COUNCIL AGENDA

WEDNESDAY 14 JUNE 2017

COMMENCING 7 PM

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

D17/197673

INFORMATION ABOUT COUNCIL MEETINGS

Moreland City 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. 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. 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, his/her 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. 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. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE TO COUNCIL Council considers reports from Committees that Councillors represent Council on. QUESTION TIME This is an opportunity (30 minutes), for citizens of Moreland to raise questions with Councillors. ON NOTICE ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING Items raised during question time at the previous Council meeting that were not able to be answered are responded to. REPORTS BY MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS A report of activities from Councillors to advise of events, meetings and other functions they have attended between Council meetings. COUNCIL REPORTS Detailed reports prepared by Council’s Administration 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) ten days prior to the meeting which is intended to be included in the agenda. The motion should outline the policy, financial and resourcing implications. GENERAL BUSINESS An item of general business relates to business that calls for the presentation of a report to a subsequent meeting in line with particular requirements. 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. 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 12 July 2017 commencing at 7 pm, in the Council Chamber, Moreland Civic Centre, 90 Bell Street, Coburg.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 2

1. WELCOME

2. APOLOGIES

3. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS AND/OR CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

The minutes of the Council Meeting held on 10 May 2017 and the Council Meeting held on 22 May 2017 be confirmed.

5. PETITIONS

PET18/17 SYMONS PARK, BRUNSWICK - PARK IMPROVEMENTS (D17/165247) 7

PET19/17 PETITION TO INSTALL SPEED HUMPS - DOMAIN STREET, HADFIELD (D17/165550) 9

PET20/17 REQUEST FOR PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN CUMMING STREET, BRUNSWICK WEST (D17/172023) 12

PET21/17 PETITION FOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT - TRAFFORD STREET, BRUNSWICK (D17/177824) 15

PET22/17 METHVEN PARK TOILET INSTALLATION (D17/196863) 17

6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE TO COUNCIL

RCC15/17 RECONCILIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES (D17/165325) 19

RCC16/17 MORELAND FESTIVALS REFERENCE GROUP MEETING - 27 APRIL 2017 (D17/180734) 23

RCC17/17 MORELAND HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE- MINUTES 2 FEBRUARY 2017 (D17/182766) 26

RCC18/17 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT FORUM - APRIL MEETING (D17/141206) 29

7. QUESTION TIME

8. ON NOTICE ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING

Nil.

9. REPORTS BY MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 3

10. COUNCIL REPORTS

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

DSD15/17 AFFORDABLE HOUSING - SITE SELECTION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF MORELAND AFFORDABLE HOUSING LTD (D17/167775) 37 DSD16/17 BRUNSWICK MUSIC FESTIVAL AND SYDNEY ROAD STREET PARTY 2017 (D17/156097) 83 DSD17/17 LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR ALLARD PARK, BRUNSWICK EAST (D17/163829) 102 DSD18/17 UPDATE ON COMMEMORATIONS FOR THE CENTENARY OF THE 1916 AND 1917 CONSCRIPTION REFERENDUMS AND ANTI-CONSCRIPTION CAMPAIGNS IN MORELAND (D17/182520) 111 DSD19/17 CB SMITH RESERVE - SPORT AND EDUCATION FACILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 2017 (D17/171006) 117 DSD20/17 WHEATSHEAF COMMUNITY HUB - REVISED CONCEPT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY BUSINESS CASE (D17/170178) 162

PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

DED41/17 ZERO CARBON EVOLUTION STRATEGY (ZCE): ANNUAL REPORT ON 2016-2017 ACHIEVEMENTS AND OUTCOMES OF THE MIDWAY DELIVERY REVIEW (D17/147096) 226 DED42/17 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL ACHIEVEMENTS REPORT 2016 - 2017 (D17/163375) 239 DED43/17 A PARK CLOSE TO HOME: A FRAMEWORK TO FILL OPEN SPACE GAPS (D17/147812) 268 DED44/17 MORELAND PARKLET PROGRAM (D17/171960) 306 DED45/17 AMENDMENT C160 - 1-9 MORELAND ROAD, COBURG (D17/121473) 320 DED46/17 AMENDMENT C169 - ADVERTISING AND CLUB SIGNAGE IN OPEN SPACE RESERVES (D17/124396) 547 DED47/17 MORELAND HERITAGE ACTION PLAN (D17/120227) 568 DED48/17 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF CAR STACKERS (D17/127470) 616 DED49/17 PLAN MELBOURNE 2017-2050 - THE UPDATED METROPOLITAN MELBOURNE PLANNING STRATEGY (D17/166968) 640

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 4

CORPORATE SERVICES

DCS28/17 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORD 1 APRIL 2017 TO 30 APRIL 2017 (D17/17450) 657

DCS29/17 SISTER CITY REQUEST - MUNICIPALITY OF KPANDO IN GHANA (D17/145452) 662

DCS30/17 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT - FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 30 APRIL 2017 (D17/161967) 665

DCS31/17 2018 GENERAL VALUATION (D17/165608) 678

DCS32/17 PROