transport Alliance for up to 30 people for generally 2-hour meetings, throughout 2019. 4. Resolving to refer the duplication of the Upfield Line to the Council Strategic Advocacy Plan for appropriate scoping, research and resourcing, including engaging with the Mayor of the City of Hume, City of Moonee Valley and the Lord Mayor of Melbourne along with other potential advocacy partners to support an advocacy campaign. NOM 71/19 resolved: That Council receives a report on its plans for public transport advocacy at its February 2020 meeting. This report would include advocacy on duplication of the Upfield Line and improvements in the bus and tram services. This report provides further details in respect to public transport advocacy that has taken place. A workshop will be scheduled with Councillors in order to review progress and advocacy strategy.

3. Issues Advocacy actions Ministerial Advocacy As a means of instigating advocacy discussions with the State Government, the Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Director City Futures met with Public Transport Minister, Melissa Horne on 23 July 2019. The purpose of the meeting was to present four brief advocacy papers for significant transport improvements in Moreland. The advocacy papers are included at Attachment 2. The improvements sought are: • ‘Night Alight’ bus service trial in Fawkner. This proposal follows a Transperth initiative in Western Australia that enables passengers to nominate where they wish to leave the bus after 7 pm. A twelve-month trial is proposed for both bus routes serving Fawkner. This initiative has the potential to encourages more vulnerable members of the community to use buses beyond daylight hours. In a tactical sense, improving services that build patronage can lend

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 41

weight to an argument for bus services to meet every train. This is a relatively low- cost initiative that improves safety. • Bus service restructure in Fawkner. Fawkner is served by bus routes 530 and 531. Route 530 serves most of Fawkner, but in a convoluted and slow manner. Route 531 travels on Sydney Road and while it is direct and quick, it is simply too far away to be useful to most residents. There is scope for both services to be restructured in a manner that makes the routes direct, frequent and useful. Increasing patronage through an enhanced service again provides the justification for additional service hours. • Duplicating and extending the Upfield Railway Line Council has long recognised that the single section of railway track between Gowrie and Upfield Stations is the barrier to improved train frequencies on this line. The lack of connection to the Craigieburn Railway Line is also part of the problem. The duplication and extension of this line is an identified project in the State Rail Network Development Plan (Stage 4), but the level of population growth in the greater northern region suggests this project should be brought forward to realise opportunities to use additional rail pathway created at North Melbourne with the opening of the Melbourne Metro 1 Rail Tunnel project. • Extending tram route 58 to Boundary Road The imminent redevelopment of the route 58 terminus in Melville Road highlights a historic aspiration, and strategic rationale, to extend this tram line 2.5 kilometres northbound along Derby Street to a terminus at Boundary Road, Pascoe Vale. The project could act as a catalyst for strategic collaboration to create and renew quality housing neighbourhoods with a secure light rail link. The Public Transport Minister indicated good initial support for the bus project initiatives but advised that the train and tram projects should be referred to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Jacinta Allan. The bus items relate to improving the quality of bus services in Fawkner and will require further development. Follow up communications to both ministers is being undertaken. Extending advocacy influence Northern Metropolitan Partnership – Group Council Transport Advocacy Moreland is part of an alliance of councils in Melbourne’s north. The alliance includes Banyule, Darebin, Hume, Mitchell, Nillumbik, and Whittlesea City Councils. This alliance instigated the publishing of Northern Horizons, a 50-year infrastructure advisory document for the broad northern region. This alliance has now embarked on developing a ‘Northern Region Transport Strategy’. The purpose of this strategy is to identify projects with the capacity to deliver broad and enduring benefit. This is turn can bolster the strength of Council’s advocacy to the State Government on particular projects. An example of such an opportunity is the duplication and extension of the Upfield Railway Line. This project can provide a large rail capacity increase for many residents in the City of Hume, and therefore warrants a continued collaborative approach to advocacy. North West City Deal City Deals are a new approach in Australia to bring together the all levels of government, the community and the private sector. These partnerships are intended to focus on aligning planning, investment and governance to accelerate growth and job creation, stimulate urban renewal and drive economic reforms to secure the future prosperity and liveability of our cities. There are seven City Deals currently agreed across Australia.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 42

The Northern Region of Councils is currently advocating for a North West City Deal which would have transport as a key priority, including improved rail infrastructure and bus networks. An update on the progress of this initiative will be reported back through a future Councillor briefing. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Should Council’s Transport Advocacy be successful this will positively contribute to human rights in relation to residents’ freedom of movement. 4. Consultation As this is a report back on existing advocacy actions, consultation has not been conducted. Communications Council’s social media channels, website and print publications have been utilised regularly to give profile to Council’s advocacy effort. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The advocacy conducted to date has relied upon direct officer time. 7. Implementation Advocacy efforts will continue on an ongoing basis. A workshop will be held with Councillors in March/April 2020 to review and consider advocacy progress and future strategy.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy - MITS - advocacy plan D19/109684 2⇩ Public transport advocacy papers presented to Minister for Transport D20/5346 on 23 July 2019

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 43

EMF1/20 NAMING OF TINNING STREET PARK AND WEST STREET PARK (D20/21326) Executive Manager Finance Property

Executive Summary Council is creating two new parks, one located at 55-61 Tinning Street, Brunswick, and the other at 1-11 West Street and 29-31 Breese Streets, Brunswick, the locations are shown at Attachments 1 and 2 of this report. These two new parks are part delivering on Council’s A Park Close to Home Strategy. This report proposes to name the parks following a community vote. Council officers initially undertook public consultation to seek naming suggestions for the new parks between 3 June 2019 and 5 July 2019. Council officers reviewed all 27 naming suggestions in line with the State Government’s Geographic Names Victoria (GNV) - Naming rules for places in Victoria, Statutory requirements for naming roads, features and localities – 2016 (the Naming Rules) and Council’s Naming Moreland Places Policy preference criteria. On 13 November 2019 Council resolved (EMF37/19) to give public notice of a voting poll for a name for each park of the following endorsed names: Sampson Rope Park, Bagung Djirri Park or Garrong Park for the Tinning Street park and Bulleke-bek Park or Yubup Park for the West and Breese Street park. A voting poll is part of the naming process to ensure any chosen name will have community support, in accordance the Naming Rules. Public notice to vote was given on Council’s website, in the Moreland Leader newspaper and the Northern Leader newspaper on 25 November 2019. Due to an issue ensuring the integrity of the online data system, public notice was readvertised with an extension to the voting deadline to 24 January 2020. Votes were received via email, mail/post and the Conversations Moreland website. For the Tinning Street park, 774 votes were received, with Garrong Park receiving 78 per cent of votes as the preferred name. For the West Street park 170 votes were received, with Bulleke-bek Park receiving 64 per cent of votes as the preferred names. These results are included at Attachment 3. It is recommended that Council endorses the following names as an outcome of strong community support in the voting poll.

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Endorses the name ‘Garrong Park’ for the new park at 55-61 Tinning Street Brunswick. 2. Endorses the name ‘Bulleke-bek Park’ for the new park at the former address 1-11 West Street and 29-31 Breese Street, Brunswick. 3. Authorises the Executive Manager Finance to do all things required to formalise the two names above with Geographic Names Victoria.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 59

REPORT

1. Policy Context Submissions for naming must meet the mandatory naming rules and principles of Geographic Names Victoria’s Naming rules for places in Victoria, Statutory requirements for naming roads, features and localities – 2016 (the Naming Rules). Submissions are also considered with preference given to Council’s Place Naming Preference Criteria as set out in Naming Moreland Places Policy (the Policy). 2. Background Council is creating two new parks, one located at 55-61 Tinning Street, Brunswick, shown in Attachment 1 (Tinning Street park), and the other at the former addresses 1-11 West and 29-31 Breese Streets, Brunswick, shown in Attachment 2 (West and Breese Street park). These parks are part of delivering on Council’s ‘A Park Close to Home’ Strategy. The new parks need to be named and this report proposes to finalise the naming process using the name/s with the majority of votes from the voting poll as the name for both the parks. The procedure for naming the new parks is being undertaken in accordance with the procedures outlined within the Naming Rules and the Policy. An initial public consultation was conducted to seek names from the community. 27 naming submissions were received from this consultation. Some submissions were for both parks and some submissions were by multiple submitters. The Tinning Street park received 21 different naming suggestions, the West and Breese Streets park also received 21 different naming suggestions. The submissions received were checked with the Naming Rules then if eligible, assessed against Council’s criteria within the Policy. From this list, Council officers prepared a shortlist of names. The shortlist was presented to Council at the 13 November 2019 (EMF37/19) Council meeting for endorsement. Council’s endorsed names were taken to a further public consultation to vote for the community’s preference on the proposed suitable names. 3. Issues At the 13 November 2019 Council meeting EMF37/19, the names endorsed by Council for a voting poll included ‘Bagung Djirri Park’ to the Tinning Street park and ‘West Street Garden’ to the West Street park. Council officers conducted searches aligned with the Naming Rules and discovered Bagung Djirri could be included in the public vote, but West Street Garden was not supported by Geographic Names Victoria. West Street was not supported for the following two reasons: • North, South East and West, should not be used in place names as they have the potential to create confusion; • There are several road names that use the word West in their name, located within close proximity, therefore the risk is relatively high with regards to the proposed name West if assigned to the place in question. In the initial public notice to seek names from the community one of the names submitted was Sampson after the rope/cordage works in the Tinning Street area. Initial investigations into this name produced conflicting information regarding the spelling of the name. Feedback from several people in the community has uncovered the spelling of the rope/cordage works was in fact Samson. During the voting period inquiries were made regarding Councils consultation with the Indigenous community for the use of Aboriginal names. As indicated in the

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 60

November report to Council (EMF37/19), Council consulted with the Wurundjeri Tribe Council prior to voting, both during and after the consultation seeking names. Two objections received during the voting period were both regarding only having indigenous names as voting options. Council officers responded explaining the names selected for the shortlist meet the Naming Rules and Council’s Naming preferred criteria. A further objection was received regarding the integrity of the online data for the Tinning Street park online voting. Council officers analysed the data and found that the online voting results were being overwhelmed with illegitimate ‘bot’ votes as the online voting system was not setup to prevent this happening. This was addressed, and the online voting tool was consequently setup with several compulsory fields including an email address and a home address field and other measures to minimise the ability for bots to be used. All advertising was re-issued with an explanation to vote again if previously voted online and an extension to the voting deadline. The names that were included in the vote met both the Naming Rules and the Policy criteria. These names and their meanings are listed below: Tinning Street Park

Name Meaning Samson The rope works located on Tinning Street was known as ‘Samson Rope Works’ or ‘Samson Cordage Works’. Garrong Garrong means ‘Wattle’ in Woi Wurrung language. This name was suggested by an Elder at the Wurundjeri Tribe Council, the Elder chose a name that children can say. Bagung Djirri Bagung Djirri means ‘Gather Everyone’ in Woi Wurrung language. This name was suggested by an Elder at the Wurundjeri Tribe Council for a previous naming project.

West and Breese Streets Park

Name Meaning Bulleke-bek Bulleke-bek is the former Aboriginal name for Brunswick recorded (2 submissions by Alfred William Howitt (an anthropologist based in Gippsland) in received) his notebook, which is held by the Melbourne Museum. The name is believed to refer to the description ‘flat country with scattered trees’. Yubup Yubup means ’Parrakeet’ in Woi Wurrung language. This name was suggested by an Elder at the Wurundjeri Tribe Council, the Elder chose a name that children can say.

A few submitters voted multiple times and there were a small number of invalid votes from votes made via mail/post and online. These invalid votes were eliminated from the final number of votes. Following the public vote, with consideration given to any objections, the names with the majority of votes are proposed to become the official name, subject to Council endorsement. Council received votes to the voting poll via email, mail/post and the Conversations Moreland website. The results from the voting process for the Tinning Street park were 774 votes, with the preferred name being Garrong Park with 78 per cent of votes. For the West Street park there were 170 votes were made, with the preferred name being Bulleke-bek Park with 64 per cent of votes. These results are included at Attachment 3.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 61

If Council resolves to refine, change or add to the community voted name, the name must be assessed against the Naming Rules and Council must undertake another round of community consultation to determine community support for the name. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Moreland’s Human Rights Policy is committed to Aboriginal Communities particularly the Wurundjeri people and reconciliation by recognising the traditional custodians of the land. Choosing an Indigenous name will increase awareness and strengthen partnerships in the community. 4. Consultation The initial public consultation to seek names occurred commencing on 3 June 2019. Use of an ‘Indigenous Name’, must have approval from the Wurundjeri Tribe Council. Council consulted with the Wurundjeri Tribe Council for the use of Indigenous names. These names must be in the Woi Wurrung language. The Wurundjeri Tribe Council proposed various names for the new parks during the initial public notice period. Another Indigenous name was received from four different submissions from the public, this name was taken to the Wurundjeri Tribe Council for consultation and permission to use this name was granted. The public consultation to vote commenced on 25 November 2019, this notice was placed in the Moreland Leader newspaper and the Northern Leader newspaper. The notice was also published on Council’s website and letters were sent to submitters to the name seeking consultation and owners of properties within the vicinity of the new parks. A letter was delivered to all properties within a 500 metre radius of the both the park sites. Consultation occurred for with the following key groups as outlined in the Policy’: Aboriginal Community Brunswick Community Brunswick Neighbourhood Elders Services Inc. History Group House Coop Ceres Community East Coburg Community Fawkner Community Environment Park House House Friends of Edgars Creek Friends of the Merri Creek Glenroy Neighbourhood Learning Centre Inc Lions Club of Coburg Lions Club of Glenroy Moreland City Council Diversity Officer Merri Creek Management Friends of the Moonee Newlands Community Committee Ponds Creek House Returned and Services Returned and Services Returned and Services League - Coburg Sub- League – Fawkner League - Glenroy Sub branch Branch Inc. Returned and Services Reynard Street Rotary Club of Moreland League - Pascoe Vale Neighbourhood House Sub Branch Inc Sussex Neighbourhood The Broadmeadows The Broadmeadows House Historical Society Inc. Progress Association The Coburg Historical Wurundjeri Land and Society Compensation Cultural Heritage Council Aboriginal Corporation

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 62

On identifying voting was compromised via the online portal, a second round of advertising was issued on 16 December 2019, advising people who had voted online, to vote again. A new date for voting to close was set as 24 January 2020. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The costs will be met within the current budget. 7. Implementation Subject to Council’s decision formal endorsement of the name will be sought by submitting all supporting documents to the Geographic Names Victoria to enable the gazettal of the name.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Tinning Park Map D19/428313 2⇩ West Park Map D19/428328 3⇩ Pie Chart Voting Attachment D20/22538

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 63

DCD1/20 VICTORIAN BUSHFIRE RESPONSE (D20/34792) Director Community Development Aged and Community Support

Executive Summary This summer’s Victorian bushfires have had, and continue to have, devastating impacts for many communities across Victoria. Local government across Victoria has rallied to support affected councils and communities to help respond to the immediate needs of the community and minimise the impact of the fires. Moreland has played an active role in supporting the affected councils and communities through its emergency management function and will continue to do so. Offers of support have been made to affected councils, and requests for support have been received. Council recently responded to requests for assistance through staff being deployed to support communities from East Gippsland and North East Victoria. Requests for support to date have been for staff trained in specific emergency management roles, and as the transition to recovery is made, requests are also possible for staff with specific skills such as Council's arborists, engineers, and environmental health officers. With further extreme heat forecast this summer, fire danger is also expected to rise, despite the recent rain. Learnings from major bushfires, such as Black Saturday in 2009, have shown that recovery is likely to be for an extended period, from months into years in some cases, and ongoing support for the affected councils, communities, businesses and individuals will be required.

Officer Recommendation That Council notes the devastating impact of the bushfires across Victoria and continues to assist affected councils through staff time and expertise as required.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 67

REPORT

1. Policy Context Under Victorian law, councils are required to assist with local planning and preparation for emergency events. Councils play an important role in Victoria’s emergency management arrangements. They facilitate emergency management planning at the local level and are responsible for coordinating relief and recovery support for affected communities. They also have a long-established role in providing support to response agencies. Moreland has an active role in Emergency Management and is a member of the North West Metropolitan Region (NWMR) Emergency Management Collaboration. The 14 councils of the NWMR have been successfully collaborating and supporting each other in the field of emergency management since 2013. The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) supports councils to undertake their roles and responsibilities through advocacy, guidance and practical assistance. MAV has developed a protocol for resource sharing that is intended to clarify operational, insurance and reimbursement issues that may arise through municipal resource- sharing arrangements. Moreland has adopted the protocol for inter-council resource sharing. The protocol is an agreed position between councils regarding the provision of resources to assist other municipalities with response and recovery tasks during and after emergencies. 2. Background With the devastating bushfire activity across Victoria, in particular East Gippsland and North East Victoria, local government across the state has played an important role in supporting the relief and recovery for the impacted councils and communities. The ongoing and broad nature of the events has resulted in the request and offer for councils to share resources in the response to the bushfires. A State of Disaster was declared by the Premier on 3 January 2020 for parts of the State for the seven days following the declaration. This was the first time such powers had been used since they were included in the Emergency Management Act 1986 following the 2009 Victorian Bushfires, showing just how significant the current bushfire situation is. The declaration applied to the local government areas of East Gippsland Shire, Mansfield Shire, Wellington Shire, Wangaratta Rural Shire, Towong Shire, Alpine Shire, and Mount Buller, Mount Hotham, Falls Creek and Mount Stirling Alpine Resorts. This is extraordinary fire activity for this time of year, with further extreme heat forecast this summer. With the heightened temperatures, the fire danger would also be expected to rise, despite the recent rain. Previous experience of major bushfires such as Black Saturday has shown that recovery is likely to be for an extended period and ongoing support for the affected councils, communities, businesses and individuals will be required. 3. Issues Moreland’s response to the Victorian Bushfires Moreland has been active in responding to requests and offering support for other Councils. Council has reached out to Mansfield Shire Council to offer support and has been working closely with Darebin City Council. Darebin has been coordinating support for Towong Shire Council. Towong Shire is one of Victoria's smallest councils but is dealing with one of the state's biggest fires. At this stage requests for support are for staff trained in specific emergency management roles, and also those with specific skills such as Council's arborists, engineers, and environmental health

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 68

officers. Depending on the needs of the affected councils, requests may also come for equipment, machinery and vehicles to assist in the recovery effort. To date Council’s specific support has included: • Providing trained staff to the Emergency Relief Centre (ERC) established at the Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Centre to support people being evacuated from East Gippsland, in particular Mallacoota. Moreland provided two staff while the ERC was open on Saturday 4 January. This was facilitated through the NWMR collaboration; • Providing one staff to support Towong Shire in their Municipal Emergency Coordination Centre (MECC) at the Incident Control Centre (ICC) in Wodonga. This was a five-day deployment. This included coordinating council resources and working with response and relief agencies such as Australian Defence Force, Red Cross and Department of Health and Human Services; • One staff member was to be deployed to the Towong Shire Council Emergency Relief Centre in Corryong, for a five-day deployment, however was unable to secure accommodation locally due to the influx of emergency service and essential service workers to the area; • Council staff organised a morning tea fundraiser and raised $1400 for the bushfire appeal, donating $700 each to the Gippsland Bushfire Community Appeal, and the Victorian Bushfire Disaster Appeal. • Moreland has established a register of staff willing to be considered for deployment to assist as specific requests come in; • Moreland is participating in the MAV’s new disaster response human resource sharing database and is registering offers of assistance from relevant staff; • Council promoted on social media the St Francis De Sales Cricket Club/Therry Penola Football Club bushfire fundraiser held on 2 February 2020. • Extreme heat and poor air quality have also been of concern during recent weeks. Council has taken an active role in informing the community of these events and actions to take in staying healthy during these extreme situations. As the need for support for relief and recovery for impacted communities continues, Council will continue to coordinate its response to assist affected councils through staff time and expertise as required. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Any decision within this report does not limit or interfere with any of the human rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. 4. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 5. Financial and Resources Implications Where there have been formal requests for assistance, Council can apply for reimbursement of expenses incurred from the requesting council. In responding to requests Council considers our own ability to conduct business as usual before agreeing to resource sharing. All requests are considered and coordinated internally before any deployment of staff.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 69 DBT1/20 MONTFORT PARK - DAR-ALAWDA COMMUNITY CENTRE (D19/341989) Director Business Transformation Corporate Governance

Executive Summary In 1997 Council adopted a Property Asset Management Plan which called for a strategic review of the Council property portfolio to ensure it was best serving the needs of the community. In 2000, Wendel Street Brunswick (Montfort Park) was identified for disposal through the Property Asset Management Committee. Council, at its meeting on 12 March 2002 (DCD15 Sale of land – Montfort Park, Brunswick (P12594)), resolved to sell 98 Henkel Street and 1 Wendel Street Brunswick to the Dar-Alawda Community Centre subject to agreed terms and conditions, which included community access to Montford Park. There have been ongoing concerns raised by residents local to Montfort Park regarding their access to the open space. In 2018 residents again raised significant concerns regarding the form of Montfort Park open space as well as the community access to the space. Council engaged facilitation services from an independent provider to seek to resolve the issues of conflict around the form and access to the Montfort Park open space, working with both the Dar-Alawda Community Centre Committee and representatives of the local community. This involved several independent meetings with each party as well as collective discussion. Through this process a combined vision for the Montfort Park open space was established, centred around the Dar-Alawda Community Centre’s basketball court. Progress in Council’s ability to support any improvement to the community amenity (fence beautification, plantings and mural) has been delayed whilst the Dar-Alawda Community Centre worked to provide documentation to Consumer Affairs to fulfil their requirements as an incorporated body. In addition, there are 9 Associate (Open Space) Member applications from the local community still awaiting response (at the time of preparation of this report). Membership is a requirement for community members to access the Montford Park open space. The purpose of this report is to note the work undertaken to date to in relation to seeking to addressing community concerns regarding the form and community access to the Montfort Park open space; it is anticipated a further report will be provided to update on progress at Council’s March meeting.

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Notes the work that has been undertaken to facilitate improved community access to Montfort Park. 2. Notes a further report is proposed to be provided to the March 2020 Council Meeting to update on the progress to establish community access to the Montford Park open space in accordance with the terms of the Contract of Sale for 98 Henkel Street and 1 Wendel Street Brunswick.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 70

REPORT

1. Policy Context This report has been prepared in accordance with Council’s: • Human Rights Policy; • Municipal Health and Wellbeing Plan; • Social Cohesion Strategy; • Moreland Open Space Strategy; • Park Close to Home Framework. 2. Background In 1996 Council adopted the original Moreland Open Space Strategy (Strategy). This Strategy recognised that, while Council had an investment more than $800 million in land and buildings across the municipality at the time, there were areas of Moreland that were not particularly well served with community access to public open space. In April 1997 Council adopted a Property Asset Management Plan which called for a strategic review of the Council property portfolio with a view to ensuring that, over time, the capital investment in land holding was optimised in terms of best serving the Moreland community. A Property Asset Management Committee (Committee) was established to review the merits of retaining the existing geographic spread of properties, and to determine where specific property acquisitions would add to the community benefit. The Committee identified several potential sites for sale, including Montfort Park, and general areas where land might be purchased should the opportunity arise. Council, at its meeting on 11 December 2000, considered a proposal from the Director Corporate Development to dispose of Council properties at 58-60 Farview Street, Glenroy and Wendel Street, Brunswick (Montfort Park). These properties were identified for disposal through the Property Asset Management Committee. Dar-Alawda Community Centre expressed interest in obtaining the Montford Park site to establish a Community Centre alongside the open space. Following this expression of interest Council undertook a process of community consultation and subsequently entered discussions with Dar Alawda Community Centre. Dar-Alawda (Wendel Street) Community Centre Inc was registered for incorporation on 16 November 2000 - A0040459F. It had 10 members and used the model rules provided by Consumer Affairs. Council, at its meeting of 12 March 2002 (DCD15 Sale of land – Montfort Park, Brunswick (P12594), resolved to sell 98 Henkel Street and 1 Wendel Street Brunswick to the Dar-Alawda Community Centre subject to agreed terms and conditions, including retaining community access to the open space. Council entered into negotiations to progress the purchase and a further report was provided to Council on 8 December 2003. The nature of the contract required several instruments to facilitate the sale. These included: • Contract of Sale; • Deed of Option to Purchase; • Lease; • Section 173 Agreement. The documentation was structured such that the Contract of Sale, Section 173 Agreement and the Restrictive Covenant defined the obligations of the Dar-Alawda Community Centre. The Deed of Option to Purchase described the process by which a default under any of these agreements may trigger the right for Council to buy back

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 71

this site under the Deed. Given that execution of the sale took some time a lease agreement between Council and the Community Centre was established. In addition, in response to the issue of public access to the open space portion of the land, Public Access Rules were developed and are provided in Attachment 1. The full market value of the land at the time was $530,000, with the site, encumbered by the special conditions, valued at $140,000. Council resolved to sell the site for $100,000 for the purpose of securing community and recreation development of the site by the Dar-Alawda Community Centre. A contractual agreement between Council and the Dar-Alawda Community Centre was entered into on 29 July 2004 for the purchase of the property, including oversight of the Montfort Park Open Space. 3. Issues The Montfort Park open space is situated behind a high fence and the mechanism for access requires an application to become an Associate (Open Space) Member of the Dar-Alawda Community Centre. Following receipt of membership, a request for use of the space may be granted by the Dar-Alawda Community Centre Open Space Committee. In 2018 there were significant concerns raised with Council by members of the local community regarding the form of Montfort Park open space as well as the community access to the space. Following engagement with community representatives, Council engaged facilitation services to resolve the issues of conflict around the form of and access to Montfort Park. Council officers identified some key community representatives who had been in regular contact with Council on this matter over an extended period of time and invited their participation in this process. All Committee members of the Dar-Alawda Community Centre were invited to participate. The facilitator established terms of reference for the process, which bound all parties to work together constructively and in good faith. The terms of reference also restricted use of social media on the matter during the facilitation process. The facilitator held a number of meetings with both parties, independently and collectively over a number of months from November 2018 to June 2019. Through this process: • The Community Centre Committee representatives shared their vision for the Montfort Park open space; • The community representatives shared the views of the broader community that formed their vision for the Montfort Park open space; • A combined vision for the Montfort Park open space was established, centred around Community Centre’s basketball court; • Council provided assistance to establish visual imagery of the Community Centre and local community visions, as well as the shared vision for the Montfort Park open space; • The President of the Community Centre agreed to the Manager Corporate Governance and a local community representative becoming members of the Community Centre’s Open Space Committee, to support the oversight, management and access to the Montfort Park open space; • There was consideration of grant funded opportunities to fund key elements that could improve the community outcomes. Specifically: • Beautification of the fence, to soften the impact of the 3m tall metal bar fence surrounding the Montfort Park open space; • Mural / Graffiti Art on the adjoining warehouse wall to soften the space; and • Additional plantings. • In addition, Dar-Al Awda had requested assistance with the cost of Public Liability Insurance for the Montfort Park open space. In the spirit of the process to

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 72

improve community outcomes, this request was considered as a possibility in principle if it was a genuine barrier that, if supported, would facilitate community access. With the support of the Community Centre President/Secretary, Council organised an Open Day at the Dar-Al Awda Community Centre on 24 August 2019 to support the Community Centre Committee. The purpose of the Open Day was to: • Share the work that had been undertaken with community representatives throughout the year; • Share the combined vision for the Montfort Park open space with the broader community for consultation • Build relationships with the local community by opening up the montfort park open space • Seek feedback on the combined vision • Engage with the community to shape key elements including: • the mural / graffiti art concept; and • the fence beautification concept. Council delivered invitations to more than 600 residences in the surrounding community and provided catering for the event. Council’s Research Officer facilitated the community engagement on the key elements, and residents were asked to contribute their ideas to these concepts through drawing, key words and conversation. The Facilitator and Manager Corporate Governance supported the Committee Members present to engage with those who attended. The Committee was represented by the President/Secretary and Treasurer at this event. Progress in action toward the community vision for improvements to the space was delayed following this event, as the information provided to Consumer Affairs by the Dar-Alawda Community Centre was not up to date. This information was updated in December 2019 and is now compliant with the requirements of an incorporated association. On 19 November 2019, 9 applications for Associate (Open Space) Membership of Dar-Al Awda Community Centre were lodged with the Secretary (Also President at the time). The applications included: • 7 Individual Applications; and • 2 Family (4) Applications At the time of preparing this report, no response to the applications had been received. Council officers are awaiting the outcome of these applications before providing recommendations on the next steps to improve community access to Council for consideration. Social implications Through the construct of the sale, Council intended there to be community ownership of the Montfort Park open space for the broader benefit of the Moreland community. In practice, there have been ongoing issues with the local community accessing the open space as intended. The model established requires Moreland residents to apply for an Associate (open space) Membership of the Dar Al-Awda Community Centre. In response to complaints from the community about access to the open space, the President of the Community Centre confirmed in 2019 that there had not been one application for membership in the 17 years since the Community Centre took ownership. Regional/strategic implications The Montfort Park open space is not within an area identified as a gap are for open space within the Park Close to Home Strategy.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 73

Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation Councillors have been consulted at the Councillor Briefings held on 9 December 2019 and 3 February 2020. Community consultation has been undertaken as outlined within the body of this report. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications Resources have been invested to lead the independent facilitation between the Dar- Alawda Community Centre and community representatives, including an external consultant and Council officer time and participation. 7. Implementation It is proposed work will continue to establish community access to the Montford Park open space in accordance with the terms of the Contract of Sale for 98 Henkel Street and 1 Wendel Street Brunswick.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Extract – Contract of Sale Real Estate 29 July 2004 Dar-Alawda D20/35478 Montford Park

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 74

DCF3/20 AMENDMENT C189 CANOPY TREE PLANTING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS - DECISION GATEWAY 2 - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND REQUEST A PANEL (D19/477277) Director City Futures City Strategy and Design

Executive Summary Amendment C189 proposes to add new landscaping requirements within the Residential Zone schedules of the Moreland Planning Scheme. These requirements would obligate new medium density developments to be designed to incorporate taller and wider canopy trees to maximise canopy shading; design wider private open spaces to provide the space for trees to grow to their full potential; and direct particular planting locations to assist in shading of hard surfaces that absorb and radiate heat. Amendment C189 was exhibited from 21 November 2019 to 20 December 2019. Eight submissions were received, one of which was withdrawn. Four of the submissions supported the Amendment recognising the benefits trees provide to Moreland’s urban environment. One submission raised queries that were unrelated to the proposed changes to the Planning scheme and has been referred to the relevant departments within Council for responses. Changes proposed in one submission and another submission against the amendment remain, necessitating an independent Panel hearing should Council decide to proceed with the amendment. Key matters raised in the remaining two submissions related to landscape requirements commensurate to the zone, the operation of the proposed policy, the prescriptive and onerous nature of the planting requirements, and the impact to housing growth and diversity. All submitters were contacted to discuss their submission, with Council officer responses to questions satisfactorily addressing some submitters concerns. Council officers in Council’s Open Space Branch provided additional support where submissions raised questions unrelated to Amendment C189 concerning Council’s open spaces and green assets. Attachment 1 provides a summary of all the submissions, including details of the Council officer response. This report recommends no changes to the exhibited Amendment C189 documentation as detailed in Attachment 2 and that Council refers the unresolved submissions to an independent Planning Panel for consideration. Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Using its powers as a planning authority under s 23(1) of the Planning and Environment 1987, requests that the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Panel to consider all submissions to Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C189. 2. Endorses the response to submissions as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, to form the basis of Council’s submission to an independent Planning Panel. 3. Notes that the recommended form of the Amendment C189 documents to be presented to the independent Panel will be as set out in Attachment 2 to this report. 4. Refers any late submissions to the independent Panel as appointed by the Minister for Planning. 5. Authorises the Director City Futures to make minor changes to Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C189 and to give direction on issues which arise in the course of the independent Panel hearing in response to expert evidence and submissions if required, so long as any further changes are generally in accordance with previously endorsed Council positions and the intent of Amendment C189.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 76

REPORT

1. Policy Context Policy Context for Amendment C189 (the Amendment) was reported to Council at the 10 July 2019 Council meeting (DCF53/19) demonstrating the Amendment responds to: • Moreland’s Council Plan and Council Action Plan • State Strategies Plan Melbourne and Living Melbourne - our metropolitan urban forest • State Planning Policy Framework in the Moreland Planning Scheme • Moreland Urban Heat Island Effect Action Plan (2016-2026), Urban Forest Strategy (2017-2027) and Medium Density Housing Review (2018). 2. Background Maximising Tree Planting in Medium Density Development An analysis of medium density housing in Moreland, outlined in Canopy Tree Planting in Residential Zone Areas Background Report, demonstrates that with minor changes to the site layout, multi dwelling townhouse development could better utilise the private open spaces to increase tree canopy with the planting of larger canopy trees without impacting dwelling yield. Recognising the different built form outcomes within different residential zones, the amendment recognises that the extent of canopy tree planting needs to vary between different residential zones, summarised in the below table. Zone Front Setback Small front setback Other open spaces Neighbourhood Minimum of 1 tree: Minimum of 1 tree: Minimum of 1 tree in Residential & • 8-15m high • 6-8m high each Secluded General Residential • 7m wide canopy • 5m wide canopy Private Open Space: Zones • 4.5m x 4.5m area • 4.5m wide area • 6-8m high • 5m wide canopy • 4.5m x 4.5m area Residential Growth Minimum of 1 tree: Minimum of 1 tree & Mixed Use Zones • 6-8m high elsewhere on the • 5m wide canopy site: • 4.5m wide area • 6-8m high • 5m wide canopy • 4.5m x 4.5m area Utilising Zone Schedules for tree planting outcomes The Moreland Planning Scheme already utilises residential zone schedules to direct particular tree planting requirements where a Clause 55 assessment is required. This includes directing the planting of trees in the front setback and each secluded private open space in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) schedule and the planting of trees in the front setback in the General Residential Zone (GRZ) and Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) schedules. Expanding these canopy tree planting requirements to direct a particular tree size and location will provide greater clarity to applicants and property owners when designing new housing. Changes to policy prior to Authorisation In response to conditions of Authorisation to progress the Amendment C189, changes were made to the Residential Zone Schedules. The changes did not alter the intent of the proposed policy or the tree planting outcomes. The requested changes related to the rewording of the overarching objectives to remove the words climate responsive, thermal comfort and urban heat as it was determined that they were not appropriate for a character objective.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 77

As these words are considered a key policy outcome sought by Amendment C189, an alternative leader sentence has been added to the proposed Standard B13 requirement within the zone schedules that states: The development should include landscaping to improve thermal comfort and reduce the urban heat island effect by providing: (see Attachment 2 for full wording of the proposed Standard B133) The table below demonstrates the changes made to the Residential Zones objectives. Original Objective Modified Objective (Council Resolved July 2019) (Authorised & Exhibited) All Residential Zone Schedules Neighbourhood Residential & General Residential Zone: • To promote climate responsive landscape character through • To promote a preferred neighbourhood increased tree canopy and character where the design and siting vegetation to improve thermal of new dwellings integrates generous comfort and reduce the urban landscaping through the retention of heat island effect. existing canopy trees (where practical) and the planting of new canopy trees and vegetation. Residential Growth Zone & Mixed Use Zones: • Ensure the design and siting of new buildings maximises landscaping throughout the site, including the retention of existing canopy trees (where practical) and the planting of new canopy trees and vegetation

3. Issues Integration with existing Clause 55 objectives (ResCode) One submitter sought clarity to how the new tree planting requirements integrate with existing Clause 55 objectives (ResCode) focused on daylight access to habitable and recreational spaces: • To allow adequate daylight into existing habitable room windows (Clause 55.04- 3) • To allow adequate daylight into new habitable room windows (Clause 55.05-3) • To allow solar access into the secluded private open space of new dwellings and residential buildings (Clause 55.05-5) Council officer response The standards associated with these objectives give guidance to building design as a way of achieving the objective. The location of landscaping, such as trees, are not included as a consideration within these objectives. Nevertheless, with suitable tree selection and location, the proposed tree planting requirements support these objectives by providing shading to sensitive spaces in the hotter months and access to direct sunlight in the winter months for passive cooling and heating to improve the amenity and useability of these spaces. The Council officer’s response satisfied the submitters query as documented in Attachment 2. No changes to the Amendment are proposed.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 78

Landscaping requirements for reverse living typologies Two submissions outlined that the policy was unclear on how tree planting will be achieved when secluded private open space is not part of the design, such as when a balcony is the key private open space for a dwelling. It was recommended the wording be changed to be more general to allow greater flexibility. Council officer response The changes proposed as part of the Amendment within NRZ and GRZ areas focus on traditional living typologies. In operation, when balconies are provided as the key recreational space, the proposed changes would only prescribe planting in the front setback as no secluded private open space is provided. The layout would nevertheless still need to integrate generous landscaping and an urban heat response as directed by the objective and decision guidelines proposed within the NRZ and GRZ schedules. Reverse living typologies are typically chosen to maximise housing yield through a design with much smaller amounts of private open space than traditional living typologies. Moreland’s Medium Density Housing Review 2018 identified that the introduction of the garden area has almost eliminated reverse living style dwellings within the NRZ and GRZ areas. The application of the proposed tree planting requirements is unlikely to reverse the typology trend identified in the Medium Density Housing Review and incentivise reverse living typologies due to the amount of open space required in the design of development to achieve compliance with the garden area requirement. Monitoring of the application of this policy change and how it influences medium density outcomes will however capture any renewed focus on reverse living typologies. No changes to the Amendment are proposed. Landscaping requirements between different residential zones One submission detailed that the proposed requirements failed to provide any distinction in the expected landscaping outcome between the NRZ and GRZ which each support housing growth at different scales, and, it did not recognise the increase housing growth in the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) and the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ). Council officer response The planning scheme currently does not direct differing landscaping outcomes within the NRZ and the GRZ, including the application of the garden area requirement. The changes proposed in Amendment C189 replicate this direction. The proposed landscaping outcome directed for the RGZ and the MUZ are at a lesser extent than that of the NRZ and GRZ to recognise the increased density and typologies expected in those residential areas. No changes to the Amendment are proposed. Onerous Secluded Private Open Space requirement and impact to housing outcomes One submission stated that the minimum 4.5 metres width for planting trees is unfounded and will result in secluded private open space areas greater than of Standard B28 of Clause 55.05-4, resulting in the internal dimensions and amenity of dwellings being reduced, with subsequent concerns the proposed policy will restrict housing growth and diversity in the municipality. Council officer response Extensive analysis of the open space design of medium density applications with differing site sizes and typologies was undertaken as documented in the Canopy Tree Planting in Residential Areas background report and the Medium Density Housing Review. This analysis identified a significant opportunity to provide

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 79

additional planting in all medium density housing applications within Moreland while not impacting yield. This analysis also demonstrated that the width of the secluded private open spaces in proposed medium density development in the NRZ and GRZ had increased with the introduction of the garden area. With some minor changes to the dwellings’ layout, the secluded private open spaces could be widened to accommodate a small tree with a broad canopy of 20 square metres without impacting yield. The amount of planting within Moreland’s NRZ will remain unchanged, as the schedule to this zone currently requires one tree in the front setback and one in each secluded private open space. The proposed policy change does however become more prescriptive directing a specific tree size and space for the trees to grow. While the requirement for planting in the GRZ will increase, compared to the current requirement, as outlined above, it is not expected that a new requirement to plant a tree in secluded private open space will affect yield. As detailed above, the degree of planting prescribed within the RGZ/MUZ differs to reflect and not impact the density outcomes sought. No changes to the Amendment are proposed. Prescriptive nature of the tree planting requirements One submission expressed concerns with the prescriptive nature of the proposed landscaping requirements stating that no other inner metropolitan Council has sought to implement similar prescriptive requirements relating to permeable areas and canopy tree sizes. Council officer response The proposed tree planting requirements are consistent with other metropolitan Councils’ Planning Schemes. In particular, Darebin, Knox and Whittlesea Councils Planning Schemes include landscaping requirements in their zone schedules that have similar prescriptive tree planting elements relating to: • The number of trees; • Height of trees; • Location of trees; • Minimum area to accommodate trees. The structure of the Residential Zone schedules provides for landscaping requirements to be included as a specific local provision. No changes to the Amendment are proposed. Tree root impacts One submission recommended deleting the wording requiring the planting of canopy trees in proximity to accessways as the roots from canopy trees can cause damage when planted close to sealed driveways and structures to dwellings and driveways. Council officer response Where there are concerns that tree root spread could cause damage to accessways and adjacent structures, the application of a tree root guard can assist the balance between the health of trees and the integrity of adjacent structures and infrastructure. Council’s tree selection tool enables applicants to select appropriate plantings based on the size of a particular space. No changes to the Amendment are proposed. Submission Issues unrelated to Amendment C189 Some submissions raised queries relating to Council’s public open spaces and green assets. In particular queries related to:

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 80

• Safety, maintenance and planting of public trees • Design and location of trees within Moreland’s streetscapes • Opportunities for learnings from streetscape designs of other municipalities • Opportunities for new public open space in the Level Crossing Removal Project. Attachment 2 provides details of responses to these queries. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The tree planting requirements related to this amendment do not limit or interfere with any Human Rights, in particular ‘Section 20’ – property rights. 4. Consultation The Amendment was publicly exhibited from 21 November 2019 to 20 December 2019. Exhibition was supported by direct notification to: • Relevant state government departments and Ministers • All abutting municipal councils • Statutory referral authorities operating within Moreland • Planning permit applicants of medium density housing applications over a 2-year period (lodged from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2019) • Planning Consultants • Resident groups, committees, and community groups with environmental interests. To reach the wider community and ensure the community had an opportunity to learn about the Amendment, the following notification was also undertaken: • Public notice in the Moreland and Northern Leader newspapers on 18 and 19 November 2019 respectively and in the Government Gazette on 21 November 2019 • Facebook post on 22 November 2019 • CityNews article on 25 November 2019 • Information was available on Council’s website and made available at the following locations − Moreland Civic Centre - 90 Bell Street, Coburg − Brunswick Citizens Service Centre - 233 Sydney Road, Brunswick − Brunswick Library - 233 Sydney Road, Brunswick − Campbell Turnbull Library - 220 Melville Road, Brunswick West − Coburg Library - Corner of Victoria and Louisa Streets, Coburg − Fawkner Library - 77 Jukes Road, Fawkner − Glenroy Citizens Service Centre - 796N Pascoe Vale Road, Glenroy − Glenroy Library - 737 Pascoe Vale Road, Glenroy • Officers were available for meetings and phone calls to discuss the Amendment with members of the community. All submitters have been notified of the timing of this report. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The funds required to administer this amendment can be accommodated within the 2019/20 financial year operating budget and current resources of the City Strategy and Design Branch.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 81

7. Implementation The following anticipated timeline for the Amendment is broken down into the key ‘decision gateways’. The timeframe is subject to Ministerial approval timelines and Panel timing. Decision Gateway 1: Authorisation and Exhibition (Completed) Decision Gateway 2: Submission review and referral to a Panel • February 2020: Consider submissions and seek Ministers appointment of Panel; • February 2020: Panel Directions Hearing; • March 2020: Panel Hearing; • May 2020: Panel Report is provided to Council. Decision Gateway 3: Review Panel report and final decision • July 2020: Report on the Panel’s recommendations and consider adoption of final version of the Amendment; • July 2020: Submit the Amendment to the Minister of Planning for approval; • December 2020: Anticipated approval by the Minister of Planning.

Attachment/s 1 C189 – Summary of Submissions - Decision Gateway 2 - Attachment 1 D19/5105 ⇩ 30

2 C189 - Planning Scheme Provisions - Decision Gateway 2 - Attachment 2 D19/5083 ⇩ 13

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 82

DCF4/20 TREE PROTECTION IN THE PLANNING SCHEME - RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF MOTION 9/18 (D19/484711) Director City Futures City Strategy and Design

Executive Summary This report responds to a Council decision relating to landscape bonds (NOM9/18). Following some initial investigations, a progress report (DCI44/18) was presented to the November 2018 Council meeting where Council resolved to: 1. Note the work already completed regarding landscape bonds and that further work is required in considering key issues within this process. 2. Receive a final report by February 2020 on the feasibility of establishing landscape bonds following the completion of the analysis. Council currently has a suite of mechanisms in place to protect Council owned trees via the: • General Local Law • Asset Protection Permits • Planning Permit conditions • Environmental Overlays. For trees on private land, the mechanisms in place to protect trees include the: • General Local Law • Planning Permits • Native vegetation protection provisions • Environmental Overlays in the Planning Scheme. A feasibility analysis considering all matters listed in the November 2018 report identified that using bonds for the protection of trees on private land is not a preferred course of action. The protection of significant trees is relevant across Moreland, and reliance on landscape bonds limited to development sites would fall short of this broader protection objective. It is recommended that tree protection controls on private land would be more effectively pursued through the Planning Scheme whilst carefully considering the resourcing implications and avoiding duplication of the General Local Law. Approximately 1,500 potentially significant trees have been identified from analysis that informed the preparation of the Urban Forest Strategy and community nominations from a recent tree nomination program. Work is currently underway to assess all identified trees for potential individual protection through the Planning Scheme.

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Notes the work undertaken to investigate the use of landscape bonds for the protection of trees on private land and the conclusion this is not a suitable tool in these circumstances. 2. Notes that the investigation of the use of bonds for the protection of trees on Council land is feasible and that work is continuing on investigating the process to require a bond equal to a percentage of the amenity value of a tree required to be retained and protected as part of the asset protection permit process. 3. Endorses the continuation of work towards the preparation of a Planning Scheme Amendment for the protection of trees on private land and receives a further report outlining the assessment of significant trees when finalised and the next steps.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 136

REPORT

1. Policy Context Moreland Urban Forest Strategy The Moreland Urban Forest Strategy 2017-2027 (the Strategy) was adopted by Council in August 2017 and is the strategic document which guides Council’s approach to protecting and enhancing vegetation across the municipality. The Strategy includes six actions which seek to ensure core Council strategies and policies (including the Planning Scheme, Structure Plans, Local Law and Urban Design Framework) protect and enhance the urban forest in both the public and private realm (action 2.4), all of which are to be achieved within 1 to 3 years: • 2.4.1: Review the 2017 reformed residential zones when released to understand the ‘garden area’ requirements within these zones and the extent to which this will impact on other actions identified in this Strategy. (Completed) • 2.4.2: Review existing Residential Landscape Guidelines 2009 to ensure all relevant development applications realise quality greening outcomes with consideration of adequate setbacks, soil volumes, water availability, canopy space for shade trees and landscape bond. (Completed) • 2.4.3: Establish a Significant Tree Register. (In progress) • 2.4.4: Establish a working group to review a range of mechanisms and actions (such as Planning Scheme provisions, Local Law, educational, incentives and other) for protecting vegetation in the private realm, including cost and resourcing implications. (Ongoing) • 2.4.5: Develop a Moreland Tree Protection Strategy including a review of best practice of other metropolitan councils which have planning overlays that protect vegetation, and report back to Council on appropriate measures for Moreland. (Completed) • 2.4.6: Assess and review development impacts upon vegetation. (Ongoing) Moreland Urban Heat Island Effect Action Plan (2016-2026) The Moreland Urban Heat Island Effect Action Plan (the Heat Island Action Plan) identified that Moreland’s highly urbanised environment is experiencing a high urban heat island effect. Detailed analysis of Moreland’s urban heat island effect vulnerability found that there is a high number of extremely hot areas and very few cool places, where during heatwaves most parts of Moreland can be four to seven degrees warmer than surrounding areas. The analysis highlighted that Moreland has a community that is vulnerable to heat due to an increased amount of hard surfaces that absorb and radiate heat, limited vegetation to shade and cool, heat production from machines and activities and air pollution creating local greenhouse effects. The Heat Island Action Plan identified the protection of existing vegetation on private land as one of the ways to combat the urban heat island effect and change the urban ground cover through providing shade and moisture in the air to keep Moreland cool. An action from the Heat Island Action Plan is that subject to an analysis of the pros and cons, prepare and implement a Local Law to protect significant trees on private land. The Moreland General Local Law 2018 includes tree protection measures for mature trees implementing this action. Plan Melbourne and Living Melbourne The State Government’s strategy Living Melbourne – Our Metropolitan Urban Forest proposes a series of actions to help Melbourne better protect, connect and enhance the city’s urban forest to help deliver Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 Strategic Direction 6.4 Make Melbourne cooler and greener. Of particular relevance is Action 3: Scale up

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 137

greening in the private realm which seeks to encourage private landholders to protect and enhance the urban forest. Planning Scheme Review Report 2018 Council adopted a Planning Scheme Review Report in June 2018 (DED38/18). The Planning Scheme Review Report recommended Council officers review the effectiveness of tree protection on private land and whether tree protection controls would be more effectively pursued through the Planning Scheme whilst carefully considering the resourcing implications and avoiding duplication within the General Local Law. 2. Background Previous Council Resolutions One of the key priorities of Council Action Plan item 49 is to increase tree canopy cover. The Strategy guides the strategic direction of the management of Moreland's urban forest, aiming to create a municipality where healthy trees and vegetation are a core part of the urban environment. At the April 2018 Council meeting, Council resolved (NOM9/18) to: • Continue to work through the short-term actions of the Urban Forest Strategy as adopted, prioritising Actions 2.4, items 1 to 6, to be implemented within the short- term timeframes, with a view to establishing tree and landscape bonds. • Call for a report outlining progress regarding the establishment of tree and landscape bonds by November 2018. At the November 2018 Council Meeting, Council resolved (DCI144/18) to: • Note the work already completed regarding landscape bonds and that further work is required in considering key issues within this process. • Receive a final report on the feasibility of establishing landscape bonds following the completion of the analysis. Council also requested a further report be presented in February 2020 following an analysis of the feasibility of establishing landscape bonds. This report provides a response following the feasibility assessment with a recommendation to pursue protection for significant trees on private land through planning controls. Actions taken to implement the Strategy Since the report to Council in November 2018, the following actions have been taken: • Formation of an internal working group comprised of key stakeholders from the open Space and planning teams, to keep traction on some of the Urban Forest Strategy directives in relation to Tree Protection; • Authorisation and public exhibition of Planning Scheme Amendment C189 that seeks to introduce new landscaping requirements in the Moreland Planning Scheme that will ensure canopy trees are included in the design of new dwellings. This will ensure there is enough space for new canopy trees to be able to grow; and provide greater clarity to applicants and property owners when designing development with multiple dwellings; • Creation of a Moreland Tree Finder Tool to help with tree selection by giving each tree a star rating, based on the tree’s environmental value, ecological benefits, pest and disease susceptibility, climate change adaptability, life expectancy and amenity value’ • Public nominations for significant trees on private land were sought from August to October 2019. 113 trees were nominated. 66 of these are within private land;

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 138

• Preliminary assessment is underway of 1,500 trees to determine which trees warrant further investigation to form the basis for more detailed work through the preparation of a separate tree study. This includes the 66 trees on private land nominated by the public. 3. Issues Current Tree Protection Measures Previous reports have noted that there are current protections in place to protect trees both on public and private land. Existing tree protection measures are detailed below: Trees on privately owned land Significant or mature trees located on private land do not fall under the management of Council. Current protections for trees located in the private realm in Moreland are:

Control Tree Protection Measure Issues Moreland Requires a permit for any Fines for removal of a mature General Local pruning works or removal of tree would in most cases be Law 2.5 – mature trees (8 plus metres tall less than the amenity value of Protection of and trunk diameter of 40 the tree. Mature Trees centimetres). The Local Law is subordinate to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 where planning controls exist and can’t prevent a decision to approve tree removal as part of a planning permit application.

Planning Some Planning Scheme Overlays do not cover all areas Scheme overlays include permit triggers of the municipality. Overlays for removal or lopping of trees. Overlays can only be changed These include the following by amending the Planning overlays where trees do not Scheme. This is a lengthy meet specified exemptions process requiring strategic within the controls: justification. Erosion Management Environmental Significance Public Acquisition Heritage (where tree protection is nominated in schedule) State planning Protects native vegetation The exemptions mean there are provisions which includes trees on land a limited number on properties including exceeding 0.4 hectares in Moreland that trigger a Clause 52.17 – (amongst other things). planning permit to remove (Native native vegetation. (that is, Vegetation) of Northern Golf Course and the Moreland Fawkner Cemetery) Planning The offset requirements mean Scheme replacement vegetation could be planted outside the municipality.

Planning Can protect trees on private Only protects sites where tree

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 139

Control Tree Protection Measure Issues Permit land when a condition has been protection requirements are placed on a planning permit. included as a planning permit condition and where that permit is being enacted. Does not protect trees on private land where a planning permit is not required. Planning permit conditions requiring protection of private trees can be contentious and be disputed at VCAT if the permit applicant does not agree with the condition being included on the permit. There must be a clear link to delivering an outcome of the Planning Scheme when imposing a condition on a planning permit. Current Planning Scheme controls are often not strong enough to convince VCAT to retain tree protection conditions.

Trees on Council owned land Trees on Council owned land include trees located in nature strips, road reserves and public open space including parks and reserves. Current protection options for Council owned trees in Moreland are:

Control Tree Protection Measure Limitation Moreland Unless in accordance with a Fines for removal of a tree General Local permit, a person must not in or would in most cases be less Law 2.4 – on Council land or a road than the amenity value of the Protection of destroy, damage, remove or tree. Trees otherwise interfere with a tree or The Local Law is subordinate to allow any person to destroy, the Planning and Environment damage, remove or otherwise Act 1987 and can’t prevent a interfere with a tree. decision to approve tree removal as part of a planning permit application.

Environmental Protects trees and vegetation in These overlays predominantly Overlays areas of identified apply to vegetation and areas of environmental or heritage environmental significance significance. along waterways. The overlays do not cover all areas of the municipality and can only be changed by amending the Planning Scheme. This is a lengthy process requiring strategic justification. Planning Can protect trees on public land Only protects Council owned

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 140

Control Tree Protection Measure Limitation Permit when a condition has been trees when potentially impacted placed on a planning permit. by development permits, but not in circumstances where the tree prevents access where not protected by an Overlay. Planning Some planning scheme Overlays do not cover all areas Scheme overlays include permit triggers of the municipality. Overlays for removal or lopping of trees. Overlays can only be changed These include the following by amending the Planning overlays where trees do not Scheme. This is a lengthy meet specified exemptions process requiring strategic within the controls: justification. Erosion Management Public Acquisition Heritage (where tree protection is nominated in schedule) Asset Permits required for protection Only protects Council assets Protection of Council assets. This includes where development works are trees that are identified for proposed nearby. Limited retention/protection in any of the repercussions for failure to above controls. comply.

Feasibility of Landscape Bonds for trees on private land The protection of significant trees is a priority across Moreland. Reliance on landscape bonds limited to negotiation of the protection of significant trees on development sites only would fall short of this broader protection goal. The following considerations were listed in the report to Council (DCI44/18) Establishment of Landscape Bonds – Progress Report – Response to Notice of Motion (NOM9/18): 1. The process only protects trees when development is concerned. What the trigger is outside of development remains to be considered. This relates to both private and Council owned trees. 2. Are bonds for trees only relating to development site, or adjacent properties? 3. The legalities behind placing a bond on an asset that is not owned by Council need to be understood. 4. What is the value of the bond (Amenity value or % of)? 5. How are the bonds to be implemented, such as Asset Protection or Planning Permit and what are the resource implications relating to this? 6. Generally, a bond is retained to pay for any works to remediate damaged assets. Council does not conduct works on private property. Council needs to consider what the intent of the bond would be. 7. If a developer only damages part of the tree, would only part of the bond be retained? 8. What is the lifespan of the bond? Would it be the life of the Planning Permit, at point of closure of the Asset Protection Permit, or a timeline after these to compensate for any delayed damage to trees? All considerations above have been worked through and it has been identified that using bonds for the protection of trees on private land is not a preferred course of action for the following reasons:

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 141

• The use of bonds is limited to negotiation on planning permit applications on development sites and cannot be set as a steadfast rule • Adding a requirement for a bond to protect trees on private land would not strengthen the mechanisms which are already in place, primarily being the use of planning permit conditions and enforcement of these conditions • The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) typically takes a position of removing planning permit conditions for landscape bonds • Benchmarking of other Councils identifies that the administration of bonds has significant resource implications, with one Council having revoked its bonds policy because of the administrative burden. VCAT position on the use of tree bonds VCAT decisions typically delete planning permit conditions for landscape bonds. The feasibility assessment reviewed relevant VCAT decisions across the state with respect to proposed planning permit conditions imposing landscape and tree bonds and identified the following key points: • In the last 20 years, VCAT has regularly declined to impose conditions requiring a landscape or tree bond • The reason, where one is given, is generally that a bond is unnecessary having regard to other planning permit conditions and the enforcement powers available to the Responsible Authority under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 • The practice of requiring landscape bonds was more accepted before the Planning and Environment Act 1987 came into effect and introduced more convenient enforcement mechanisms • More recently, where a proposed bond condition has been disputed or otherwise brought to VCAT’s attention, the condition has been deleted; unless it is specifically justified by reference to a bonds policy in the Planning Scheme or the site’s physical context provides a justification. Administration of Bonds The administration requirements associated with tree protection bonds was also considered as part of the feasibility analysis. Administration of landscape bonds associated with development on private land is likely to be comparable to that associated with bonds provided for the protection of public assets during construction or the collection of development contributions. Council would need to establish accounting arrangements to ensure that bonds were held for the purpose for which they were collected. While Council already has such systems in place, it would also need to establish methods to prompt it to undertake inspections of the trees at the relevant times and invest resources into such inspections. Essentially, the cost to administer the bond process may outweigh the benefits of having the bonds in place. Further, in order to use the money collected from the bond to plant a new tree on private land, Council officers would first be required to obtain an enforcement order or interim enforcement order from VCAT. This would allow authorised Council officers to enter any land at any reasonable time to carry out any work which an enforcement order or interim enforcement order required to be carried out. This is a costly and uncertain process with no guarantee of success.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 142

As outlined in the November 2018 Council report, consultation was carried out with several other Councils about use of Tree bonds. Tree protection processes of Bayside, Monash, Port Phillip, Knox, Melbourne and Stonnington were investigated. None of these Councils have implemented bonds to manage the protection of trees on private land. All Councils, with the exception of Knox, had implemented a bonds process for trees on public land owned by Council. Findings of Feasibility Analysis The feasibility analysis determined that the existing planning permit conditions and planning enforcement programs (re-active and proactive) protect significant trees on private land. The use of bonds does not enhance the enforceability of existing planning permit conditions. Potentially, significant trees on private land could be protected more effectively by strengthening planning scheme controls. It is also a recommendation of the 2018 Planning Scheme Review Report to investigate planning scheme controls for tree protection on private land. Therefore, it is recommended that bonds not be utilised for tree protection on private land, and that work continues to progress a planning scheme amendment to introduce planning scheme controls to protect significant trees on private land. Council officers undertook a review of trees on private property in 2019 including with data sourced from the Urban Forest Strategy tree analysis and Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data (a surveying method using laser light). This process identified 1,482 potentially significant trees on private land. A consultant arborist has been engaged to determine which of the listed trees warrant further investigation (stage 1). This work will form the basis for more detailed work through the preparation of a separate tree study, and recommendations about the use of planning scheme controls for protection of significant trees and the most appropriate planning scheme controls to use (stage 2). Review of mechanisms to protect significant trees on Council owned land The use of bonds to assist with the protection of trees on Council owned land continues to be worked through internally. Council officers are investigating the process to require a bond equal to a percentage of the amenity value of a tree required to be retained and protected as part of the asset protection permit process. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The protection of vegetation discussed in this report do not limit or interfere with any Human Rights (Specifically Section 15 – Freedom of expression and Section 38 – Conduct of public authorities). 4. Consultation Public nominations for Significant Trees on private land were sought from August to October 2019. Nominations were sought via a form on the Council website. Opportunity for members of the public to nominate trees was communicated via: • The Have your say section of the Moreland website • Publication in the Leader newspaper on 30 September 2019 • Social media posts to Facebook and Instagram on 11 September 2019 • Direct email notification to various community environment, historical and resident groups and organisations. This process yielded a total of 119 nominations. The nominations included 35 trees on public land and 66 on private land. This included 28 new trees on private land that had not already been captured in Council’s database.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 143

5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The cost to carry out the consultant work required by Stage 1 (preliminary assessment of identified trees) and Stage 2 (assessment of confirmed significant trees against criteria) have been funded in the 2019/20 budget. This work will be complete by the end of the financial year. The funds required to administer a potential further planning scheme amendment can be accommodated within the 2020/21 financial year operating budget and resources of the City Strategy and Design Branch. Should this strategic work result in an approved Planning Scheme amendment in future, this will introduce a new planning permit trigger resulting in resource implications through increased planning permit applications. Further analysis will be conducted as part of the preparation of a future planning scheme amendment as to the extent of this additional workload and reported to Council at that time. 7. Implementation A consultant arborist has been engaged to undertake a review of the approximate 1,500 trees identified for potential significance, to recommend which trees warrant further investigation. This project is due to be completed by the end of February 2020. Following this assessment, a Stage 2 detailed assessment of the trees that have confirmed significance will be undertaken aligned with the National Trust Criteria for Identification and Classification of Significant Trees in Victoria. A further report will be presented to Council upon the finalisation of the Stage 2 assessment. It is proposed this report will be presented to the August 2020 Council Meeting.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 144

DCF5/20 COUNCIL PROVIDED BICYCLE PARKING WITHIN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS (D19/246639) Director City Futures City Change

Executive Summary Moreland’s Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS) Headline Action Item 11 is to install 200 parking spaces (100 hoops) per annum within activity centres and buffer zones at key public locations catering for all bike shapes and sizes, including family bikes, e-bikes, cargo bikes and bikes with trailers. Council has been installing bike parking throughout Moreland for many years by proactively looking for appropriate locations in the public realm. As a result, most activity centres and buffer zones already have bike parking installed in key locations. Council has been engaging with the community through multiple channels to identify new potential places for bike parking. Footpath space is limited in many activity centres and it is important not to over crowd the footpath and restrict access for pedestrians. Council has been exploring the option to install bike parking within car parking bays. Previously this has been successful where the adjacent business supports the proposal and the hoops are well used. Due to the current MITS rollout of parking restrictions it would be inappropriate to pursue that option at this time. To go some way to achieving the target of 200 new bike parking spaces per year, Council officers are recommending that Council-funded hoops be installed within school grounds. Promoting cycling to schools would be a positive contribution towards mode shift and in line with MITS Headline Action 14 – to significantly increase the proportion of school children travelling by sustainable transport. It is unusual for Council to fund infrastructure in places not owned or managed by Council, however offering to fund and implement bike parking hoops in local schools is not only in line with Council’s key transport strategy, but it will facilitate improvement to help to increase bicycle mode share more quickly. In the past when schools have requested Council to install bike parking within school grounds it was not supported as the requests were not for bicycle parking on Council managed land. Subject to Council’s decision, schools that participate in sustainable transport programs, such as Ride2School, would be prioritised.

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Installs bicycle parking facilities (bicycle hoops) within primary and secondary schools in Moreland in 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 to assist in reaching the target of installing 200 additional bicycle parking spaces per annum in Moreland. 2. Notes the bicycle hoops installed in schools would become a school asset. 3. Receives a report in June 2021 on the outcomes of installing bicycle parking in schools prior to deciding whether to continue in future years.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 145

REPORT

1. Policy Context Moreland’s Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS): • Headline Action 11 – Provide bike parking for at least 200 bikes per annum within key activity centres and buffer zones. • Headline Action 14 – Develop a comprehensive program to significantly increase the proportion of school children travelling by sustainable transport. 2. Background Council has been installing bike parking throughout Moreland for many years by proactively looking for appropriate locations. Additionally, bike parking has been included in most Council infrastructure projects, requirements in planning permits, and from external requests. In some instances, bike parking is installed or relocated as a direct response to a trader’s request. As a result, most activity centres and buffer zones already have bike parking installed in key locations. 3. Issues New locations for bike parking Council officers have been periodically asking the community for new possible locations for bike parking. Council officers have used Council’s various social media channels (including business engagement), and the Moreland Bicycle Users Group (MoreBUG) email list. To date this financial year, 18 hoops have been installed. Footpath space is limited in many activity centres and it is important not to over crowd the footpath and restrict access for pedestrians or impede disability access. Most requests made to Council for bike parking have resulted in at least one bike parking hoop being installed. One option that will be explored in the future is to install bike parking in car parking spaces. This has been successful in select locations previously, however requires full support from the adjacent business. With the rollout of the MITS parking restrictions, it would be inappropriate for vehicle parking to be removed for bike parking during this period. Offering schools bike parking within their grounds would promote students and visitors to the school to ride. Schools that take part in sustainable transport initiatives could be prioritised for the installation of bike parking hoops. Any additional infrastructure (for example shelter(s)) would need to be funded by the school. Once installed, the bike parking would become the school’s asset. Without engaging schools, it is likely Council would be unable to reach its target of 200 new bike parking spaces (100 hoops) in 2019/2020. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The recommendations do not limit or interfere with any Human Rights, in particular ‘section 12 - right to freedom of movement’. 4. Consultation Council officers have been regularly engaging with the community through various channels new locals where bike parking would be appropriate.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 146

5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The works can be completed within the existing budget allocation for the installation of bicycle parking in line with MITS actions. 7. Implementation Bike parking will continue to be installed in appropriate locations on Council managed and owned land. Subject to Council’s decision, Council officers will proactively contact primary and secondary schools in Moreland to offering install bike parking within school grounds.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 147

DCF6/20 PENTRIDGE HERITAGE INTERPRETATION OBLIGATIONS - RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF MOTION 25/19 (D19/344115) Director City Futures City Development

Executive Summary This report responds to a Council decision at the June 2019 Council meeting (NOM25/19). Council resolved to write to Shayher and Future Estate, being the two most significant land owners of the former Pentridge Prison complex, seeking an update on the implementation of heritage interpretation for the site, and to receive a report from officers on their responses. Both Shayher and Future Estate advised of a recent meeting where the integration of heritage interpretation between the two sites was discussed. This is consistent with the requirements of the Heritage Interpretation Strategy and Management Plan prepared in accordance with the Section 173 Agreement (the Agreement). The Agreement was entered into in 2003 when the Pentridge land was subdivided into two lots. The Agreement includes requirements relating not only to heritage interpretation, but also to the construction of Pentridge Boulevard and provision of a drainage strategy. Shayher further advised that the Agreement is at an end in relation to its land, although the administrative steps have not yet been taken to remove it from titles. The ending of the Agreement was an agreed outcome of negotiations with Council’s legal representatives in securing the completion and opening of Pentridge Boulevard. The ending of the Agreement recognises advice from Council’s Development Advice Engineer that a drainage strategy is no longer necessary. The Heritage Interpretation Strategy and Management Plan have been produced for this area of Pentridge and are endorsed by Heritage Victoria. Accordingly, Shayher advised that the implementation of heritage interpretation will occur as developments are completed in accordance with requirements of Heritage Victoria. The Agreement has not ended in relation to the land to the south of Pentridge Boulevard and there is an outstanding requirement for a Management Plan for heritage interpretation to be produced. The requirement for the construction of Pentridge Boulevard has been satisfied and drainage has been installed in this part of Pentridge. The letter to Future Estate, as the most significant land owner south of Pentridge Boulevard, requested that the outstanding Heritage Management Plan be prepared without delay. In response, Future Estate provided an updated Heritage Interpretation Strategy, but not a Management Plan. The Management Plan required by the Agreement would largely duplicate an existing Heritage Audit Management Plan (HAMP), which has been endorsed by Heritage Victoria. The duplication of requirements and undue complexity this creates is considered a barrier to ensuring the various landowners implement heritage interpretation across both sites in an integrated way. Responsibility for ensuring the appropriate implementation of heritage interpretation is best managed by Heritage Victoria, who also has the necessary heritage expertise and statutory controls across both sites. In the case of heritage buildings on the Victorian Heritage Register, heritage interpretation matters would normally be managed by Heritage Victoria. It is therefore recommended that the Agreement be ended for the land to the south of Pentridge Boulevard. If this were to occur, Council would maintain an ability to influence heritage interpretation through the Heritage Victoria permit process. Significantly, changes to the Heritage Act in 2017 now provide a greater role for Council in Heritage Permit applications, including a clearer opportunity to comment on permit applications and allowing an opportunity to be heard in any application for review for a heritage permit before the Heritage Council.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 148 Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Notifies the Registrar of Titles of the ending of the Section 173 Agreement AB176451A in relation to the Shayher Group Pty Ltd owned land in the former Pentridge Prison complex. 2. Commences the process to end the Section 173 Agreement AB176451A with respect to the land to the south of Pentridge Boulevard in the former Pentridge Prison complex. 3. Writes to Heritage Victoria noting the duplication of heritage requirements and to advise of the intention to end the 173 Agreements in relation to the land in the former Pentridge Prison complex, and requests that Heritage Victoria continues to ensure compliance with the conditions of all relevant Heritage Victoria permits, the Heritage Covenant AF860980W and the associated Heritage Audit Management Plan. 4. Notes Council officers will continue to ensure that expert heritage advice is sought in responding to referrals received pursuant to the Heritage Act 2017, while also advocating for the integration of heritage interpretation between the northern and southern parts of the former Pentridge Prison complex.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 149

REPORT

1. Policy Context This report relates to the former Pentridge Prison complex (Pentridge), specifically to two areas, one north of Pentridge Boulevard and the other south of Pentridge Boulevard. These two areas are identified as Precinct 9 (north of Pentridge Boulevard) and Precinct 10 (south of Pentridge Boulevard) in Schedule 1 of the Activity Centre Zone of the Moreland Planning Scheme that affects the land. An aerial photograph and zoning map showing the boundaries of the two precincts is included at Attachment 1. These two areas of Pentridge are included on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR1551). A copy of the Victorian Heritage Database report which includes a diagram showing the extent of registration is included at Attachment 2. The registered areas comprise the whole of Precinct 9 and part of Precinct 10. The site is also included in the Heritage Overlay (HO47), of the Moreland Planning Scheme which mirrors the land areas included on the Victorian Heritage Register. Development within those parts of the site included on the Victorian Heritage Register require a permit from Heritage Victoria, with no planning permit required pursuant to the Moreland Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay provisions. Council is notified of applications made to Heritage Victoria, can make a submission in relation to the application and be heard in any review before the Victorian Heritage Council. Separate to heritage considerations, planning permits are required for the development of land with Precincts 9 and 10 of the Activity Centre Zone. 2. Background Section 173 Agreement AB176451A In 2001, Council issued Planning Permit MPS2000/1075 for the subdivision of the land in two lots either side of what was to become Pentridge Boulevard. Condition 10 of the Planning Permit required the owner of the site (then Pentridge Village Pty Ltd) to enter into a Section 173 Agreement (the Agreement) with Council. The Agreement was registered on title in 2002. The Agreement details specific obligations of the ‘Owner’, including a requirement for a Whole of Site Drainage Plan, Whole of Site Heritage Interpretation Plan and Whole of Site Road Design Framework that makes provision for the development of Pentridge Boulevard. In relation to heritage interpretation, at Clause 2.1.1.1 (iii) the Owner covenants that they will provide to the satisfaction of Council: Within one month of the date of this Agreement, a Whole of Site Heritage Interpretation Strategy which must, amongst other things: • specify how documentary and interpretive measures will be introduced and presented so as to enhance the heritage significance and characteristics of the former prison • specify a management plan for the implementation of the Heritage Interpretation Strategy • specify the Owner’s financial commitment to the preparation of a Heritage Interpretation Strategy for the area within the Comprehensive Development Zone as specified by the Moreland Planning Scheme as at the date of this Agreement • specify that the Owner will be legally bound to allow heritage interpretation devices on the land • specify that the Owner will be legally bound to allow reasonable access to the Land to persons having legal responsibility for the purposes of the

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 150

management, maintenance, repairs and replacement of the heritage interpretation devices. Further, at Clause 2.1.1.6, the Owner covenants: It will at its expense implement, maintain and manage the Heritage Interpretation Strategy to the extent that to do so is not inconsistent with the Strategy insofar as the implementation, maintenance and management of the Strategy relates to the Land owned by the Owner for the time being of the land. Since the Agreement is registered on title, these obligations transfer to any new owner when the land is sold, including to the owner of each new lot if the land is further subdivided. At present, this includes Council, the individual owners of all subdivided lots, and an Owners Corporation. The Whole of Site Heritage Interpretation Strategy As required by the Agreement, a Whole of Site Heritage Interpretation Strategy was prepared by Boyce Pizzey Strategic and Convergence Design (the Boyce Pizzey HIS). This document was endorsed by Council in March 2003. However, while the Boyce Pizzey HIS included a management plan for the implementation of heritage interpretation for the northern lot, it did not include one for the southern lot. Both the northern and southern parts of Pentridge have had further strategic documents produced that update the Boyce Pizzey HIS. In 2013, Sue Hodges Productions was commissioned by Shayher Group Pty Ltd (Shayher) to prepare a Heritage Interpretation Masterplan for the area to the north of Pentridge Boulevard. This document includes an interpretative vision for the site, a thematic framework, a business case for undertaking interpretation, and recommended interpretive concepts and locations. The document was endorsed by Heritage Victoria in 2014 in accordance with a condition of the Heritage Victoria permit P20564 for public realm works. In 2016, Lovell Chen was commissioned by Future Estate to prepare an updated Heritage Interpretation Strategy for that part of the site south of Pentridge Boulevard. This document builds on the work of the Boyce Pizzey HIS, but does not include a management plan as required by the Agreement. Heritage Covenant AF860980W In 2008, Heritage Victoria granted a permit for the further subdivision of the lot south of Pentridge Boulevard. As part of this approval, the owner of the site was required to enter into a covenant with Heritage Victoria. The covenant requires the owner to implement and maintain heritage infrastructure in accordance with a Heritage Audit Management Plan (HAMP), which forms part of the covenant. A map showing the lots affected by the covenant and HAMP is shown at Attachment 3. The covenant requires the following: … the Owner will at its own expense, care for the Heritage Place in accordance with the Heritage Act, and in particular will implement and maintain the Heritage Infrastructure in accordance with the Management Plan. Amongst other things, the HAMP defines the interpretation material required for D Division and F Division. This includes: D Division: • At least eight ground floor cells for interpretation and the single-storey bluestone entry wing attached to the north façade of D Division for interpretation and museum administration. • At least one cell to be set up to demonstrate life in the nineteenth century and one in the latter part of the twentieth century.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 151

• At least one display panel relating to capital punishment and burials. • At least four display panels, one set of audio visual equipment to include, but not limited to a DVD player, screen, speakers and the like, to collectively interpret daily life inside both Pentridge prisons. • At least four display panels and any associated artefacts, films, recordings and the like and appropriate audio-visual equipment interpreting industrial activities in the prison workshops. • At least six display panels and any associated artefacts, films, recordings and the like and appropriate audio-visual equipment relating to specific people and/or events including, but not limited to Ronald Ryan, prison Chaplain Father Brosnan and Ned Kelly’s incarceration and eventual re-burial at Pentridge. • At least one interpretation panel or audio-visual display on each of the following topics: warders, prison culture and behaviour, escapes, corporal punishment within the prison, levels of security, professional and other visits, relationships with the wider legal and court system and sentences, prison hospital and psychiatric services, social services, spiritual support and services, female prisoners and prison system, penology and the Victorian prison system (Separate and Silent, Pentonville etc.), post-prison life, the Jika Reformatory for Protestant girls and for boys, prison closure. • Installation of all necessary infrastructure to enable the above to be prepared and executed to current professional museum standards, and in accord with accepted conservation principles where heritage building infrastructure is impacted upon • Any other areas or elements which are added to the above from time-to-time. F Division: • One interpretation panel to be erected near the Ronald Bull mural • Any other areas or elements which are added to the above from time-to-time. The HAMP also requires other interpretative signage and displays, including panels and audio visual presentations and static displays throughout the heritage registered area, with the content and location to be developed in consultation with and to the approval of the Executive Director, Heritage Victoria. The HAMP also provides for a management schedule of interpretation material, requirements for review of interpretation material and requirements for allowing public access to interpretation material. While the HAMP is a management plan, its statutory origin is the Heritage Covenant rather than the Agreement. Heritage Victoria, not Council, is responsible for enforcing the HAMP. Heritage Victoria has recently contacted Council to advise that of current discussions with the owners of D Division about setting up the museum. Heritage Permits (various) In addition to the broad strategies and management plans for heritage interpretation, Heritage Victoria has included site specific requirements as conditions on permits it has issued. For example, the Heritage Permit P24265 for the development at 11 Urquhart Street (known as One Coburg Quarter) includes the following condition:

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 152

An interpretation board of robust materials suitable for permanent exposure to the weather is to be located at ground level within the development site. The interpretation board is to be professionally designed with regard to size, appearance and content and is to chronicle the history of the use of the site with illustrations as appropriate. Prior to proceeding with its manufacture and installation its proposed location, size, materials and content, both textual and graphic, are to be presented to and approved in writing by the Executive Director. This is consistent with the general requirement of the HAMP for interpretation signage and displays to be located and designed to the approval of the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria. When the site is fully developed, the location of all interpretive material, such as the material required by the above condition, will be included as an appendix to the HAMP. June 2019 Council Decision At the June 2019 Council meeting, Council resolved to: 1. Write to the owners of Pentridge Coburg site requesting an update on the timing of the implementation of the Heritage Interpretation Strategy and Management Plan that apply to their land and in particular how they intend to meet the obligations of the Management Plan relating to integration of heritage interpretation devices between their site and that part of Pentridge to the south of Pentridge Boulevard. 2. Write to Future Estate as the main land owner of the Pentridge site south of Pentridge Boulevard, reminding them of their outstanding obligation in relation to the preparation of a Heritage Management Plan for the heritage interpretation of the site. The letter to request that this management plan be prepared without delay and must include provision for integration of heritage interpretation devices between their site and that part of Pentridge to the north of Pentridge Boulevard. 3. Receive a report on the response from the Developers. Shayher response In response to Council’s letter, Shayher noted the 2003 Boyce Pizzey HIS had been updated with the 2013 Sue Hodges Heritage Interpretation Masterplan. Shayher advised that this document is to be implemented in accordance with the conditions included on permits issued by Heritage Victoria for the redevelopment of their land. Shayher also noted that the Agreement and any obligations therein are at an end as it relates to their land because another Section 173 Agreement (AK945671V) is also at an end. This other Section 173 Agreement required the payment of a Special Charge by Shayher to Council to facilitate the construction of Pentridge Boulevard. This Section 173 Agreement states that once the Special Charge has been paid (which it has), both Agreements end, and the parties must take any necessary steps to remove the Agreement from title. The removal of the Agreement from the title of the Shayher land, which is effectively an administrative task, forms part of the recommendation. In response to the question of integration with heritage interpretation on that part of the site south of Pentridge Boulevard, Shayher advised: …we intend to work with the landowners south of Pentridge Boulevard, to the extent that it is appropriate or desirable, to integrate heritage interpretation devices in light of the differences between the sites south of Pentridge Boulevard and ours. To this end, we recently met with Future Estate on 17 July 2019.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 153

This is consistent with the obligations of the management plan in the Boyce Pizzey HIS, which required only that they liaise with the owner of the area south of Pentridge Boulevard from time to time to ensure heritage interpretation is integrated between the two areas. Future Estate response In response to Council’s letter, Future Estate submitted the 2016 Lovell Chen Heritage Interpretation Strategy and advised that they believe this document meets the obligations of the Agreement for a management plan. Council officers do not consider this document to be a management plan for the purposes of the Agreement. In response to the question of integration with heritage interpretation on that part of the site north of Pentridge Boulevard, Future Estate also noted the meeting with Shayher that occurred in July 2019. 3. Issues Heritage interpretation requirements It is recommended that the Agreement be ended in relation to the land south of Pentridge Boulevard. This will create consistency with the land to the north of Pentridge Boulevard, where the Agreement has already ended, and Heritage Victoria is solely responsible for managing and enforcing heritage interpretation requirements. There is benefit in eliminating the duplication that exists in the heritage interpretation requirements for Pentridge. The management plan required by the Agreement (which has not been submitted) would likely contain similar requirements to the HAMP, which is a requirement of the Heritage Covenant. The key difference is the Heritage Covenant and HAMP affects only those lots that contain places of heritage significance, whereas the Agreement affects all lots. This duplication of requirements, some 16 years after the Agreement was originally entered into, is no longer considered necessary as it adds complexity, making it more difficult for landowners to deliver the required heritage interpretation if documents require approval and revisions over time by both Council, Heritage Victoria and the agreement of numerous lot owners. If the Agreement is ended, responsibility for ensuring the implementation of heritage interpretation for all areas of Pentridge would appropriately sit with Heritage Victoria as the State heritage body. This is appropriate given that Heritage Victoria have both the expertise to ensure appropriate heritage outcomes and statutory controls over both halves of the site to allow for effective integration. Council would still have input on heritage interpretation through the Heritage Victoria permit process, and it is noted that changes to the Heritage Act in 2017 provide a greater role for Council in this process. This includes a clearer opportunity to comment on permit applications and the ability for Council to be heard in applications for review of heritage permits before the Victorian Heritage Council. The ending of the Agreement would not present any issue in relation to the to the Whole of Site Drainage Plan and Whole of Site Road Design Framework also required by the Agreement. These documents are no longer needed given that Pentridge Boulevard has been constructed and the drainage has been installed for the land to the south of Pentridge Boulevard (that is, the land still affected by the Agreement).

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 154

An alternative to ending the Agreement would be to continue to pursue enforcement action to require the submission of a management plan in accordance with the Agreement. This option is not preferred. The outcome of any enforcement action, if successful, would be an Order from VCAT requiring the submission of a document that is similar to the existing HAMP. Production of such a document would then be the responsibility of all land owners affected by the Agreement. While Council has written to Future Estate specifically about the outstanding management plan, all current landowners are potentially in breach of the Agreement and would be responsible for producing a management plan. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. In particular, the ending and removal of Section 173 Agreements from property titles does not deprive any person of their property in accordance with Section 20 or limit the ability for any person to participate in the conduct of public affairs in accordance with Section 18. 4. Consultation No public consultation has occurred. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The resources required to action this recommendation can be accommodated by the City Development Branch. There is no financial implication 7. Implementation Subject to Council’s decision, Council officers will notify the Registrar of Titles of the ending of the Agreement in relation to the land to the north of Pentridge Boulevard and commence the process to end the Agreement in relation to the land to the south of Pentridge Boulevard. The ending of the Agreement for the land to the south of Pentridge Boulevard includes the provision of notice to all other parties and affected persons. Council officers will also write to Heritage Victoria to advise of the intention to end the Agreement and request that they continue to ensure compliance with the conditions of the various Heritage Victoria permits, the Heritage Victoria Covenant and the HAMP. The Heritage Act 2017 requires that the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria must refer any heritage permit application it receives to Council for comment. Council officers will continue to use these opportunities to advocate for heritage interpretation to be implemented and for the integration of heritage interpretation between the northern and southern parts of the site.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Pentridge heritage interpretation - Attachment 1 - Aerial photo and D19/358035 zoning map 2⇩ Pentridge heritage interpretation - Attachment 2 - VHR report including D19/358033 diagram 3⇩ Pentridge heritage interpretation - Attachment 3 - Lots affected by the D19/358032 Heritage Covenant

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 155

EMF2/20 FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL 84 MCBRYDE STREET (D20/10936) Executive Manager Finance Finance Management

Executive Summary VicRoads owns the land to the rear of 84A McBryde Street, Fawkner (the subject land), shown in Attachment 1 to this report, measuring approximately 12,840 square metres. Approximately 7,300 square metres is zoned Public Use Zone (PUZ7)) and approximately 5,540 square metres is zoned Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ), both with overlays detailed below: • Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO1) • Environment Significance Overlay (ESO1). The subject land has been declared surplus to VicRoads’ needs and on 9 January 2020 was formally offered to Council and other Government agencies for acquisition through the First Right of Refusal process. Council has 60 days to respond. If Council and no other agencies seek to acquire the subject land it will be offered for sale on the open market. On 15 November 2017, Council resolved (NOM61/17) that: • When Moreland Councillors become aware of possible land swaps, land transfers and land sales, whether the land is owned by the State or Federal Government, a State or Federal Government authority or the Council, that the public be notified and consulted. • Council advocates to State and Federal Governments that sufficient time be made available to enable consultations with local communities, with particular regard to State Government disposal of surplus land it offers under a ‘First Right of Refusal’ process. • For land along waterways, public consultation will be conducted with nearby residents (including adjacent residents and by placing signage at the site), the Merri Creek and Moonee Ponds Creek Management Committees and the Friends of Merri Creek and the Friends of Moonee Ponds Creek. In accordance with part 2 of the resolution, Council officers are seeking an extension of time for the submission of any expression of interest under the First Right of Refusal Process, from 9 March 2020 until after the Council meeting on 8 April 2020, to enable notice to the public and consultation with nearby residents to occur, and for the outcome of that consultation to be presented to Council for consideration. The subject land currently acts as open space and securing it as open space would maintain this important community asset for broader public benefit. Council officers recommend seeking to purchase of the subject land at a discounted market value based on retaining the land as open space in perpetuity. At the time of preparation of this report, Council officers were seeking valuations.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 166

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Endorses the commencement of a 4 week public and internal consultation process, informing the local community of the proposed sale of land by VicRoads at 84A McBryde Street Fawkner, as shown in Attachment 1 to this report, which will include publishing information on Council’s website and in the Moreland Leader and Northern Leader newspapers. 2. Receives a further report at the 8 April 2020 Council Meeting providing outcomes of the consultation regarding the proposed sale of land by VicRoads at 84A McBryde Street Fawkner and including a recommendation for Council’s consideration. 3. Writes to VicRoads seeking an extension of time, until after the Council meeting on 8 April 2020, to respond to the First Right of Refusal process.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 167

REPORT

1. Policy Context The Council Plan 2017-2021 recognises Council’s services must respond to the City’s changing form while maintaining and enhancing our transport and open space networks, community facilities and services, and our wellbeing and connectedness of our people. Consideration of the acquisition of land by Council is informed by the following policies, framework and strategies: • State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) • Park Close to Home: A Framework to Fill Open Space Gaps (the Framework) • The Moreland Open Space Strategy 2012-2022 (Open Space Strategy) • Early Years Strategy 2016-2020 and Later Years Strategy 2014-2017 • Affordable Housing Strategy 2014-2018 • Places Action Plan 2017 and Brunswick Structure Plan. 2. Background VicRoads owns the land to the rear of 84A McBryde Street, Fawkner (the subject land) measuring approximately 12,840 square metres, shown in Attachment 1. Approximately 7,300 square metres is zoned Public Use Zone Other (PUZ7) and approximately 5,540 square metres is zoned Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ). The subject land is affected by a Design and Development Overlay Schedule 18 (DDO18) and Environmental Significance Overlay. On 15 November 2017, Council resolved (NOM61/17) that: • When Moreland Councillors become aware of possible land swaps, land transfers and land sales, whether the land is owned by the State or Federal Government, a State or Federal Government authority or the Council, that the public be notified and consulted. • Council advocates to State and Federal Governments that sufficient time be made available to enable consultations with local communities, with particular regard to State Government disposal of surplus land it offers under a ‘First Right of Refusal’ (FROR) process. • For land along waterways, public consultation will be conducted with nearby residents (including adjacent residents and by placing signage at the site), the Merri Creek and Moonee Ponds Creek Management Committees and the Friends of Merri Creek and the Friends of Moonee Ponds Creek Council officers have assessed this site against the Framework and other strategic documents including the Open Space Strategy. The subject land is not in a gap area identified in the Framework. The subject land currently acts as open space and securing it as open space maintains this important community asset for broader public benefit. Council currently maintains the subject land. The eastern end of the site cannot be mown due to the terrain and requires specialised maintenance. It also includes a section of the Merri Creek bike path. Goal 3 of the Open Space Strategy states: ‘Protect and enhance the ecological integrity and sustainability of Moreland's natural resources, particularly the creek corridors and remaining areas of remnant vegetation.’ Purchasing the subject land would close the gap area along this section of the creek corridor.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 168

3. Issues The subject land has been declared surplus to VicRoads’ needs. It was formally offered for acquisition through the First Right of Refusal process on 9 January 2020 to other Government agencies, including Council. If no Government agency seeks to acquire the subject land it will be offered for sale on the open market. Council has 60 days to respond to the First Right of Refusal process – by conclusion 9 March 2020. Council officers are proposing to prepare a report for the 8 April 2020 Council meeting with a recommendation following the required public consultation (NOM 61/17) on whether to secure the subject land or not. An extension of time to respond to the First Right of Refusal process will need to be sought from VicRoads in order to respond after the until after a Council decision on 8 April 2020. Encroachments Private properties directly abutting the subject land located at 86A, 86, and 84 McBryde Street, Fawkner have encroached and been fenced. The encroachments are indicated in Attachment 1. A review of aerial photos has shown the encroachments appear to have been in place since 1989. It is unknown what activities have been undertaken within this section of the subject land which raises concern and risk for potential contamination. This is an issue that will need to be resolved with Vic Roads before a decision to acquire the land. Road Abuttal The subject land does not have any legal road abuttal, it is surrounded by Council and private land shown in Attachment 1 and cannot be accessed via a public thoroughfare. The subject land is landlocked, and as it is only being offered to Council and other agencies, this is a factor that will need to be considered when seeking a valuation. If Council or another agency does not seek to purchase the subject land, it will be processed thought the State Government Fast Track process for rezoning prior to being offered on the open market for sale. This will provide an opportunity for all abutting properties to purchase and would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding Council land as it would dissect the existing open space corridor. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation No consultation has been undertaken to date. In accordance with Council’s decision regarding consultation about proposed land sales by State Government or its agencies(NOM61/17) a four-week notification period is proposed prior to writing a report with recommendations regarding the subject land, to be presented to the 8 April 2020 Council meeting. The consultation will be publicised by making information available on Council’s website and the Northern and Moreland Leader newspapers. Internal referral consultation will be conducted also to provide this opportunity for consultation and feedback from various separate units of Council 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 169

6. Financial and Resources Implications The cost of the public notices and the valuation are unknown at this stage and will be reported to Council in April 2020. 7. Implementation Subject to Council’s decision: • Consultation will commence in February 2020 for a 4-week period. • Council officers will to write to VicRoads seeking an extension of time from 9 March 2020 until after the Council meeting on 8 April 2020 to respond to the First Right of Refusal process.

Attachment/s 1⇩ 84A McBryde Street Fawkner - subject land D20/13162

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 170

DCD2/20 AGED CARE REFORMS- REGIONAL ASSESSMENT SERVICE (D19/518972) Director Community Development Aged and Community Support

Executive Summary The Commonwealth Government has an agenda to create a national program with a suite of aged services from entry level ‘home support’, to more comprehensive ‘packaged care’ through to residential care. The key drivers that underpin the reforms are: • A simplified gateway • Consumer directed care (CDC) • Demand driven system • Competitive neutrality • Market efficiencies. With the introduction of the National Aged Care Reforms on 1 July 2016, the Commonwealth Government assumed full responsibility for aged services, community based and residential care. This report particularly focusses on the Regional Assessment Service role of Council within aged care and the Commonwealth’s move toward a simplified gateway. The Regional Assessment Service (RAS) is for older people who have low level needs. The RAS is a face to face Assessment undertaken by a trained Home Support Assessor to work out the aged care service needs of a person and their carer, and to make referrals to appropriate Commonwealth Home Support Programme services (CHSP). The assessment is usually conducted in a person’s home. The Commonwealth Government discussion paper, ‘Streamlined Consumer Assessment for Aged Care’ outlines a transformational change to the delivery of assessment services, confirming that the current RAS as delivered by Victorian Local Government will no longer exist and current funding and contract arrangements will cease. The Streamlined Assessment Model will bring together RAS and Aged Care Assessment Service (ACAS) into a new national system. Although the Commonwealth Government has not confirmed future contracting arrangements for the new Streamlined Assessment Model it is understood the preference is for large regional contracts with two to three contracts likely across the whole State, with much broader than municipal geographic coverage. The Commonwealth Government had advised that RAS would become part of the Streamlined Assessment Model (SAM) from 1 July 2020. In December 2019, an extension to current RAS funding was announced, through to 31 March 2021. It is proposed that due to the ongoing uncertainty of the future model of Assessment, Council continues to deliver RAS services to 31 March 2021 while the current funding model remains. This provides the community and Council workforce with a level of certainty while the current funding model remains and reduces the risk of making a decision prematurely without knowing the full picture. The proposed approach is consistent with previous Council decisions related to CHSP, and a number of other metropolitan Councils. The proposal also provides an opportunity for Council to explore alternative roles for Council to provide older residents access to a range of strategies structures and ‘system navigation’ supports and services that improve and enhance participation, inclusion and utilisation of available links and resources.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 172

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Continues to deliver Regional Assessment Services while the current funding model exists, and as such accepts the Commonwealth Government offer of extension of contract through to 31 March 2021. 2. Explores alternative approaches to assist and support older people to navigate the challenging national My Aged Care system in preparation for future changes in a new national Assessment Service.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 173

REPORT

1. Policy Context This report directly supports the achievement of the current Council Action Plan - CAP 10: Determine future of Council in delivery beyond June 2020 of Commonwealth Home Support Programme (CHSP) and the Regional Assessment Service (RAS) program (subject to timely Commonwealth and State information provision. Regional Assessment Service Access to all aged care services is now via the My Aged Care gateway and assessment of service eligibility for entry level services is undertaken by the Regional Assessment Service (RAS). My Aged Care is the Australian Government's starting point on a person’s aged care journey. It helps a person find and access the government-funded services they need. If someone is just starting out on their aged care journey and wanting to know what services are available and how to access them, they contact My Aged Care. If they want to know more about how to apply and what’s involved in the assessment process, the first stage is to find out if they are eligible for subsidised aged care. It starts with an eligibility check which can be done online or over the phone through My Aged Care, followed by an in-person assessment by the RAS. Service types, service levels and service guidelines are determined by the Commonwealth Government as part of the transition to creating a nationally consistent aged care system. Council currently has an agreement to act as a RAS outlet of the State Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) held contract with funding provided by the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth Government has indicated its intention to pursue an integrated assessment model, incorporating existing RAS and Aged Care Assessment Services (ACAS), although currently there is no specific detail of the proposed model. The proposed new assessment model is currently known as the Streamlined Assessment Model (SAM). A competitive implementation approach is expected to form the basis for future provider arrangements. The Commonwealth Government has identified a desire to achieve administrative and contract efficiencies, and as such it is understood they are looking at contractors providing services across a large geographic area with the potential being only 2-3 contracts across the whole state. The current and proposed models are shown in the figure below.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 174

In Victoria, RAS is located within local government and provides a more basic assessment for older people with more basic needs. ACAT (known as Aged Care Assessment Service – ACAS in Victoria) is located within the hospital networks, and provides a more comprehensive assessment for older people with more complex needs requiring a Home Care Package or residential aged care. The current service agreement for RAS is to 30 June 2020. In December 2019 an extension to RAS was announced to 31 March 2021. 2. Background Council has previously been advised of the Commonwealth Government’s Aged Care Reform Agenda and last considered the matter on 12 June 2019. At this time Council resolved to endorse the following principles in relation to continued service delivery under the Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP): • Council continue to deliver CHSP services while it continues to receive block funding. • Further review of services and application of continuous improvement approaches to optimise the sustainability of the service models. • Apply for and/or accept additional CHSP funding, such as growth funding, only where the service targets can be met without any additional cost to Council. For other areas of service such as RAS and Home and Community Care Program for Younger People (HACC-PYP) Council resolved to monitor and review funding and policy changes, and then review Council’s role.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 175

At that time the Commonwealth Government had advised that RAS funding would cease on 30 June 2020 and that the extension of CHSP to 30 June 2022 would not apply to RAS. On 5 December 2019 Council received formal advice from the Commonwealth Government that it will be seeking to extend current RAS agreements for the delivery of assessment services from 1 July 2020 to 31 March 2021. Council also made a significant commitment to older people of Moreland by adopting the Living and Ageing Well in Moreland: An Age Friendly framework (the Framework) in June 2019. The Framework and action plan is linked to Council’s role in supporting the community during and after the Aged Care and NDIS reforms. Significant community consultation has been undertaken in shaping the framework and action plan. It establishes the principles to inform a relevant, timely and responsive Council wide action plan to support older people to be socially connected and live healthy, active and engaged lives. The Framework draws from the World Health Organisation active ageing and age friendly policy frameworks. The intended implementation of the Living and Ageing Well plan is foreshadowed to be funded from a reinvestment of a proportion of the Council annual contribution to the Commonwealth Government programs. This will take full effect when the Commonwealth funding allocations cease. 3. Issues Social implications People are living longer, and populations are ageing, resulting in increasing numbers of older people and a change in the makeup of our communities and municipalities. Older adults as a population group generally refers to people who are aged 65 years and above. There is a wide variability in health status, function and wellbeing at any age. This group commonly includes active retirees, individuals still in the workplace, as well as frail aged. The estimated resident population of Moreland in June 2015 was 166,770, with approximately 67,831 households in 2016. Population projections suggest significant growth will occur in Moreland over the coming years. It is predicted that the Moreland population will be 214,320 in 2036 and that there will be 85,919 households in the municipality. This equates to a population increase of 39 per cent between 2011 and 2036. In 2015, there were 22,237 older adults living in the City of Moreland. This represents 13.7 per cent of the total Moreland population. Moreland has consistently higher proportions of residents in all age groups over 75 years, when compared with the Melbourne and the Australian average (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016). With the introduction of the Streamlined Assessment Model the Commonwealth proposes the creation of a new integrated assessment workforce. The new assessment workforce would comprise assessors from both non-clinical and clinical backgrounds to undertake aged care assessments for all aged care services. In considering the future role of Council in the delivery of assessment services, there are a number of considerations to make in relation to how Council can best support older residents. These may include impact on community outcomes, value of local government involvement, and operational feasibility. Council offers a trusted, comprehensive and extensive knowledge of networks, pathways, resources and services. If Council is no longer involved in the direct delivery of assessment there is opportunity to explore whether Council reinvest its current contribution into other activities that support the needs and aspirations of older people. This may include options such as planning, stewardship, information, navigation, support and advocacy.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 176

Implications of Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety In December 2019, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety released a consultation paper ‘Aged Care Program Redesign: Services for the Future’. The consultation paper is a response to the Royal Commission’s background paper, Navigating the Maze, and the Interim Report. The Interim Report concluded there is a need for a fundamental overhaul of the aged care system within Australia. There have been strong messages that people trying to navigate the aged care system feel unsupported and are floundering. The system is complex, and people are making decisions when they are emotionally vulnerable. The interim report of the Royal Commission supported the ‘streamlining’ of the two assessment services into one. Regional/strategic implications In response to the aged care reforms, metropolitan Councils are all considering similar issues and making their decisions in relation to how they will continue to support older residents into the future. The approach to continue to deliver services while block funding continues and until future service models are clear is a consistent approach with many other metropolitan Councils. In August 2019, Jocelyn Fuller Consulting was engaged by the Northern Metropolitan Region (NMR) Aged Care Managers Group to develop a Background Paper to contribute to discussion and decision making regarding the NMR Councils’ future role in the delivery of the Commonwealth Streamlined Assessment Model. It is estimated that in December 2019 there were approximately 66 of the 79 local governments in Victoria directly engaged in the delivery of Regional Assessment Services as outlets of the DHHS held contract. It is widely acknowledged across Councils in Victoria that local government will no longer be able to provide assessments in their current form in the proposed Streamlined Assessment Model, however, there are significant opportunities for council involvement in alternative activities through the reinvestment of resources currently allocated to assessment activities with an emphasis on securing broader reach, outcomes and responses to the diverse needs of current and emerging older residents and their carers. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The rights identified as most relevant to this report include: The right to take part in public life, and the right to liberty and security of person, and recommendations of this report do not limit or interfere with these or other rights. 4. Consultation Extensive community consultation was undertaken during the planning and writing of the Framework. This included feedback on the role of Council in service delivery, and where the community saw there to be needs and gaps. Supporting older people, their carers and families to understand and navigate the complex My Aged Care gateway and access to services was identified as a key need. Consultation was also held with Directors of Community Services across the northern metropolitan region. Northern metropolitan region includes Moreland, Darebin, Yarra, Whittlesea, Hume, Nillumbik, and Banyule Councils. Internally, consultation has been held with Council officers, including Regional Assessment staff. A workshop was held with Councillors on 16 December 2019 to discuss the current information related to funding of aged care services including funding and future options and opportunities.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 177

5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications Council receives revenue from Commonwealth and State government funding grants, and contributes to the Assessment Service, which includes Regional Assessment Service and assessment for HACC-PYP (people aged under 65). The adopted 2019/20 budget includes approx. $800,000 of grant funding and $300,000 of Council contribution. There are no client fees for assessment. The State Government has indicated that the HACC-PYP funding is now ongoing, as NDIS transition period has ceased, and the Commonwealth Government has offered an extension of RAS funding to 31 March 2021. Despite funding uncertainty, adopting a position that Council will continue to deliver the service while current funding arrangements remain is prudent and provides the staff and community with a level of certainty. Funds required to explore alternative approaches to assist and support older people to navigate the challenging national My Aged Care system, are currently unbudgeted, however can be accommodated for within the current base budget of the Aged and Community Support branch, with no additional cost to Council within the 2019/20 budget. 7. Implementation Council’s Aged and Community Support Branch will continue to lead the ongoing work in relation to the aged care and disability reforms.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 178

EMF3/20 PROPOSED SALE OF COUNCIL LAND ADJOINING 45 ALBERT STREET, BRUNSWICK EAST (D19/505516) Executive Manager Finance Property

Executive Summary Council received a proposal from the owner of 45 Albert Street, Brunswick East to acquire a small piece of Council land (subject site), measuring approximately 72 square metres adjoining the western side of their property, it has been enclosed within the fence boundary for over 60 years and leased to the owner of 45 Albert Street, Brunswick East from 1990, with ongoing renewals since that time. Attachment 1 shows the subject site. At its meeting on 8 October 2014 Council resolved to commence the procedures for the sale of the land pursuant to section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989. A public notice for the proposed sale was placed in the Moreland Leader newspaper, on Council’s website, over 200 letters were mailed to owners and occupiers in the immediate vicinity of the subject site on 27 October 2014, advising of the proposal and inviting written submissions. One submission objecting to the sale of land was received and was heard at Council’s Urban Planning Committee meeting on 17 December 2014, in accordance with the Committee’s delegation. The submitter argued that the intended sale of Council’s land was against Council’s existing policies and strategies and suggested that Council should be increasing rather than decreasing the amount of open space in the municipality. Since 2012, Council has acquired more than 136,000 square metres of land for use for public open space within the municipality. When the matter was considered by Council on 11 March 2015, Council resolved not to sell the land and to investigate reclaiming it. The owner of 45 Albert Street, Brunswick East objected to the Council resolution from 11 March 2015 based on the building not being compliant with the Building Code if the land was to be reclaimed. Council’s Building Surveyor investigated the matter and confirmed that if the land was reclaimed by Council, the building at 45 Albert Street, Brunswick East would not be compliant with Building Code. To reclaim the land, Council would be required to remove the fence and raise the ground level to the same level of the higher ground in the park. This would require the provision of retaining walls, drainage treatment works and adequate sub floor ventilation and protection to the dwelling. If the land is not reclaimed by Council, there are no Building Code issues as the boundary fence will remain in its current location and is currently compliant with the Building Codes. At its meeting on 13 November 2019 (EMF38/19) Council determined the subject site is surplus to its needs and to give public notice of a proposed sale of the subject site. A public notice for the proposed sale was placed in the Moreland and Northern Leader newspapers and on Council’s website on 25 November 2019. In addition to this statutory requirement, Council mailed 479 letters to land owners and occupiers in the vicinity of the subject site advising them of the proposal and inviting submissions. One submission was received from the owner of 45 Albert Street in support of the proposal. This report recommends Council proceeds with the proposal to sell the subject site.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 179

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Notes public notice was given in the Moreland and Northern Leader newspapers and on Council’s website on 25 November 2019 and advice was mailed 479 letters to land owners and occupiers in the immediate vicinity of the subject site advising of the proposal and inviting submissions to the proposed sale of land adjoining 45 Albert Street, Brunswick East, shown in Attachment 1 to this report. 2. Notes that 1 submission was received, in support of the proposal to sell the land adjoining 45 Albert Street, Brunswick East and the submitter did not wish to be heard. 3. Having satisfied the statutory requirements of the Local Government Act 1989, sells the land shown cross hatched in Attachment 1 to this report, by private treaty to the owner of 45 Albert Street Brunswick East. 4. Authorises the Executive Manager Finance to do all things necessary to affect the sale by private treaty to the owner of 45 Albert Street, Brunswick East. 5. After deducting any costs incurred in the sale process, directs the proceeds from the sale of the land adjoining 45 Albert Street, Brunswick East, towards the development of Fleming Park.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 180

REPORT

1. Policy Context The Council Plan 2017-2021 articulates Council’s provision of a large range of services for our community. These externally facing service areas are supported by a range of Council teams that include the management of the community’s Council owned property and assets. 2. Background Council received a proposal from the owner of 45 Albert Street, Brunswick East to acquire a small piece of Council land (subject site), measuring approximately 72 square metres adjoining the western side of their property, which had been enclosed within the fence boundary for over 60 years and leased to the owner of 45 Albert Street, Brunswick East from 1990, with ongoing renewals since that time. Attachment 1 shows the subject site. At its meeting on 8 October 2014 Council resolved to commence the procedures for the sale of the land pursuant to section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989. A public notice for the proposed sale was placed in the Moreland Leader newspaper, on Council’s website and over 200 letters were mailed to owners and occupiers in the immediate vicinity of the subject site on 27 October 2014, advising of the proposal and inviting written submissions. One submission objecting to the sale of land was received and was heard at Council’s Urban Planning Committee meeting on 17 December 2014, in accordance with the Committee’s delegation. The submitter argued that the intended sale of Council’s land was against Council’s existing policies and strategies and suggested that Council should be increasing rather than decreasing the amount of open space in the municipality. Since 2012, Council has acquired more than 136,000 square metres of land for use for public open space within the municipality. When the matter was considered by Council on 11 March 2015, Council resolved not to sell the land and to investigate reclaiming it. The owner of 45 Albert Street, Brunswick East objected to the proposal based on the building not being compliant with the Building Code if the land was to be reclaimed and the fence removed. The subject site would require a subdivision, however as it is zoned residential it would not require rezoning. The subject site has not been used as open space due to the long-term occupation within 45 Albert Street, Brunswick East. Council owns land known as Fleming Park abutting the eastern boundary of the subject site (zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone). The subject site does not form part of the open space and is not included in the Fleming Park Masterplan. 3. Issues Council’s Building Surveyor has investigated reclaiming the site and has found that if the site was to be reclaimed by Council, the building at 45 Albert Street Brunswick would no longer be compliant with the Building Codes. The following issues would need to be rectified and paid for by Council to ensure the building remains compliant: • Removing the fence and raising the ground level to the same level of the higher ground in the park, requiring the provision of retaining walls, drainage treatment works and adequate sub floor ventilation and protection to the dwelling.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 181

• Additionally, removing the fence may increase the risk of wilful damage to the external walls of the property, for example, graffiti, broken windows or the likelihood of break and enter. The circumstances which prevent similar actions being undertaken on dwellings that are aligned with streets such as corner blocks will not be present here as there will be no vehicle traffic in the park that will act as a deterrent against such actions. Council could be held accountable if such damages occur. At its meeting on 13 November 2019 (EMF38/19) Council resolved that the subject site is surplus to its needs and that public notice be given of a proposal to sell the subject site, pursuant to the provisions of section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989. Public notice for the proposed sale was given in the Moreland and Northern Leader newspapers and on Council’s website on 25 November 2019. In addition, 479 letters were mailed to land owners and occupiers in the immediate vicinity of the subject site advising them of the proposal and inviting submissions. One submission was received, from the owner of 45 Albert Street, in support of the proposal Attachment 2. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation Council’s Open Space Branch and the Sports and Recreation Team have been consulted and supported the proposed sale of the land having regard to the relatively long period of its occupation/use. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The owner of 45 Albert Street, Brunswick East, has agreed to acquire the land at market value. In addition, the owner has agreed to meet all of Council’s reasonable costs associated with pursuing the sale of its land (including subdivision). Once sold, the land will become rateable. Any financial return would be allocated towards funding the Fleming Park Masterplan. 7. Implementation Subject to Council’s decision, the small parcel of land adjoining 45 Albert Street, Brunswick East, will be subdivided and sold to the owner of that property by private treaty. It is proposed the Executive Manager Finance be authorised to execute all documents necessary to affect the sale.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Plan of Survey - 45 Albert St Brunswick East D14/286102 2⇩ Submission on proposed sale of land adjoining 45 Albert Street D20/37475 Brunswick East

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 182

DCF7/20 PROPOSED PERMANENT CLOSURE OF JOHN STREET, BRUNSWICK EAST, AT ALBERT STREET (D20/3260) Director City Futures City Change

Executive Summary At its August 2019 meeting, Council considered a report (DCF63/19) on improving safety of cyclists travelling along the East Brunswick shimmy on John Street in Brunswick East and resolved to commence a trial road closure at the northern end of John Street, Brunswick East. The trial closure on John Street, at the Albert Street end, has now been in place since 19 September 2019. In accordance with the August 2019 decision (DCF63/19), in addition to John Street, Council officers have collected traffic count data in seven neighbouring streets to assess the redistribution of traffic in the area as a result of the closure. Traffic volumes have decreased significantly in John Street. While there have been minimal changes to speed and volume of the neighbouring local streets (French Avenue, Ethel Street, Deakin Street and Methven Street), relatively minimal changes to speed and volume in the major and collector roads (Glenlyon Road and Albert Street), a more noticeable increase in volume has been recorded for Hutchinson Street. In the streets experiencing the most change, the average and 85th percentile speeds (the speed at which 85 per cent of all vehicles travel at or below) are all within the posted speed limit of 40 km/h and are also well within acceptable volumes for the respective class of street. While Hutchinson Street has seen an increase from 448 vehicles per day to 827 vehicles per day, this is still well within intervention limits of up to 3,000 vehicles per day for a local street. This combined with the low speed nature of the street means no specific action is recommended on Hutchinson Street at this time. It is recommended that Council now measures community support for making the John Street road closure permanent. This can be done by commencing the process for making the trial closure permanent, which would trigger the same comprehensive consultation process required for the trial.

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Approves the commencement of the process under Section 207, Schedule 11, Clause 10(1)(c) of the Local Government Act 1989 to erect permanent barriers in John Street, Brunswick East, from Albert Street to a point 8 metres to the south of Albert Street to block the passage of vehicles other than bicycles. 2. In accordance with section 207A and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, gives public notice of the proposal to permanently block the passage of vehicles other than bicycles in John Street, Brunswick East, in the Moreland and Northern Leader newspapers and on Council’s website, and writes to owners and occupiers of all properties in the area bounded by Nicholson Street, Glenlyon Road, Hutchinson Street, Fleming Park and Victoria Street in Brunswick East inviting submissions. 3. Appoints Councillor ______as Chair, and Councillors ______, ______and ______to a Committee to hear any submitters requesting to be heard in support of their written submission. 4. Sets the Hearing of Submissions Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday 15 April 2020 at 7 pm, at the Moreland Civic Centre, 90 Bell Street, Coburg. 5. Following the consultation process, receives a report outlining any submissions received in relation to the proposed permanent closure of John Street and the report from VicRoads on the proposal, with a recommendation whether to proceed.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 187

REPORT

1. Policy Context Council’s Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy 2019 includes Headline Action 3 – use of road closures to support mode shift, reduce rat-running, and encourage take up of cycling by less confident riders. 2. Background At the August 2019 Council meeting, Council considered a report (DCF63/19) on improving safety of cyclists travelling along the East Brunswick shimmy on John Street in Brunswick East. Council resolved: a) Under Section 207, Schedule 11, Clause 10(1)(c) of the Local Government Act 1989, to erect temporary barriers in John Street, Brunswick East to a point 8 metres south of Albert Street to block the passage of vehicles other than bicycles, for the purpose of a genuine traffic diversion experiment, as published in public notices, on 13 and 14 May 2019 with a further report to be presented to Council 5 months after the trial closure. b) Council officers undertake traffic counts before and during (approximately 2-3 months after the closure has been implemented) the temporary closure in John Street, Hutchinson Street, Albert Street, Glenlyon Road, Ethel Street, French Avenue, Clarke Street, Deakin Street and Methven Street in Brunswick East, to assess the redistribution of traffic in the area as a result of the closure. c) Based off traffic volume data during the trial closure, Council officers assess whether redistributed traffic requires additional traffic calming strategy in neighbouring streets. d) Council officers monitor the queuing at the intersection of Glenlyon Road and Nicholson Street, Brunswick East before and during the temporary closure. e) Council receives a further report in early 2020 on the impacts of the traffic diversion experiment in John Street, Brunswick East to a point 8 metres south of Albert Street. f) Council officers notify all those previously notified in writing, including those who made submissions and Department of Transport, of Council’s decision. 3. Issues During the trial closure, the primary concerns raised were the increased volumes in Hutchinson Street and a view of submitters that this has created a dangerous environment for residents of the street. There have been numerous reports to Council by residents of Hutchinson Street about the increase in both volume and speed warranting close review of the traffic count data. With the trial closure in place since 19 September 2019, Council undertook traffic counts in all neighbouring streets between 25 November 2019 and 2 December 2019. These counts provide information on volumes, speed and vehicle classification along each road. The data collected in these counts can be seen in the following table (green reflecting below limits, orange being medium to high within limits and red being exceeding acceptable limits). The volumes are measured in vehicles per day (v/pd).

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 188

Average Speed 85th Percentile Speeds Avg Weekday Volume Count Location Before After Before After Before After 43 John St 28.9 km/h 30.7 km/h 35.6 km/h 36.0 km/h 1600 v/pd 656 v/pd 43 Hutchinson St 23.5 km/h 24.9 km/h 29.6 km/h 30.2 km/h 448 v/pd 827 v/pd 21 Hutchinson St 30 km/h 33.5 km/h 37.1 km/h 39.1 km/h 409 v/pd 789 v/pd 15 French Av 26.2 km/h 26.8 km/h 30.6 km/h 31 km/h 292 v/pd 304 v/pd 1 Ethel St 26.8 km/h 27.8 km/h 31 km/h 32.2 km/h 298 v/pd 307 v/pd 15 Deakin St 28 km/h 28.9 km/h 32.6 km/h 33.4 km/h 120 v/pd 138 v/pd 24 Methven St 26.7 km/h 26.6 km/h 30.6 km/h 30.8 km/h 118 v/pd 135 v/pd 243 Glenlyon Rd 44.6 km/h 43.9 km/h 51.2 km/h 50 km/h 11300 v/pd 11057 v/pd

43 Albert St 31.5 km/h 30.9 km/h 37.5 km/h 38.2 km/h 1773 v/pd 1442 v/pd

The data collected has shown a significant decrease in volume along John Street, with volumes of vehicles reducing by 944 vehicles per day, thus improving the safety conditions for cyclists along the East Brunswick Shimmy. The reduction in cut through traffic has also seen a reduction in volume along Albert Street (an Urban Route on the Primary Pedestrian Network), reducing the daily volumes by 331 vehicles per day, thus improving the safety conditions for pedestrians along this high priority pedestrian link. Most neighbouring streets have experienced negligible changes in volume and speeds and as such do not require any attention. As reflected by the complaints, Hutchinson Street, Brunswick East, has experienced an increase in volume of 379 vehicles per day. While it is acknowledged that this is nearly a doubling in traffic volume, this increase is still very low and considered well within the capacity of a local road which is up to 3,000 vehicles per day. Importantly, due to the narrow nature of the road, with vehicles parked on both sides of Hutchinson Street acting as passive traffic calming, along with kerb outstands at the Glenlyon Road end, the speeds within the street have remained relatively unchanged. With an 85th percentile speed of 39.1 km/h and an average speed of 33.5 km/h the speeds observed are still below the posted speed limit of 40km/h. Supporting these findings, Council has not received advice of any casualty crashes that have occurred on Hutchinson Street to date. The latest 5-year period of casualty crash data from VicRoads also shows no casualty crashes in Hutchinson Street indicating that the narrow nature of the street is not giving rise to dangerous movement of vehicles. As Council prioritises its annual capital works budget on vehicle volume, speeds and crash data, there are numerous locations across the municipality where funds should be prioritised over Hutchinson Street for traffic calming measures based on existing traffic count data, crash statistics and/or their strategic function within the network. Council officers recommend maintaining the existing conditions of Hutchinson Street.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 189

Given the success of the trial closure in reducing the volumes in John Street, Brunswick East, Council officers recommend progressing to a permanent closure on John Street, Brunswick East, at the Albert Street End. This closure will see an improvement to the connectivity between Fleming Park and John Street, with a redesign at the intersection expected to see a pedestrian and bicycle priority crossing point. A preliminary design of the treatment is shown at Attachment 1. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The recommendations for the closure of John Street does not limit or interfere with any Human Rights, in particular ‘section 12 - right to freedom of movement’. 4. Consultation If Council resolves to undertake the permanent closure, Council will be required to give public notice of the proposal to permanently block the passage of vehicles, other than bicycles on John Street at the Albert Street end and call for submissions in accordance with the requirements of sections 223 and 207A of the Local Government Act 1989. The public notice will be placed in the Moreland and Northern Leader newspapers, on Council’s website and owners and occupiers of all properties in the area bounded by Nicholson Street, Glenlyon Road, Hutchinson Street, Fleming Park and Victoria Street will be notified. This will enable the community to advise Council of the impact of the permanent road closure, which in turn, will allow Council to make a fully informed decision on whether to proceed with the permanent closure. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The permanent closure as outlined in Attachment 1, will cost approximately $250,000 for construction. 7. Implementation Subject to Council’s decision: Public notice will be given in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989, of the proposal to make the existing trial road closure in John Street, Brunswick East permanent, seeking submissions from the community in late February 2020. Should any submitters indicate a desire to be heard in support of their written submission, the hearing of submissions committee established by Council will meet and hear from community members in mid-April 2020. Following the community consultation process, a report will be presented to Council providing details of submissions received with a recommendation whether to proceed or not with the permanent closure.

Attachment/s 1⇩ John St Permanent Closure - Proposed Preliminary Design D20/3271

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 190

DBT2/20 DETERMINATION OF VOTING METHOD FOR THE 2020 COUNCIL ELECTION (D20/29016) Director Business Transformation Corporate Governance

Executive Summary Council elections will be held across Victoria on 24 October 2020 and will be conducted by the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC). Currently, a local government election may be conducted using an attendance or postal voting method. In the 2016 local government elections, 72 were conducted using postal voting and six, including Moreland, were conducted using attendance voting. In accordance with the Local Government Act 1989, a council that wishes to change its voting method must do so at least eight months before the election day. Council has previously determined that the election be conducted using attendance voting in light of the community building opportunities that exist at voting centres, for example community connections, fundraising for community groups and the opportunities for some voters to meet candidates face to face before voting. The VEC report on the conduct of the 2016 Local Government elections provides a detailed examination of the voting patterns at attendance and postal elections. The VEC report, available on the VEC website, finds that in 2016 those council elections conducted by attendance voting experienced, on average, a 12 per cent lower turnout than those elections that used postal voting. There were also fewer informal votes in those elections conducted using postal voting. A cost estimate from the VEC received for the conduct of the 2020 election indicates the (state-wide) average cost per voter for an attendance election will be $7.50 and the average cost per voter for postal elections will be $6.68. Moreland is expected to have approximately $135,000 voters on the electoral roll. In previous elections Council has determined that the attendance voting method provides important community building opportunities for Moreland and elections have been conducted via attendance voting. This is aligned with the Council Plan 2017-2021 objective of Connected Community. The Local Government Bill 2019 (the Bill), listed for consideration in the Legislative Council of State Parliament in early February 2020, includes provision for the Minister for Local Government to determine the voting system (method) for elections. The intent of this provision is that the same voting method will be used for all councils. Indications from local government peak bodies, the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Victorian Local Governance Association, are that, should the Bill be passed, the Minister will determine elections will be conducted by postal voting. This would supersede any Council decision. If the Bill is not passed or proclaimed before the October 2020 election, Council’s decision would stand.

Officer Recommendation That Council determines attendance voting as the voting method for the Moreland City Council municipal general election to be held on Saturday 24 October 2020.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 192

REPORT

1. Policy Context The Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) provides that, unless resolved otherwise, voting at a general election must be conducted by the same method as the previous general election. A Council that wishes to change its voting method must do so at least eight months before the election day. The 2016 municipal general election was conducted via attendance voting. The Local Government Bill 2019 (the Bill), listed to be debated in the Legislative Council in early February 2020, provides that the Minister [for Local Government] will determine the voting system (method) to be used for elections. Should the Bill be passed and proclaimed this clause will impact the conduct of the October 2020 election and may supersede any Council decision on the election method. The Council Plan 2017-2021 objective of Connected Communities articulates Council’s priority for Moreland residents to feel a strong sense of connectedness with their community. The council election is an opportunity to foster an environment where all constituents feel connected to the Moreland community. 2. Background Voting in local government elections is compulsory for residents enrolled on the Electoral Commissioner’s list which is produced from the State electoral roll. Voting is not compulsory for those enrolled on the Chief Executive Officer’s list (the CEOs list) – primarily non-resident ratepayers and those who are eligible and apply to be on the CEO’s list. Elections are conducted by the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC). In the 2016 Victorian local government elections Moreland was one of six councils to use attendance voting as its election method. The other Councils were Banyule, Greater Dandenong, Knox, Port Phillip and Yarra. The VEC’s report on the conduct of the 2016 elections analysed voter participation by election method and by council. Key statistics are included in Attachment 1. The report found: State-wide • Attendance elections average voter turnout - 61.49 per cent; • Postal voting elections average voter turnout - 73.75 per cent; • A significantly lower participation rate from voters on the CEO’s list, particularly for attendance elections; • 36 per cent of votes that were counted for attendance elections were postal or early votes. Moreland • Total voter turnout – 62.29 per cent; • North-East Ward – 65.09 per cent; • North-West Ward – 64.9 per cent; • South Ward – 55.47 per cent. In previous elections Moreland has determined that the attendance voting method provides important community building opportunities and elections have been conducted via attendance voting.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 193

3. Issues Attendance Voting Method Attendance voting may provide more opportunity for community involvement on election day (people working at booths, sausage sizzles at schools etc.), and arguably provides a more ‘public display’ of democracy. Voter turnout is lower for attendance elections when compared to postal elections, and also decreased between the 2012 and 2016 municipal general elections. Attendance voting at the 2016 municipal general election demonstrated a higher level of informal votes, and a lower rate of eligible voters counted. Attendance voting is more costly than postal voting due to labour costs, and the additional space/venue requirements. For those voters that find attendance voting inconvenient, there are options for early voting and application for postal votes. Postal Voting Method Postal voting for the 2016 elections demonstrated a: • Considerably higher level of voter turnout • Lower level of informal votes • Higher rate of eligible votes counted. The benefits of postal voting include voter convenience, standardisation of information on candidates – via candidate statements distributed with ballot papers, higher levels of voter participation (including for voters over 70 years of age), and an increase in the formality of votes. In addition, a postal election generally costs less than an attendance election because it is less labour intensive. While postal voting has potentially more risk around the security of ballot papers, the VEC can monitor the issue and return of replacement ballot material to ensure no voter is able to have more than one ballot paper admitted to the count. In addition, the VEC has stringent measures in place to ensure the security of ballot material, including new security and ballot paper management measures implemented for the 2018 Victorian State election. There are few, if any, community connection benefits available through a postal vote election. Local Government Bill 2019 (Bill) The directions paper, ‘Act for the Future – Direction for a New Local Government Act’ (Directions Paper), made clear that the State Government has a strong preference for a single uniform voting method for local government. The Directions Paper noted that postal voting consistently delivers higher levels of voter participation and formal voting and is less costly for councils. It also noted that uniform postal voting systems would also support a transition to electronic voting should it become technically viable to do so. The Bill, currently before parliament, proposes the Minister for Local Government will determine the single voting system to be used for general elections and by-elections. If the Bill is passed, it is anticipated the Minister would determine the October 2020 elections will be conducted using postal voting and Council’s decision will be superseded. If the Bill is not passed, or is significantly delayed, Council’s decision is likely to stand.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 194

Social implications Attendance voting provides an opportunity for community members to come together at voting centres and the ability for community groups or schools to undertake fundraising activities. These opportunities are not available should Council determine the voting method will be postal. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The Charter of Human Rights and responsibilities enshrines people’s right to participate in public life, including voting. The VEC election service plan commits to providing and election is accessible to all eligible voters, regardless of the voting method. Attendance voting provides a more tangible opportunity for people to exercise their right to participate in public life, through the additional community building opportunities. Postal voting can be a more accessible method for some members of the community to participate in elections. This is available on application for attendance voting. 4. Consultation The VEC seeks feedback from community members, candidates and councils following each election to understand the experience from different participants’ perspectives. 64% of community members who responded to the feedback opportunity following the 2016 elections indicated they voted because they care about services or issues in their communities. The consultation did not include seeking views of voting methods. Communications A comprehensive communications plan will be delivered by the VEC to raise awareness about the elections and how people can vote. The communication plan includes specific elements to raise awareness with culturally and linguistically diverse communities. This will be simplified for the community if there is a single voting method across the state. The VEC activities will be supplemented by delivering Council’s communications plan which is in development. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The VEC has provided indicative cost estimates for the 2020 election of $806,000 based on attendance voting. An estimate has not been provided for an election conducted by postal voting however the VEC estimates that the state-wide average cost per voter for an attendance election will be $7.50 and for a postal election the average cost per voter will be $6.68. Moreland is expected to have 135,000 eligible voters. Compulsory voting enforcement costs will be an additional $222,000. These amounts may be amended once updated data (for example, updated estimated voter numbers, cost of election office etc.) is finalised with the VEC. The financial benefit of the community connection and engagement opportunities is not measurable directly for an election. There will likely be financial benefits for community organisations able to take advantage of fundraising opportunities at voting centres.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 195

The conduct of Election 2020 will be resourced from annual budgets for 2019/2020 and 2020/21. 7. Implementation Subject to Council’s decision and the outcome of the Bill, Council officers will finalise arrangements with the VEC to provide election services for the 2020 Council election.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Key statistics from VEC report of 2016 elections D20/30931

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 196

EMF4/20 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2019 - CYCLICAL REPORT (D20/7673) Executive Manager Finance Finance and Business Systems

Executive Summary This report presents the Financial Management Report for the financial year to date period ending 31 December 2019. Council has developed and implemented a financial strategy of generating small surpluses to reinvest in much needed infrastructure projects. The December 2019 Income Statement shows Council is $2.5 million better than the year to date Revised Forecast. This comprises overall revenues tracking on forecast and overall expenditures having ended $88.5 million (3 per cent) better than the year to date Revised Forecast. Council has spent $21.1 million on capital expenditure which is in line with the year to date Revised Forecast of $21.7 million and includes $3.9 million of strategic property purchases funded by the Public Resort and Recreation Land Fund reserve. If the 'unbudgeted' property purchases are isolated, the capital expenditure is tracking at $17.2 million which is $4.5 million under the Revised Forecast.

Officer Recommendation That Council notes the Financial Management Report for the period ended 31 December 2019 at Attachment 1 to this report.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 199

REPORT

1. Policy Context This report supports Council’s continuing commitment to open and accountable management of the financial resources of Moreland on behalf of its ratepayers. 2. Background The Financial Management Report at Attachment 1 provides Council’s financial statements for the year to date (YTD) period ending 31 December 2019. The actual results are compared to the adopted revised forecast. 3. Issues Council ended December 2019 with a surplus operating result of $21.1 million which is $2.5 million (14 per cent) better than the YTD Revised Forecast of $18.5 million. Significant variance explanations below identify where the current YTD variances are expected to be a timing or permanent difference by 30 June 2020. A timing variance is a current difference between actual result and forecast which is expected to be resolved before the end of the financial year. A permanent variance is a current difference between actual result and forecast which will continue to the end of the financial year. The main items contributing to the overall variance are: Revenue • Statutory fees and fines are $0.2 million better than the revised forecast. − Primarily due to parking infringement revenue being $0.3 million higher than forecast (mostly permanent subject to the year-end review of the provision for doubtful debt). • Contributions Monetary are $0.8 million less than the revised forecast. − Primarily due to receiving $0.6 million less than anticipated subdivider contributions. Note that this income is transferred to Reserves and is not available for general expenditure (permanent). Expenditure • Employee Benefits are $1.4 million less than the revised forecast. − The variance relates primarily to roles that have been vacant for part of this year (permanent). • Contracts, Materials and Services are $0.9 million less than the revised forecast. − Primarily due to: ▪ Consultants and professionals are $1.3 million favourable (timing). and is partially offset by: ▪ Agency staff backfill $0.9 million unfavourable (permanent). Environmental Upgrade Agreements (EUA) No new EUAs were approved in the quarter from 1 October 2019 to 31 December 2019. There are currently four agreements in operation, with a total value of $5,679.81 not paid when due in the last quarter, and a total value of $747,977.62 EUA payments that have not yet fallen due.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 200

Capital Projects – Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) The CAPEX program YTD has an actual spend of $21.1 million which is $0.6 million less than budget. This is predominately due to the unbudgeted property purchases totalling $3.9 million (funded by Reserves) and offset by the timing differences in current capital projects. Cash At the end of December, Council had cash and short-term investments of $103.4 million. This is approximately $4.3 million more than the cash position at the beginning of the financial year. Cash fluctuates frequently over the year due to a number of factors including the timing of payments and receipts. Solvency Assessment Council’s liquidity ratio (current assets divided by current liabilities) is 1.6 as at 31 December 2019. The Victorian Auditor-General's Office recommends that this ratio be 1.5 or higher. The current ratio is similar to this time last year. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation This report has been prepared based on information provided by managers and reviewed by directors. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The overall corporate objective is to deliver the 2019/20 budget with the best possible outcome for Council and the community and in line with the adopted budget targets. 7. Implementation The financial position of Council will continue to be monitored and managed.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Council EOM Financial Report - December 19 D20/39133

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 201

DBT3/20 GOVERNANCE REPORT - FEBRUARY 2020 - CYCLICAL REPORT (D20/30985) Director Business Transformation Corporate Governance

Executive Summary The Governance Report has been developed as a monthly standing report to Council to provide a single reporting mechanism for a range of statutory compliance, transparency and governance matters. This Governance Report includes: • Reports from Committee to Council • Records of Assemblies of Councillors • Response to On Notice item from the 11 December 2019 Council meeting • Councillor attendance at the Australian Local Government Association National General Assembly in June 2019 – approval for travel • Substitute representative – Metropolitan Local Governments’ Waste Forum • Establishment of Hearing of Submissions Committees. This report recommends that Council notes the Reports from Committee to Council and supports Committee recommendations. Records of Assemblies of Councillors and responses to On Notice Items are also presented for noting. The report also recommends Council determines Councillors to attend the Australian Local Government Association’s National General Assembly (and approves interstate travel) and appoints a substitute representative for the Metropolitan Local Governments’ Waste Forum. A Hearing of Submissions Committee is required to be established in relation to the proposal to discontinue part of a Right of Way at the rear of 1-7 West street, Brunswick, and dates set for hearing of submissions into this proposal along with the proposed leases of 406 Victoria Street, Brunswick and part of John Pascoe Fawkner Reserve.

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Notes the reports from Committees to Council at Attachment 1 to this report, and: a) Accepts the recommendations of the Friends of Aileu Community Committee and: i. Amends the terms of reference for the Friends of Aileu Community Committee to include a clause outlining requirements of committee members with respect to any conflict of interest; ii. Invites the Aileu Municipal Administrator to visit for a study tour of up to two weeks in early May 2020, to take part in a program of activities including recognition of the 20th anniversary of the friendship relationship between Moreland, Hume and Aileu. b) Accepts the recommendation from the Family and Children’s Services Advisory Committee and appoints Abir Melhem of Arabic Welfare Inc. to the Children’s Services Advisory Committee. 2. Notes the Records of Assemblies of Councillors held between 1 November and 31 December 2019, at Attachment 2 to this report. 3. Notes a verbal response to the Public Question Time - On Notice item from the 11 December 2019 Council meeting has been provided and will be followed up with a written response.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 211

4. Approves interstate travel for Cr______, Cr______and Cr______to represent Council at the 2020 Australian Local Government Association National General Assembly from 14 to 17 June 2020. 5. Notes the Chief Executive Officer will attend the 2020 Australian Local Government Association National General Assembly from 14 to 17 June 2020. 6. Appoints Councillor ______as the substitute representative on the Metropolitan Local Governments’ Waste Forum. 7. Appoints the Mayor, as chair, and Councillors ______, ______and ______to a committee to hear submitters in relation to the proposal to discontinue a portion of the Right of Way at the rear of 1-7 West Street, Brunswick. 8. Sets the Hearing of Submissions regarding the proposal to discontinue a portion of the Right of Way at the rear of 1-7 West Street, Brunswick to be held on Wednesday 26 February 2020 at 5.30 pm in the Council Chamber at Coburg Civic Centre, 90 Bell Street Coburg. 9. Sets the Hearing of Submissions regarding the proposal to lease 406 Victoria Street, Brunswick, to be held on Wednesday 18 March 2020 at 7 pm in the Council Chamber at Coburg Civic Centre, 90 Bell Street, Coburg. 10. Sets the Hearing of Submissions regarding the proposal to lease part of John Pascoe Fawkner Reserve to Telstra for the purpose of a telecommunication facility and shelter equipment, to be held on Wednesday 25 March 2020 at 5.30 pm in the Council Chamber at Coburg Civic Centre, 90 Bell Street, Coburg.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 212

REPORT

1. Policy Context The appointment of Councillors to specific areas of responsibility and committees provides a framework for relationships between Councillors and the administration of Council and reporting back of these committees to Council is an important transparency mechanism. Council’s advisory committees have been established to provide advice to Council on their area of focus. Section 80A of the Act sets out the context in which the Assembly of Councillors Records must be reported to Council. The Meeting Procedure Local Law 2018 provides for the Chairperson to take a question On Notice and a written response to be provided to the person, should the question require a detailed answer that is not available at the meeting. In accordance with the Councillors Support, Expenses and Resources Policy (Policy), attendance by Councillors to interstate conferences must be approved by resolution of Council. The Travel, Accommodation and Personal Expenses Policy for Council Employees requires the Chief Executive Officer to inform Council of interstate travel plans. At its meeting on 12 December 2018, Council determined to purchase land at 1-11 West Street, Brunswick to develop as open space as part of the Park Close to Home Framework. In making that decision, Council also authorised the commencement of statutory procedures under the Act to discontinue the road at the rear of 1-7 West Street, Brunswick, for Council to retain the land for public use. When proposing to discontinue a Right of Way (road), Council must give public notice advising of the proposal and inviting submissions. Section 190 of the Act requires Council to give public notice and invite submissions in relation to proposals enter into leases when the lease proposed is to be one year or more and the market value of the rental is $50,000 or more, or the lease is to be 10 years or more. 2. Background In accordance with best practice and good governance principles, and to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Act, this report incorporates matters including reporting of advisory committees, records of Assemblies of Councillors, items relating to the delegation of Council powers, and policy and strategy reporting. 3. Issues Reports from Committee to Council A summary of the key issues discussed at the following meetings is provided at Attachment 1 for Council’s information: • Friends of Aileu Community Committee held on 12 November 2019 • Moreland Libraries Advisory Committee held on 12 November 2019 • Family and Children’s Services Advisory Committee held on 21 November 2019 • Audit and Risk Management Committee held on 3 December 2019 • Sustainable Moreland Advisory Committee held on 3 December 2019 • Moreland Arts Advisory Committee held on 10 December 2019.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 213

Friends of Aileu Community Committee recommendations At its meeting on 12 November 2019, the Friends of Aileu Community Committee discussed an audit finding received by Hume City Council recommending the inclusion of conflict of interest requirements be included in the agenda, minutes and terms of reference for various Advisory Committees, including the Friends of Aileu Community Committee which is established as a Citizens’ Committee of Moreland City Council. Subsequent to the discussion, the Friends of Aileu Community Committee agreed: ‘That the Committee supports a recommendation to Moreland City Council to adopt an amendment to the Terms of Reference for the Friends of Aileu Community Committee to include a clause outlining requirements of committee members in the event of any conflict of interest, with the clause to be based on the following: ‘All members of the Committee will be made aware of their duty to avoid any conflict of interest in relation to their participation in discussion, provision of advice or decision making. This includes the requirement to declare any conflict of interest and absent oneself from the part of a meeting considering any relevant matter.’’ At the same meeting, the Friends of Aileu Community Committee also considered how to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the initial Memorandum of Understanding establishing the friendship relationship between Moreland, Hume and Aileu. The Committee agreed: ‘That the Committee supports a recommendation to Moreland and Hume City Councils to authorise the Mayor to invite the Aileu Municipal Administrator to make a study tour visit in early May 2020, including to take part in activities for the 20th anniversary of the friendship relationship.’ A study tour visit by the Administrator in early May would allow the Aileu Municipal Administrator to: • Gain first-hand experience of the operation of local government in Victoria • Meet councillors and managers at Moreland and Hume City Councils • Meet members of the Friends of Aileu and partner organisations, including at the 3 May meeting of the Friends of Aileu Community Committee • Discuss priority issues for Aileu in relation to the Friendship Agreement and the Municipal Cooperation Agreement. It is proposed that the Friends of Aileu Community Committee meeting of 3 March 2020 will consider a recommendation regarding renewal of the Friendship Agreement and the nature of the related event. It is also proposed that the Committee’s recommendations will be reported to the April meetings of Moreland and Hume City Councils. Should the recommendation be to renew the Friendship Agreement, and that recommendation be supported by the two Councils, the visit would likely coincide with the renewal of the agreement. Family and Children’s Services Advisory Committee At its meeting on 21 November 2019, the Family and Children’s Services Advisory Committee considered an expression of interest for a representative of Arabic Welfare Inc. to be included on the committee. The Family and Children’s Services Advisory Committee determined to recommend to Council: That Council accepts the nomination for Abir Melhem of Arabic Welfare Inc. as a member of the Family and Children’s Services Advisory Committee.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 214

Assemblies of Councillors An Assembly of Councillors is a meeting of an advisory committee of the Council, if at least 1 Councillor is present, or a planned or scheduled meeting of at least half of the Councillors and 1 member of Council staff which considers matters that are intended or likely to be the subject of a decision of the Council or delegate. Some examples include Councillor Briefings, meetings with residents/developers/ clients/organisations/government departments/statutory authorities and consultations. Councillors further requested that all Assembly of Councillors Records be kept for Urban Planning Briefing meetings, irrespective of the number of Councillors in attendance. Records of Assemblies of Councillors and Planning Briefings held during the period 1 November to 31 December 2019 are presented at Attachment 2 for the following meetings: • Councillor Briefings – 11 November, 2 December, 9 December • Moreland Libraries Advisory Committee – 12 November • Planning Briefings – 24 November and 16 December • Saxon Street Redevelopment Oversight Committee – 25 November • Moreland Housing Advisory Committee – 5 December. On Notice responses At the 11 December 2020 Council meeting, one question was taken On Notice during Public Question Time. • ON33/19 – Amendment C183 Moreland Parking Implementation Plan Council officers have contacted the member of the community and verbally responded. This action will be followed up with a written response. 2019 National General Assembly of Local Government The Australian Local Government Association’s National General Assembly (NGA) is held annually and provides an opportunity for Mayors and Councillors, as representatives of their municipalities, to come together at a national forum. In 2020 the NGA will be held at the National Convention Centre in Canberra from 14 to 17 June. The purpose of the NGA is to identify and determine ways local government can engage with the Federal Government, to inform the development of national policy and influence the future direction of councils and communities. Participating in the National General Assembly is an opportunity for Councillors to inform themselves on current major policy issues and to contribute to national policy debate. In previous years, Council has approved attendance by up to four Councillors, with the travel, accommodation and registration costs met from the Mayor and Councillor support budget in accordance with the Councillor Support, Resources and Expenses Policy. It is also important for the Chief Executive Officer to attend the NGA to support Councillors and be directly informed of national policy initiatives and implications for local government. Metropolitan Local Governments’ Waste Forum At its meeting in November 2019 Council made Councillor appointments to the roles of ‘Councillor Responsible For…’ and to Council convened networks, internal, citizen and external committees, and networks and external boards who have sought a Council representative for the Mayoral year.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 215

Council appointed Cr Dorney as its representative to the Metropolitan Local Governments’ Waste Forum but did not appoint a substitute, or proxy, representative. The Forum secretariat recommends Council appoints a proxy representative as the proxy receives Forum related correspondence, access to the secure Forum portal and can seamlessly attend meetings as the proxy when the primary Representative is not available. Hearing of Submissions to proposal to discontinue the right of way at the rear of 1-7 West Street, Brunswick When Council purchased the properties at 1-11 West Street, Brunswick, to convert the land to open space, the right of way at the rear of 1-7 West Street, was proposed to be discontinued and included in the open space. Public notice of the proposal to discontinue the right of way was given on 7 January 2019, and the surrounding residents and ratepayers notified. 10 submissions were received in relation to the proposal in a pro forma style submission letter. As a result, submitters were advised of an updated proposal with the area proposed to be discontinued modified to address concerns about access and invited to discuss the proposal and their concerns on site in February 2019. None of the objectors elected to meet onsite and two objectors responded with remaining objections to the proposal. Council officers called the two remaining objectors to obtain an understanding of their concerns, one of these were generally agreeable to the changes following a discussion regarding cars parking on the ROW. One submitter has remaining concerns in relation to the access for large vehicles to get in and out of a neighbouring garage and has requested to be heard in support of her submission. It is proposed Council establishes a committee to hear from the submitters on Wednesday 26 February 2020 at 5.30 pm in the Council Chamber. All submitters will be advised of the meeting. Dates for Hearing of Submissions Proposal to Lease 406 Victoria Street, Brunswick At its March 2019 meeting Council resolved (DEP1/19) to commence an Expression of Interest (EOI) process to secure a lessee for the site at 406 Victoria Street, Brunswick (commonly referred to as 420 Victoria Street or the Brunswick Business Incubator as signposted on the building itself). Advertised in April 2019, the EOI was a call to market that sought to evaluate interest for establishing co-working, incubator, makerspace, acceleration and an event space on the site. At its meeting on 10 July 2019, Council received a report on the EOI process and endorsed a Request for Proposal process with the three shortlisted EOI proponents (DEP6/19). The RFP process commenced on 15 July 2019 and closed on 18 October 2019. The three shortlisted proponents each submitted a proposal that was evaluated against the Council endorsed RFP objectives. Council further resolved on 10 July 2019 (DEP6/19) to give public notice of its intention to lease 406 Victoria Street, Brunswick and appointed Councillor Riley as Chair and Councillors Tapinos, Irfanli and Martin to a committee to hear from any submitter seeking to be heard in support of a submission in relation to the proposed lease. Public notice has now been given in relation to the proposal to lease 406 Victoria Street, Brunswick and a date and time is required to be set for the committee to hear submissions. All submitters will be advised of the hearing details.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 216

Proposed Telecommunications Lease with Telstra – Francis Street, Oak Park Visionstream, acting on behalf of Telstra, approached Council to construct a new telecommunications facility within a part of Council’s land at John Pascoe Fawkner Reserve at 1A Francis Street, Oak Park. Visionstream and Council officers met onsite to discuss preliminary options. Council officers and Telstra representatives met onsite to determine a suitable location, shown circled in Attachment 1. The facility will not be a Low Impact Facility as defined in the Telecommunications (Low Impact Facilities) Determination Act 1997 and will therefore require a planning permit. At its meeting on 9 October 2020 Council resolved to commence the statutory procedures to lease part of John Pascoe Fawkner Reserve to Telstra for the purpose of a telecommunication facility and shelter equipment, and to give public notice of the proposal and invite submissions from the community. Council also appointed the Mayor as Chair and all North West Ward Councillors to a committee to hear any submitters requesting to be heard in support of a written submission. 11 Submissions were received in relation to the proposed lease to Telstra. Three submitters requested to be heard in support of their submission. It is proposed Council sets the committee to hear from the submitters to be held on Wednesday 25 March 2020 at 5.30 pm in the Council Chamber. All submitters will be advised of the meeting. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation Advisory committees provide a valuable communication and consultation link between the organisation, Councillors, Council and the community. The appointment of Councillors to specific areas of responsibility, ‘Councillors Responsible For’, provides a framework for relationships between Councillors and the administration of Council. Councillors have had an opportunity to express interest in ‘Councillor Responsible For …’ roles and Committee appointments. Public Question Time is an important opportunity for members of the public to direct their questions to the Council and is included at ordinary Council meetings that are not designated for consideration of Planning and Related Matters, in accordance with the Meeting Procedure Local Law 2018. Public notice was given in respect of the proposal to discontinue the road at the rear of 1-7 West Street, Brunswick and submissions invited. 10 submissions were received in a pro forma style letter. Council officers contacted submitters to understand the issues raised, and in response have modified the initial proposal. Public notice will be given, in the Moreland and Northern Leader newspapers of Council’s intention to lease 406 Victoria Street, Brunswick and submissions invited. The submission period will be 28 days and submitters will be advised of the opportunity to be heard in support of a written submission. 11 submissions were received in relation to the proposed telecommunications lease with Telstra – Francis Street, Oak Park (part of John Pascoe Fawkner Reserve). Three submitters indicated they wanted to be heard in support of their written submissions.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 217

Council will be required to consider all submissions in relation to each of the three proposals and will be provided with these and a summary of any Hearing of Submissions Committee meetings to inform its final decision in relation to each of the matters. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in these matters. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The costs of a visit by the Aileu Municipal Administrator can be met from within the budget for the East Timor Project, with equal contributions from Moreland and Hume City Councils, along with publicly raised funds available to Friends of Aileu, supplemented by in-kind contributions, for example, homestay accommodation. The costs of Councillor travel to the National General Assembly are provided for in the 2019/20 budget. There are no further resources or financial implications arising from this report. 7. Implementation Governance activity, including reports of committees to Council, Assemblies of Councillors and On Notice items, will continue to be reported to Council monthly. Subject to Council’s decision: • An invitation will be issued to the Aileu Muncipal Administrator to visit Moreland and Hume in May 2020; • Travel arrangements will be made for Councillors to attend the National General Assembly in Canberra in June 2020; • The Local Governments’ Waste Forum will be advised of the proxy representative appointed by Council; and • The submitters will be advised of the time and date of the Hearing of Submissions in relation to: • The proposal to discontinue a section of the road at the rear of 1-7 West Street, Brunswick; • The proposal to lease 406 Victoria Street, Brunswick; and • The proposal to lease part of John Pascoe Fawkner Reserve. • A report will be presented to Council on the outcomes of each of the consultation processes, with a recommendation whether or not to proceed.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Reports of Committees to Council February 2020 D20/33856 2⇩ Assembly of Councillor Record - 1 November 2019 - 31 December 2019 D20/34127

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 218

DCI1/20 CONTRACT 870ST - COBURG CITY OVAL PAVILION - MAIN WORKS (D19/518178) Director City Infrastructure Capital Works Planning and Delivery

Executive Summary The Coburg City Oval Redevelopment is a Capital Works project aiming to create a multipurpose community and sporting pavilion to cater for a variety of community and sports groups. Funding has been committed from the State Government, AFL Victoria and Cricket Victoria contributing to a total project budget of $6,715,000 for the project delivery. After a public expression of interest process, a competitive tender process was undertaken, inviting shortlisted respondents to submit their best offer to deliver the redevelopment works. A comprehensive tender assessment was carried out by the Tender Evaluation Panel based on the tender submissions received through the Request for Tender process, with a preferred tenderer selected. This report provides a recommendation on the appointment of the preferred contractor to undertake the redevelopment of Coburg City Oval at the agreed contract sum, and the allocation of construction contingencies for unforeseeable variations that may arise during the construction period.

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. Awards Contract 870ST - Coburg City Oval Redevelopment to J Hutchinson Pty Ltd for the lump sum amount of $5,507,157 (excl. GST) under a Design and Construct Contract. 2. Allocates a contingency of $550,716 for Contract 870ST - Coburg City Oval Redevelopment for unforeseen variations that may occur during the construction period. 3. Authorises the Director City Infrastructure to do all things necessary to execute Contract 870ST - Coburg City Oval Redevelopment and any other required documentation, including authorising any cost overruns, provided the overall budget for the project is not exceeded. 4. Notifies all tenderers for Contract 870ST - Coburg City Oval Redevelopment of the outcome of the tender process.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 229

REPORT

1. Policy Context In 2010, Council resolved to adopt the Coburg Initiative, Public Realm and Infrastructure Strategy (Strategy) which maintains Coburg City Oval as a community accessible full-sized sports ground, with a renewed and enhanced pavilion, upgraded grandstand and auxiliary sport and public facilities to accommodate for the diverse community and sport needs. The Strategy also included the removal of existing fencing and landscaping the perimeter of the oval to merge with the surrounding environment, which was undertaken by Council’s Open Space Design and Development Unit. The redevelopment of the pavilion and grandstand aligns to the Council Plan 2017- 2021 to ‘maintain and match our infrastructure to community needs and population growth.’ This report is in keeping with Council’s commitment to accountability and sound financial management. It also addresses the requirement under Section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989, which requires a public tender for services where the contract value is more than $200,000 for works. The tender process also complies with Council’s Procurement Policy. 2. Background Coburg City Oval is Council’s premier Australian Rules football and cricket stadium and is located in Bridges Reserve, Coburg. It is home to the Victorian Football League’s Coburg Lions Football Club, Coburg Auskick, Coburg Football Integration Development Association, Coburg Junior Football Club, West Coburg Football Club and the Coburg Cricket Club. It has also been used as a venue for Victorian Women’s Football and Essendon District Football League finals. The pavilion is also being highly utilised by other groups, including interstate and regional junior AFL and cricket competitions, community school sport competitions, Apprentices Trainees Employment Limited and five multicultural senior citizen community groups from Monday to Friday. The current pavilion is very outdated and does not meet contemporary needs, nor does the infrastructure meet the AFL minimum state venue facility requirements. The existing pavilion needs to be refurbished and redeveloped to align with Council’s commitment in providing compliant, accessible and multi-purpose sporting and community facilities. The proposed works include the refurbishment of the existing ground floor in the pavilion to include AFL compliant change rooms and amenities, medical room, storage facilities, new umpires’ rooms and gymnasium, upgrading of the level 1 entry foyer, reconfiguring level 2 to accommodate a new social space and associated amenities, reconfigured grandstand including new seating, and installing new vertical transport to comply with the DDA requirements and improve connectivity throughout the building. In 2018, the Victorian State Government announced a funding agreement through the Community Sports Infrastructure Fund for $3,000,000 towards the redevelopment of the pavilion and grandstand. This amount was matched by Council via the Capital Works Program. Further funding applications to AFL Victoria and Cricket Victoria were successful for $500,000 and $175,000 respectively, bringing the total budget for the project to $6,715,000.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 230

3. Issues Tender process A competitive tender was undertaken as a two-step process with the initial step being a public Expression of Interest, followed by a Request for Tender from respondents shortlisted in the Expression of Interest stage. The Expression of Interest was advertised and issued via Council’s Supply Portal on 10 September 2019. Seventeen submissions were received by the closing date of 25 September 2019. The submissions were evaluated in accordance with the Coburg City Oval Procurement Plan. The evaluation criteria include project team and resource structure, relevant experience, construction methodology and management, contractual, OHS history, quality assurance, insurance and social, environmental and economic sustainability. The Tender Evaluation Panel consisted of the following members: • Director City Infrastructure • Manager Capital Works Planning and Delivery • Senior Project Manager, Capital Works Planning and Delivery • Project Manager, Capital Works Planning and Delivery • Unit Manager Recreation Services • Assistant Project Manager (non-voting member), Capital Works Planning and Delivery • Procurement Officer (non-voting member) • Project Manager, Root Partnerships • Associate Quantity Surveyor, Zinc Cost Management The following six respondents to the Expression of Interest were shortlisted in accordance with the selection criteria to participate in the Request for Tender: • J Hutchinson Pty Ltd (Hutchinson) • SHAPE Australia Pty Ltd (Shape) • Tandem Building Group Pty Ltd (Tandem) • Harris HMC Interiors Pty Ltd (Harris) • Johns Lyng Commercial Builders Pty Ltd (JLCB) • United Commercial Projects Pty Ltd (UCP) The Expression of Interest Evaluation Matrix can be viewed at Confidential Attachment 1. The Request for Tender was issued to the six shortlisted contractors on 30 October 2019 and closed on 28 November 2019. Two tender addendums were issued during this period. A site inspection was held on the 6 November 2019 with all invited contractors in attendance. Tender submissions were received from Hutchinson, Shape, Tandem and Harris. JLCB and UCP withdrew due to resource commitments. The four tender submissions were assessed by the Tender Evaluation Panel in accordance with the criteria outlined in the Procurement Plan including cost, program, project team and resource structure and availability, construction methodology and management, subcontractors, contractual, value add, social, economic and environmental sustainability policies and initiatives. Based on the tender submissions, subsequent tender clarifications and tender interviews, Hutchinson is the preferred contractor to undertake the redevelopment of the Coburg City Oval project. Detailed evaluation criteria and weighting is reflected in the Request for Tender Evaluation Matrix in Confidential Attachment 2.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 231

Social, Economic and Environmental Sustainability Implications The preferred contractor, Hutchinson, has proposed a number of detailed localised policies and initiatives to be implemented on the project throughout the construction to improve the social, economic and environmental outcomes: • Hutchinson has partnered with the Federal Government to increase Indigenous employment through their long-established program named Statim Yaga (Start Work) to train and place Indigenous jobseekers into workplace within the construction industry. Candidates who live in the Moreland municipality will be selected to participate in this program as part of their social and economic initiatives nominated for the project; • Cleanforce, a not-for-profit social enterprise that provides employment opportunities for people with mental illness or disadvantaged, will be engaged on this project to carry out commercial cleaning throughout the construction; • Other project initiatives also include contributions and fundraising for local social enterprises such as Glenroy Men’s Shed, Youth Projects in Glenroy, I am Still Learning, Brunswick Industries and Black Dot Gallery; • Site consumables will be purchased from local businesses to also contribute to the local economy; • In addition to meeting their established Environmental Policy and recycling 90% of construction waste, Hutchinson is committed to ensuring all concrete mixes are Greenstar compliant; and • Hutchies Honey Bees (a Hutchinson initiative) are located within suburban Melbourne to promote insect biodiversity and local pollination. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation There has been extensive consultation during the design of the Coburg City Oval Redevelopment project. Stakeholders from the sports clubs have been consulted and informed throughout the process via presentations and detailed workshops. Design feedback has been sought at each design milestone from these stakeholders and incorporated therein. Funding partners from AFL Victoria, Cricket Victoria and the State Government (Department of Sport and Recreation) have also been consulted throughout the design process with regular design presentations, workshops and design reviews. Stakeholders within Council have been involved in the design and decision making along the journey. These include Recreation Services, Open Space, Transport, Social Support, Urban Planning and Heritage, Building Maintenance and Environmentally Sustainable Development. As part of the Planning Application process, public advertising of the project occurred from 11 September to 26 September 2019, during which the local community was invited to view the proposal and provide feedback. No objections were received through the planning process. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 232

6. Financial and Resources Implications The available project budget is outlined in the below table: N Source FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 Proposed Proposed Total o FY20/21 FY21/22 Ratest $600,000 - - $1,440,000 $1,000,000 $3,040,000 e Grants/ : - $1,950,000 $925,000 $800,000 - $3,675,000 contributions

UTotal $600,000 $1,950,000 $925,000 $2,240,000 $1,000,000 $6,715,000 Unspent funds from prior years have been carried forward. Based on the recommended construction tender cost, the overall project cost is outlined in the following table: Item Cost Total Base Tender Cost $5,339,807 Provisional sum $85,000 Consultant Fee $82,350 Total Recommended Construction Cost $5,507,157 (Contract 870ST) Professional Fees $580,000 Headworks Fees & Charges $77,000 Total Non-Construction Costs $657,000 Contingency $550,716 Total Project Cost (Excl GST) $6,714,873 There is sufficient funding to undertake this project as proposed. 7. Implementation It is proposed that the Director City Infrastructure be authorised to do all things necessary to execute the contract and any other required documentation. The contract will be executed as soon as possible following Council’s decision. Construction is programmed for commencement in March 2020 with completion by mid-2021.

Attachment/s 1 D20/25226 861EOI - Coburg City Oval - EOI Evaluation Matrix Summary Pursuant to sections 77(2)(c) and 89(2)(d) this attachment has been designated as confidential by the Chief Executive Officer because it relates to contractual matters. 2 D20/28113 870ST - Coburg City Oval - Tender Evaluation Matrix Summary Pursuant to sections 77(2)(c) and 89(2)(d) this attachment has been designated as confidential by the Chief Executive Officer because it relates to contractual matters.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 233

NOM2/20 IDENTIFYING PLACES AND SPACES FOR GREENING AND SOCIAL CONNECTION IN JEWELL PRECINCT (D19/463690) Cr Jess Dorney

1. Background Cr Dorney’s background: The Jewell Precinct is an approximately 150 metre radius in Brunswick that consists of Wilson Avenue, Black Street, West Street, and is backed by the Upfield Railway line. Despite its small radius, this area is marked for intense development in the coming years, making way for many new people, families and children calling this area home. To give a picture of this, two new multi-unit residential developments have recently been completed in the area, with at least 9 developments with planning approval and at least another 15 sites with possible development potential. Furthermore, the State Government recently announced a new affordable housing development at the end of Black Street. While this kind of density can bring many good things to an area, the impact on urban heat island and loss of green space for community to keep cool, as well as informally gather and connect around needs serious consideration. Access to formal and informal green spaces is well evidenced to support mental health and wellbeing – even evidencing to reduce the onset and severity of some mental illnesses, especially for children. Walking these streets with residents, with knowledge of the development to come, along with the changes occurring in rapidly changing environment demonstrates a strong need to further consider all opportunities to how we can support an increase in residents’ access to greening and green spaces. While council has done some great things in this area, such as planting street trees in recent years, as more and more pervious surfaces are replaced with concrete and hard surfaces, the need for additional greening is also vital to helping mitigate Urban Heat Island Effect, provide habitat and support biodiversity, manage more extreme weather events, as well as help keep our streets, neighbourhoods and city cool. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: Council Plan 2017/2021 Strategic Objective 2 - Progressive City Key Priority 4: Increase tree canopy cover, enhance existing open space and create at least two new parks, in areas with the lowest access to open space Urban Forest Strategy 2017/27 Vision: To promote and encourage the transformation of Moreland into a municipality where healthy trees and vegetation are a core part of the urban environment Moreland Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan Focus Area: Liveable Neighbourhoods Outcome 5: Moreland’s buildings and public spaces are well designed, and encourage community interaction Outcome 6: Moreland residents have access to open spaces close to where they live. Outcome 8: Moreland is a cooler, greener and more sustainable city.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 234

3. Financial Implications Officer comments: Conducting an occupancy survey of the Black Street carpark could take between one to two months and cost an estimated $3,000. There would be no cost implication of providing a report on the requested information. At this point, the financial implications of the proposed works is unknown however, they will need to be aligned with other priorities within this space such as current tree planting targets as per the Urban Forest Strategy and creating new parks for gap areas at the sites through the Park Close to Home initiative. 4. Resources Implications Officer comments: To gather the information required for this report and conduct the occupancy rate count would take three staff (Transport/Urban Design/Open Space) a total of approximately nine hours to complete.

Motion That Council receives a report considering options for greening and cooling the Jewell Precinct that includes, but is not limited to: 1. An occupancy count of the Black Street carpark and projects any future demand given the pending changes to the area. 2. Installing transportable garden bed infrastructure for edible canopy and indigenous tree species, as well as seating in a section of the council-owned car park on the corner of Barkly and Black Street. 3. Greening options for the western end of Barkly Street. 4. Transferring the car park spaces from the council-owned car park to becoming on- street car parking on Barkly and/or Wilson Avenue. 5. The timing and cost of these works and the impact on the current adopted strategies. 6. Opportunities for engaging community members interested in helping maintain trees and streetscapes in the area.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 235

NOM3/20 RECOGNITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF JULIAN ASSANGE (D19/479839) Cr Sue Bolton

1. Background Cr Bolton’s background: Australian citizen and former resident of the inner north suburbs, Julian Assange is in very poor health and facing extradition from the UK to the US in an unprecedented Espionage Act prosecution for engaging in journalistic activity. If convicted, he faces 175 years imprisonment and therefore needs urgent consular support to help him prepare his defence. A large number of civil society organisations is calling on the Australian Government to be more proactive in providing support for Julian Assange. 2. Policy Context Officer comments Moreland Human Rights Policy 2016-2026 Council will advocate to other spheres of government, business, partner organisations and the community to promote human rights and address issues of discrimination and marginalisation at the local, regional, national and international level. 3. Financial Implications Officer comments There are no financial implications of the proposed letter to the Australian Foreign Affairs Minister or the preparation of a media release. 4. Resources Implications Officer comments Some Council officer time will be required to action the proposed decision.

Motion That Council: 1. Notes that Julian Assange is in very poor health and facing extradition from the UK to the US in an unprecedented Espionage Act prosecution for engaging in journalistic activity. If convicted, he faces 175 years imprisonment and therefore needs urgent consular support to help him prepare his defence. 2. Notes that Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for Europe, Massimo Moratti said the UK must not extradite Julian Assange to the USA and that: • ‘The British authorities must acknowledge the real risks of serious human rights violations Julian Assange would face if sent to the USA and reject the extradition request. The UK must comply with the commitment it’s already made that he would not be sent anywhere he could face torture or other ill-treatment. • ‘The UK must abide by its obligations under international human rights law that forbids the transfer of individuals to another country where they would face serious human rights violations. Were Julian Assange to be extradited or subjected to any other transfer to the USA, Britain would be in breach of these obligations.’ 3. Notes that UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer said that: ‘My most urgent concern is that, in the United States, Mr Assange would be exposed to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 236

a fair trial and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ ‘In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution he has never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.’ 4. Notes that in an interview on RN Breakfast by the leading torture expert, Nils Melzer warned that Mr Assange could die in prison before getting his day in court and confirmed that the British government’s handling of the extradition case is in blatant contravention of international Human rights Law. 5. Writes to the Australian Foreign Affairs Minister requesting that the Australian government must immediately step in to ensure the British authorities address his poor health condition and to uphold the Human Rights of an Australian citizen just as they would if Mr Assange was being held in Iran, Egypt, Cambodia or Indonesia. They must not turn a blind eye to the violation of any Australian's human rights, just because it is occurring in the West. The letter should also reference the points made above. 6. Prepares a media release on this matter.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 237

NOM4/20 PROJECT RESPECT - STATEMENT OF ENDORSEMENT REQUEST (D19/484669) Cr Helen Davidson

1. Background Cr Davidson’s background: Project Respect is a specialised support service for women who have been trafficked for sexual exploitation and women in the sex industry. Founded on intersectional feminist values, Project Respects services are available to all women in the industry. To support women, Project Respect works in four ways: • Support and Referral - working from a woman-centred, strength-based framework, we assist women to access essential services such as housing, healthcare and legal representation. Providing emotional support for women through a range of challenging circumstances including submission of police reports, court appearances and when transitioning from the sex industry in another area of work should a woman choose to do so. While many organisations are targeted, addressing just one area of need, Project Respect remains open, led entirely by the needs of each woman. At the centre of this support work is regular outreach through which we visit licensed brothels in the Greater Melbourne Region delivering information to women on their rights and our services, ensuring women know we are available - without judgement - should they need it. • Community Development - by connecting women with lived-experience Project Respect supports women to embrace their shared experiences to support one another. The intense stigma around the sex industry can result in women feeling isolated. Through peer-led community programs, we nurture a safe, non- judgemental and supportive network. For many women, Project Respect is simply and powerfully about belonging. It’s their place to be, a rare space where they feel welcomed understood and treated with respect. • Workforce Development - training sessions proven to develop the workforce capability of Victoria’s broader services sector, building their knowledge and understanding of the issues women experience, and the barriers they face when accessing mainstream services. Education is provided to practitioners about the issue of human trafficking in Australia, building their capacity to identify, respond to and refer potential cases of trafficking. The aim of this program is to develop a service system where women can access services free from stigma and discrimination, and they have choice in the services they can select. • Advocacy - advocate for women’s rights against violence, trafficking and exploitation, working directly with all levels of government to lobby for broad policy change. In doing so Project Respect argues for a human rights-based approach to protecting survivors of trafficking, better conditions for women while they are in the sex industry, and help to expose violence against women while pushing for solutions to eradicate it. In all this work, the aim is to ensure the voices of women with lived experience are heard, offering women a platform to write, speak and meet directly with decision-makers. Their voices, insight and leadership will create the positive change Project Respect aims to achieve. Project Respect believes that all women have the right to feel safe and respected and their focus is fundamentally for and about women’s rights and a commitment to driving the change needed to achieve a world free from sexual exploitation. Project Respect defines women as people who self-identify as women.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 238

In September 2017 Council resolved to write a letter of support to the Honourable Jenny Mikakos, the then Minister for Families and Children requesting ongoing funding for the organisation to ensure their work can continue. In 2018 Council provided funding of $ 4,619 to Project Respect through the Community Grants Program to support an outreach program to women working in the 4 licensed brothels in Moreland. In 2019 Council provided a further $4,983 to Project Respect to deliver capacity building sessions to community services. Project Respect has approached Council seeking a formal statement in support of their work and the role they play in supporting women in the sex industry. The intention is that this endorsement would be displayed on their website and could be used in other communications. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: Council’s past support and advocacy for the work of Project Respect is consistent with the aims of the Moreland Human Rights Policy (2016–2026) and is aligned with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006). Support for Project Respect also aligns with Council’s Gender Equality Commitment and Preventing Family Violence in Moreland Strategy (2016–2020) and the State Government’s Safe and Strong Victorian Gender Equality Strategy and Free From Violence Strategy. 3. Financial Implications Officer comments: There are no financial implications as a result of the public endorsement of the work of Project Respect. 4. Resources Implications Officer comments: Drafting an agreement can be covered within existing officer resources.

Motion That Council: 1. Endorses the following statement in support of the work of Project Respect: Moreland City Council recognises that gender inequality is at the heart of the oppression and violence experienced by some women in our community. Council is proud to support the work of Project Respect in their role supporting women in the sex industry and women who have been trafficked. 2. Puts an appropriate agreement in place defining that the period of the endorsement for Project Respect initially be for 3 years, with a view to it being extended for a further period at the expiry of the first term. 3. Reserves the right to remove the endorsement for Project Respect at any point.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 239

NOM5/20 MODIFICATION TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES (D20/4327) Cr Helen Davidson

1. Background Cr Davidson’s background: As part of implementing the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS) 2019, Council installed new parking restrictions in the Gaffney Village Neighbourhood Centre, along with two other Neighbourhood Centres. All unrestricted on-street parking within this area has had 2P 8am-11pm Monday- Friday applied, except for a few spaces designated as business permit parking. The train station car parking did not change as it is not managed by Council. In total, 111 new or modified signs were installed in this area. Residents of the Gaffney Village Neighbourhood Centre, as well as commuters using on-street parking in the area to access the train station, have raised concerns that the restrictions will unfairly limit their parking options in the area. It is proposed to investigate how new restrictions and permit options in this area could be refined to meet the objectives of MITS 2019 while more closely responding to the context and needs of this area. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: Changes to parking previously approved by Council At its March 2019 meeting (DCF12/19), Council adopted the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS), including the introduction of 2P (8am to 11pm Monday to Friday) parking restrictions in unrestricted on-street parking in Neighbourhood Centres and within a 200 metre buffer of Activity Centres. The restrictions aim to better manage on-street parking near areas of high and moderate population growth, including giving greater priority to the majority of existing residents eligible for resident parking permits. They also complement Council’s proposed changes to parking requirements for new developments in certain areas (Amendment C183 to the Moreland Planning Scheme), through proactively managing potential spillover. Recognising this expansion of parking restrictions would represent significant change for many in the Moreland community, Council approved a transitional approach to implementation of new restrictions in June 2019 (DCF38/19), including a number of measures to enable the community to adapt to changes while ultimately meeting the objectives of MITS 2019: • Allowing one additional permit per eligible household that is affected by MITS parking changes • Allowing additional business permits to businesses and other organisations that are affected by MITS parking changes • Authorising the Manager City Change to apply alternative restrictions (i.e. other than 2P 8am-11pm Monday to Friday) where the following criteria apply: o The parking is within the MITS parking restrictions area; o Users of adjoining non-residential land uses who arrive by car generally require parking in excess of that allowed by the 2P 8am-11pm Monday- Friday restriction;

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 240

o The alternative restriction would not permit a resident ineligible for residential parking permits to store a vehicle on-street long term instead of in an off-street space; o The alternative restriction would not result in insufficient turnover; and o The alternative restriction is practicably able to be enforced by Council officers. • Offering a new permit type that allows parking in time restricted areas for $10 per day – the same price as paid parking • Authorising the CEO to make further adjustments to parking policy based on the following set of endorsed principles: o Ultimately meeting the objectives of MITS 2019; o Providing time to transition to significant changes in MITS 2019 for full roll- out from 2021/22; o Ensuring consistent and transparent decision making; o Considering social and economic outcomes; and o Being easy to understand and administer. Some adjustments to parking restrictions and the creation of new permit types can be approved under delegation by the Manager City Change and the CEO, respectively. A number of options that cannot be approved under delegation providing further changes are outlined in the report MITS Parking Restrictions Implementation in this meeting agenda. Rationale for expanded parking restrictions New parking restrictions being introduced within Neighbourhood Centres and near Activity Centres aim to discourage people without permits, particularly residents, from relying on on-street parking for long term vehicle storage instead of using an off- street space. This is consistent with the policy position in Council’s Parking Management Policy since 2011 that residents of properties subdivided after August 2011 cannot rely on on-street parking and must use off-street parking or other modes of transport, in order to provide a level of protection for existing residents (i.e. living in properties existing prior to the adoption of the Policy) from parking impacts associated with population growth. For this reason, Council approved the 2P 8am-11pm Mon-Fri restriction to be used in March 2019 (DCF12/19), as this provides an incentive for residents of new developments to ensure they have off-street parking, rather than relying on on-street parking. If restrictions finished at 6pm, they would not provide this incentive, as a resident could use street parking for long term vehicle storage by simply driving to work each weekday, leaving before 10am and arriving home after 4pm. Residents of properties that have not been subdivided after August 2011 are eligible for lower-cost resident and visitor permits that allow them to park all-day on their street. Residents of properties that have been subdivided after this date are able to access higher-cost “user pays” permits. This higher cost discourages large scale uptake to protect the ability of residents eligible for resident permits to park near their homes. The use of parking restrictions to deter people without permits from relying on street parking for long-term vehicle storage is particularly important in and near Activity Centres, where Council proposes to remove minimum parking requirements for new development. These Activity Centres are also the locations where the highest levels of growth are allowed.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 241

This use of parking restrictions is also important in Neighbourhood Centres, where a moderate level of growth is allowed, in order to provide an incentive for new residents to accommodate their parking needs through off-street parking and protect the ability of residents in older properties to continue to park near their homes. However, the use of parking restrictions to manager potential spillover is not as critical, as Council proposes to reduce but not remove minimum parking requirements in these areas. Parking permit options for residents of properties subdivided after August 2011 As described above, it has been Council’s policy position from 2011 that residents of properties subdivided after August 2011 are not eligible for resident or visitor parking permits. This is consistent with many other councils in Melbourne, for example: • Yarra City Council does not provide resident or visitor permits for properties constructed after December 2003 which resulted in an increase in the number of occupancies. • Darebin City Council does not provide resident permits for properties constructed after December 2004 (NB: Darebin does not offer visitor permits). • Moonee Valley City Council does not provide resident permits for properties where residential density has increased after January 2006, however residents of these properties may purchase visitor permits (“temporary parking vouchers”). • Maribyrnong City Council does not provide resident permits for properties of three or more dwellings within the Footscray area, however residents of these properties who previously held parking permits may continue to do so (new residents moving into the property are ineligible). Such properties in other areas of the municipality are eligible for permits. Recognising that the MITS expansion of parking restrictions significantly reduces the availability of unrestricted parking in many areas of Moreland, Council approved the creation of a “user pays” permit in March 2019 (DCF12/19) as described in the previous section. Some further options for parking permits are discussed in the report on Parking Restrictions Implementation in this agenda. Characteristics of the Gaffney Village Neighbourhood Centre The Gaffney Village Neighbourhood Centre has a number of unique characteristics, including a train station with relatively high access by car (compared to other stations in Moreland), steep topography and a high proportion of recently subdivided residences (that are not eligible for resident parking permits). According to PTV data from 2014, 32.1% of people accessing Pascoe Vale station did so by car (with 64.1% walking and the remainder using other modes). Only Fawkner and Merlynston stations had a higher proportion of people arriving by car (40.5% and 43.0% respectively). By comparison, stations in Brunswick had only 6.1- 8.6% arriving by car. Recent community engagement on parking restrictions changes and Amendment C183 suggested that the steepness of Gaffney Street was a barrier for some people accessing the Neighbourhood Centre and train station over a distance that might otherwise be walkable, that the frequency of bus services was inadequate for people living further from the station to travel there by bus instead of car, and that there were some streets in Pascoe Vale where parking restrictions would benefit relatively few residents given most properties had been subdivided after August 2011. Except where potential adjustments are recommended due to unique characteristics of the Gaffney Village area not shared by other Neighbourhood Centers, it is likely that adjustments at Gaffney Village may be suitable for other Neighbourhood Centres for consistency and fairness. Consideration could also be given to whether any of these adjustments could be applied in Glenroy and Merlynston as outlined in the MITS Parking Implementation Report in this agenda.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 242

Improved access to Pascoe Vale station Improved bus connections to Pascoe Vale station would enable more people to access the station without requiring car parking. In addition, improved bicycle parking facilities at the station may encourage more people to cycle. 3. Financial Implications Officer comments: Since the implementation of the parking restrictions in this Neighbourhood Activity Centre 31 residential parking permits have been issued in the Gaffney Street/Pascoe Vale Station Neighbourhood Centre. If all permits were refunded, this would cost $1,580 (considering different permit fees for first/second/temporary permits). Bags to cover signs to temporarily remove new restrictions could be purchased for a minimal cost within existing budgets. There will be no direct financial implications in implementing the remaining aspects of the motion. 4. Resources Implications Officer comments: Officers can action the below resolutions within current resources. Motion That Council: 1. Notes the unique characteristics of the Gaffney Village Neighbourhood Centre including its topography, train station (with relatively high access by car compared to other stations in Moreland), and high proportion of recently subdivided properties. 2. Temporarily removes all newly installed 2P parking restrictions in the Gaffney Village Neighbourhood Centre area by placing bags over new signs indicating they are not in use. 3. Receives a further report in April 2020 detailing potential options for parking restrictions and permits that could accommodate a broader range of users of on-street parking in the Gaffney Village Neighbourhood Centre area, including consideration of the following: a) Earlier finishing times for parking restrictions (e.g. 8am-6pm) in some streets b) Retention of unrestricted parking in some streets c) Additional parking options for commuters, such as a new permit type d) Further permit options and costs for residents in properties subdivided after August 2011 e) Whether any of the above options could be applied in other Neighbourhood Centres or in Glenroy. 4. Writes to all residents who have purchased residential parking permits in the Gaffney Village Neighbourhood Centre area notifying them of the above reviews and inviting them to cancel their permit and receive a full refund, either now or post any changes that result post the April Council meeting. 5. At this stage, postpones the rollout of parking controls in any Neighbourhood Activity Centres until post the April Council Meeting. 6. Writes to the State Member for Pascoe Vale and Minister for Public Transport advocating for improved bus access to and bicycle parking at Pascoe Vale Station.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 243

NOM6/20 IMPACT OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS ROLLED OUT AS PART OF THE MORELAND INTEGRATED TRANSPORT STRATEGY (D20/38732) Cr Annalivia Carli Hannan

1. Background Cr Carli Hannan’s background: Under the 2011 Parking Management Policy, subdivisions granted after 31 August 2011 are eligible for parking permits at $3400 per annum compared to $41.20 for other residents. Residents in these subdivisions have raised reasonable concerns about the impact this policy has on their ability to remain living in Moreland. Subdivisions of as little as 3 or 2 dwellings are impacted upon regardless of where in Moreland they are. There is no consideration for these residents’ access to public transport or the level of congestion in the street and neighbourhood. Residents are increasingly opting to live in townhouses due to housing affordability. These residents are now second class citizens unable to park in their own street for more than 2 hours. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: Following the adoption of the Parking Policy in 2011, residents of properties subdivided post August 2011 became ineligible for resident parking permits and unable to access visitor parking permits. This approach was introduced to discourage large scale uptake of unrestricted on street parking in order to protect the ability of residents eligible for resident permits to park near their homes. A note advising of this limitation is included in all planning permit approvals. Subsequently Council resolved in March 2019 (DCF12/19) to introduce a “user pays” permit which is available to any person at an annual cost of $3,400. This was introduced in recognition that the MITS expansion of parking restrictions significantly reduces the availability of unrestricted parking in many areas of Moreland. Council also resolved in June 2019 to introduce $10 daily parking permits that allow all day parking in time restricted areas and are also available to any person such as visitors of residents of properties subdivided post August 2011. Further to this, Council officers have prepared a report for Council consideration in this meeting agenda, the MITS Parking Implementation Report, which includes options for further possible changes for residents of properties that were subdivided post August 2011. 3. Financial Implications Officer comments: There will be no direct financial implications in preparing the proposed report. 4. Resources Implications Officer comments: Council officers can prepare the proposed report within current resources. Motion That Council receives a report that looks at the impact of the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy parking restriction rollout on subdivisions granted after 31 August 2011. This report should look at exempting dual occupancy and small subdivisions from the restrictions imposed by the 2011 Parking Management Policy. This report should also consider the affordability of permits including a comparison with other Local Government areas.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 244

NOM7/20 VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT'S PARKING FEES AND CONGESTION LEVY NOT WORKING FOR MORELAND (D20/38754) Cr Mark Riley

1. Background Cr Riley background The Congestion Levy applies to off-street parking spaces in inner Melbourne, aimed at reducing traffic congestion and encouraging alternative forms of transport. For 2019, the levy rate was $1,440 for parking spaces in the Category 1 geographic area, and $1,020 for spaces in the Category 2 area. The Congestion Levy is placed into consolidated state revenue by the Victorian Government and is meant to be reinvested back into public transport infrastructure. However, there is no link between the revenue and public transport or even sustainable transportation initiatives, except for the City of Melbourne. The Congestion Levy is forecast to generate $101 million per annum in revenue for the State in the budget forward estimates. Currently, however, only the City of Melbourne receives any funds from the Congestion Levy, $7 million in financial year 2017/18 (14 per cent rebate on levy) and is hypothecated (ie, to be spent) for sustainable transport projects. There is no rebate available for the Cities of Moreland, Yarra or Port Phillip. The operation of the levy does not ensure principles of equity and transparency. The cost of parking is the biggest deterrent to driving and congestion (Infrastructure Victoria 2018). Road congestion is delaying trams and buses and any reduction in congestion could increase efficiency of public transport (Infrastructure Victoria 2016). Moreland pays between 40-50 per cent of parking fee revenue, to the Victorian Government. However, not 1 cent of the Congestion Levy revenue has been spent on the intended use of the levy, sustainable transport measures, in Moreland.

2017/18 2018/19 Parking fees revenue $289,963.62 $331,752.11 Congestion Levy paid $150,057.00 (51%) $135,002.00 (40% approx) Net revenue $139,906.62 (48%) $196,750.11 (60%)

Whilst the Congestion Levy in Moreland is considerably less than the Cities of Melbourne, Port Phillip and Yarra, Moreland has insufficient funds to implement the Ten Year Infrastructure Plan and our sustainable transport policies in a timely manner. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: Transport infrastructure and its funding are highlighted as issues in the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy 2019 (MITS) and the 10 year Bicycle and Pedestrian Capital Works program. MITS also states “Advocate for the return of state government car parking levy revenue to Moreland. Use this revenue to improve sustainable transport in Moreland.”

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 245

In 2014, and again in 2015, Council wrote to the then Minister for Treasury and Finance requesting a rebate in fees be provided to all Municipalities affected by the congestion zone tax to help fund local transport services. These requests were denied. Of those Council’s that incur the levy only the City of Melbourne receives a portion of the money received by the state government. This is set at 10% of all money raised. 3. Financial Implications Officer comments: The preparation of this report has no financial implications. Of those Councils that currently incur the levy it is understood that only the City of Melbourne receives a portion of the money received by the state government. This is set at 10% of all money raised. Based on current levy figures incurred by Moreland Council this would result in approximately $13,500 being returned annually to Moreland. Council has previously adopted infrastructure plans (10 Year Capital works programs) for both pedestrian and cyclist expenditure at its 12 June 2019 meeting (DCF 37/19). 4. Resources Implications Officer comments: The preparation of this report can be undertaken with existing resources however, the current demands on the Transport team may make it difficult to meet the May deadline. It is recommended that this be presented to Council in July 2020 when the rollout of parking restrictions will be closer to completion.

Motion That Council: 1. Receives a report by May 2020, on parking fees raised for the Victorian Government since the Parking Levy was introduced in Moreland and the impact due to the lack of any rebate coming back to the City to spend in our municipality. 2. The report should outline: • Details of the sorts of infrastructure we could spend that revenue on to implement our infrastructure and sustainable transport plans. • The approximate cumulative loss of Parking Levy rebate to date and Moreland’s lost opportunities that result from this. • Possible solutions to resolving the lack of any rebate from the Levy being returned to Moreland City and how this may sit within Council’s advocacy program with the Victorian Government.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 246

NOM8/20 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL 2019 - OPPOSING RETURN TO SINGLE MEMBER WARDS AND SEEKING ELECTION CAMPAIGN DONATION REFORM (D20/38779) Cr Mark Riley

1. Background Cr Riley’s background The Victorian Government under the Local Government Minister is pressing on with reforms that are not in keeping with good practice in the local government sector. The Legislative Assembly passed the Local Government Bill in December 2019 and it’s due to go to the Legislative Council in the first sitting days of 2020. Many of the reforms in the Bill are welcomed and have been widely discussed and consulted with this Council and the local government sector more broadly. However, the moves regarding single member wards in all councils and to not introduce a cap on donations have not been subject to the rigorous consultation that the rest of the Bill has been through. This Council passed a detailed motion regarding multi-member ward electorates for Moreland in December 2019. A move to single member wards favours the larger, older parties and is not good for more involvement and engagement by independents and smaller political parties. This was not part of the Victorian Electoral Commission’s recommendations for reforms. Providing Councils with a range of options to consider and adopt according to their diverse electoral needs has been leading to a more diverse mix of representation in local government. The current IBAC hearings involving alleged corruption in one local government with respect to planning matters and alleged bribes are of huge concern and reflect poorly on the local government sector as a whole. Regardless of the IBAC inquiry a ban on all donations to local council candidates from property developers and the gambling industry should be implemented, as they have been in other states in Australia. The failure to implement donations capping proposals, as was flagged in the reform consultation, are a concern to many in the local government sector. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: Over a number of years, the State Government has been consulting and preparing reforms to the Local Government Act 1989. Significant change was proposed in the Local Government Bill 2018 which lapsed on the calling of the State election. In June 2019, the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Adem Somyurek, released additional reforms proposed to be included in a Local Government Act. These additional reforms included changes to provide uniform electoral structures for local government across the state. In November 2019 the Local Government Bill 2019 was released. Electoral structures Following Council’s resolution in December 2019, Council wrote to the Minister for Local Government setting out fifteen reasons why a blanket single member ward structure should not be adopted, and why the current electoral review system and range of electoral structures needs to be retained. Earlier, in July 2019, in response to State Government reform proposals, Council indicated in writing that it did not support the changes to electoral structures. Council indicated that the current range of electoral structures and review process should be retained.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 247

Election campaign donations Proposed reforms to cap election campaign donations at $1,000 per donor were not included in the Local Government Bill 2019. The State Government has indicated it will wait for any recommendations from current Independent Broad-based Anti- corruption Commission hearings before it makes changes to the election campaign donation regime for local government. 3. Financial Implications Officer comments: There are no financial implications in writing the proposed letters. 4. Resources Implications Officer comments: The proposed letters can be accommodated under current resourcing. Motion That Council: 1. Reiterates its position on multi member wards for local elections as per the December 2019 motion. 2. Calls upon the Minister for Local Government and the Andrews Government, in a letter, to abandon the move towards compulsory single ward measures in the Local Government Bill 2019, ban donations to local council candidates from property developers and the gambling industry and to reintroduce a cap on donations to all local council candidates before the forthcoming 2020 local government elections. 3. Writes, as a matter of urgency, to all state Members of Parliament in both the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council who represent Moreland citizens to convey this concern. 4. Writes to all the cross benchers in the Legislative Council to convey these concerns, as they consider the Local Government Bill 2019 in the next sitting of Parliament.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 248

NOM9/20 SAVING GANDOLFO GARDENS (D20/38804) Cr Sue Bolton

1. Background Cr Bolton’s background: The 11 December 2020 Council meeting voted to seek independent advice about alternative construction methods for the Moreland Road level crossing removal which could save the trees in Gandolfo Gardens. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: Council is keen to maximise the benefits to the broader community from the Level Crossing Removal Projects. Although the removal of level crossings is primarily about improving safety and reducing travel times for motor vehicles, the project also has the ability to deliver other significant benefits to the community through the improvement of the public realm and other infrastructure. Council Action Plan Deliverable: P2d) Continue to advocate for level crossing removal in Moreland - Work with the Level Crossing Removal Project (LXRP) to maximise community benefit from crossing removals in Moreland. Other relevant policies and plans include: • Moreland Urban Heat Island Effect Action Plan • Cooling the Upfield Corridor Action Plan • Open Space Strategy 2012-2022 3. Financial Implications Officer comments: There are no financial implications associated with this Notice of Motion. 4. Resources Implications Officer comments: There are no resource implications associated with preparing correspondence. Note: on 31 January 2020, letters were sent to the Premier, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for Planning and the LXRA urgently seeking a delay on the tree removal pending Council receiving independent advice on alternative construction method.

Motion That Council urgently contacts the Transport Infrastructure Minister Jacinta Allan, Planning Minister Richard Wynne and Premier Daniel Andrews, urging that the destruction of the trees in Gandolfo Gardens be delayed until after the independent advice on alternative construction methods is received by Council.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 249

NOM10/20 INCREASING BICYCLE PARKING AT TRAIN STATIONS (D20/38812) Cr Dale Martin

1. Background Cr Martin’s background: In early 2019 Council adopted the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy and Parking Implementation Plan. The strategy has been designed to encourage active and sustainable transport, such as walking, cycling, and public transport while reducing our reliance on motor vehicles, improving congestion in our streets and improving the health and safety of residents. A number of residents have expressed interest in commuting to train stations by active transport but have been frustrated in not being able to safely secure their bicycle while they are at work. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: Supporting sustainable transport modes and advocacy for improved cycling and public transport outcomes is consistent with the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy 2019. 3. Financial Implications Officer comments: There are no financial implications with actioning this NOM. 4. Resources Implications Officer comments: The preparation of this report can be undertaken using existing resources. However, the collation of this information will take some time. As officers are currently fully committed to delivering other actions from MITS in 2019/20 it is unlikely this report could be completed until the second half of 2020.

Motion That Council receives a report following an audit of bicycle parking at all train stations in Moreland. The report should detail: 1. The number of secure bicycle parks at each station 2. The number of non-secure bicycle parks at each station 3. Options for Council to partner with State Government agencies to increase both secure and non-secure bicycle parking at all train stations so there is consistency across all suburbs in the city.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 250

NOM11/20 DEMONSTRATING REVITALISATION ON SYDNEY ROAD (D20/38822) Cr Mark Riley

1. Background Cr Riley’s background: Discussions about improving safety and amenity on Sydney Road have been happening for at least 15 years. More people are riding bikes in Brunswick, and bike traffic is highest at the southern end of Sydney Road. The suburb of Brunswick has the highest proportion of people riding to work in Australia. Recent proposals to revitalise Sydney Road would replace on-street parking with wider footpaths and separated bike lanes. Council recently supported a trial separated bike lane south of Glenlyon Road. The Department of Transport recently surveyed residents for their views on various options for redesigning Sydney Road, but the results have not yet been released. Sydney Road is particularly hot during heatwaves, with temperatures exceeding 50 degrees. Adding greenery will help keep the street cool during hot weather. Increasing footpath space would allow a variety of uses, including adding more plants, providing seating and allocating more space for cafe seating or shop displays. Pop-up parklets have been used in the past by Council to demonstrate alternative uses of road space. The office of Tim Read, State Member of Parliament for Brunswick, with the help of community groups and local traders proposes using 2 to 3 car parking spaces on Sydney Road for up to two hours on a Saturday morning. Currently this is planned for 10 am – 12 noon, Saturday 15 February 2020. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: The Cooling the Upfield Corridor Action Plan 2018-2029 includes an objective of increasing planting opportunities within the Sydney Road streetscape. Council has a Parklet program. Parklets are re-purposed parking bays which are designed to create spaces for pedestrian activity, for up to six or twelve months.. A permit would be required to use the parking bays for such a purpose as proposed by the office of Mr Tim Read MP. As Sydney Road is a Department of Transport controlled road, approval from the Department of Transport may be required in this case. 3. Financial Implications Officer comments: The cost for a temporary road closure permit is $318.25. If an application is received within five days of the date of the required road closure, then the fee is $556.95. The motion proposes that part of the applicable fee is waived. 4. Resources Implications Officer comments: Council officer time to process the application for the road closure can be met within the existing resources of Council’s Transport Unit.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 251

Motion That Council: 1. Supports the proposed Park(Ing) event, proposed for 10 am – 12 noon, Saturday 15 February 2020, as a demonstration of how Sydney Road could be revitalised if more space was allocated to active transport (walking and bikes). 2. If any parking management fee exceeds $500, waives this portion of the fee, to facilitate the event - car parks decorated with plants, seating, bike parking etc.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 252

NOM12/20 CHEAP, AFFORDABLE POWER FOR MORELAND'S LOW INCOME AND CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE COMMUNITIES (D20/38831) Cr Dale Martin

1. Background Cr Martin’s background: According to the ‘Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: June 2019’ report, 33.8 per cent of Australia’s emissions come specifically from electricity consumption. In Moreland we have declared a climate emergency noting that we need to urgently accelerate the transition to a just, sustainable future for all residents. We are doing this through many aspects of Council activities including our Zero Carbon Moreland Framework and Climate Emergency Action Plan. We know the benefits of solar power in Australia due to our resource abundance and its ability to improve access to cheap affordable power to residents living in our city as well as reducing power derived from fossil fuels. The City of Darebin currently facilitates a ‘Solar Savers’ Scheme where Council pays the up-front cost of a solar system and a ratepayer then pays back the cost of the system plus installation over 10 years, interest-free, through a small additional charge on their rates. In almost all instances the ratepayer benefits substantially as they have much more disposable income, with Council incurring only the cost of interest and management fees. The current draft Local Government Bill before State Parliament is proposing that a similar mechanism to Darebin’s ‘Solar Savers’ program, namely the residential Environmental Upgrade Agreement (EUA), be included in addition to the current commercial EUA programs available. This bill is expected to pass in the next few months. Both programs will be a vital tool in helping our community decarbonise as well as improve our residents’ quality of life by saving them money. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: It is Council’s adopted goal for Moreland to be a ‘zero carbon’ community by 2040. To address this goal, Council adopted the Zero Carbon Moreland – Action Plan 2020/21–2024/25 (Action Plan) in November 2019 after extended community and stakeholder consultation. The Action Plan contains measurable targets and key programs to influence and reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions relating to three strategic directions: • Energy Transition: Efficient and 100 per cent Renewably Powered Energy • Sustainable Transport: Active or Zero Emissions Transport • Waste and Consumption: Circular Economy with Zero Waste The first strategic objective, Energy Transition: Efficient and 100% Renewably Powered Energy, states Council’s vision for what a zero carbon Moreland might look like in relation to renewably powered energy. Council’s targets for 2025 include delivering on the following targets: • 11MW of solar PV installed through Council-supported initiatives and services since 2014 (Note: 3.1MW as at early 2019) • 15,000 ‘lifetime tonnes’ of GHG emissions reduction through Council-supported energy efficiency initiatives (Note: 8,305 at early 2019)

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 253

• Council (with the Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment) has played a leading role in Victorian local government efforts towards zero carbon buildings via Planning Scheme standards, enforcement and advocacy • Pending external co-funding, our ‘Cooling Communities’ initiative will have resulted in home upgrades (for thermal comfort and/or solar PV) for around 500 social housing or low-income households across Moreland, reducing their exposure to energy poverty and extreme weather events • Council remains certified ‘Carbon Neutral’ for its operations and buys all its electricity from Crowlands Windfarm. In particular, action 2.5 is scheduled to start in the new financial year:

Ref Description / activities Potential Resources # collaborators and partners 2.5 Partner with • Investigate delivery and funding Community Within the ZCM others to options for supporting community health, programs and advocate for housing providers to upgrade the housing and initiatives budget and provide energy efficiency of housing stock and social services (ref 2.1) targeted install solar PV through extension of providers and Roll out at scale support for ‘Cooling Communities’. peak bodies of thermal low income • Pending enabling state legislation for (eg. VCOSS, upgrades for low and residential Environmental Upgrade CHIA Vic, income vulnerable Finance (EUF), seek to partner with Brotherhood of households will households State Government (DELWP) and St Laurence require external to avoid others to pilot use of residential EUF and Jesuit co-funding and ‘energy as mechanism to support thermal Social delivery poverty’ and upgrades for low income / vulnerable Services) partnerships to be more households. AEF, Renew be secured. comfortable • Ensure low-income home-owners are State in their aware of options to finance home Government, homes environmental upgrades at no upfront Solar Victoria during cost, such as No Interest Loan extreme schemes or residential EUF (pending weather legislation). • Advocate for Victorian Government investment in the accelerated roll-out of thermal upgrades for public and community housing.

In comparison to Moreland City Council’s approach to zero carbon, Darebin City Council introduced a Solar Saver program to help Darebin residents, businesses and organisations to install solar panels. Under this scheme, the council pays for the upfront cost of the system, with interest free repayments to be made over 10 years through a special charge scheme. Council assists applicants in accessing quality systems, extended warranties and reputable suppliers. There have been 3 previous rounds of the program, with over 1300 households benefitting from the program. The proposed Local Government Bill 2019 is expected to be considered by the Legislative Council in about February 2020. The following change is included in clause 363 of the Local Government Bill 2019: ‘In section 181A(1) of the Local Government Act 1989, for ‘with an existing building on it, that is entirely or pre-dominantly used non-residential purposes,’ substitute ‘with an existing building on it.’ This effectively removes the requirement for the building to be non-residential to allow parties to enter into an environmental upgrade agreement.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 254

Council officers are currently preparing a report on the benefits versus costs of the Darebin Solar Saver Program compared to the Environmental Upgrade Agreement proposed under the Local Government Bill 2019 for Councillors consideration in preparing the 2020/21 Annual Budget. 3. Financial Implications Officer’s comments: The approved 5-year budget for the Zero Carbon Moreland – Action Plan 2020/21 – 2024/25 is included in the 2019-24 Strategic Resource Plan and includes $1.3 million for initiatives related to the Climate Emergency Action Plan. The report currently being prepared for Councillors consideration will outline the costs of a Solar Saver Program versus administration of Environmental Upgrade Agreements for residential properties. 4. Resources Implications Officer’s comments: The report will be completed with existing Council Officer resources and will form part of the work plan for the 2020/21 Annual Budget program. Motion That Council receives a report outlining its preference between a ‘Solar Savers’ scheme and the residential environmental upgrade agreement (EUA), the benefits and costs of both schemes and options to allocate approximately 0.5 per cent of future Council budgets to managing, advertising and expediting uptake of these programs. With a view to particularly target low income homeowners, low income renters and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities across our City. This report should be made available in time for 2020/21 budget decision making.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 255

NOM13/20 INCREASE IN OPEN SPACE BUDGET FOR CONSIDERATION IN 2020/21 BUDGET PROCESS (D20/38846) Cr Jess Dorney

1. Background Cr Dorney’s background: The Urban Forest Strategy aims to realise its vision by nurturing a healthy, attractive and diverse urban forest to improve the health and wellbeing of current and future residents. Council seeks to achieve this vision for greening Moreland by nurturing a healthy, attractive and diverse urban forest that uses traditional and innovative greening solutions to double public realm tree canopy by 2030, 10 years from now. The evidence is clear that improving tree canopy cover has many community health benefits such as reducing the impacts of heat and pollution; improving air quality by removing fine particulate matter from the air; reducing impacts of extreme weather events; creating cooler, shaded streets; encouraging more walking, physical activity and connection with nature, create habitat and biodiversity and help protect the health of our creeks and waterways. A recent study by the US Forest Service and the University of California found that every $1 spent on tree planting and maintenance in Californian cities brought $5.82 in benefits. While tree planting and tree canopy cover in our streets and parks has increased over the past decade, Moreland’s landscape is still under immense pressure from vegetation and tree removal, a growing population, urban densification and climate change. Moreland remains the 12th worst for canopy cover in the state, with only 13.3 per cent of Moreland covered by tree canopy. In 2018 Moreland Council declared, recognising that the rate and scale of resourcing, investment needed to mitigate and adapt to a changing climate requires urgent and intense investment. Trees and vegetation have an enormous potential to sequester and draw down carbon from the air. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: Council Plan 2017-2021 Strategic Objective 2 – Progressive City Key Priority 4 Increase tree canopy cover, enhance existing open space and create at least two new parks, in areas with lowest access to open space. Strategic Objective 3 – Responsible Council Key Priority 3 Maintain and match our infrastructure to community needs and population growth 3. Financial Implications Officer comments: Producing the report requested in this Notice of Motion, will have no financial impact on the organisation. 4. Resources Implications Officer comments: It is estimated that the report highlighted in this Notice of Motion will take approximately 10 hours of officer time.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 256

Motion That Council: 1. Receives a report at the March 20202 meeting that outlines opportunities for an increase in open space budget for consideration as part of the 2020/21 budget process that includes: a) Increase in street tree planting and maintenance program to support an increase in survival rates of street trees; b) Increase opportunities to enhance curb outstand plantations that include more regular mulching, soil compost inputs and perennial plantings with indigenous species; c) Create a more formalised program for establishing raingardens and other water sensitive urban design construction and maintenance, including wetland maintenance; d) Re-trial the Adopt-A-Tree program utilising new technology to monitor and track sites and better engage people who are interested in helping maintain trees and streetscapes; e) Results of the Barrow Street tree planting trial including: i. If success is demonstrated, what costs would be to scale up to other parts of Moreland ii. What policy changes would be required from open space/road maintenance to implement these changes to practice. 2. Receives an update on the status of objectives and policy actions of WaterMap 2020.

Council Meeting 12 February 2020 257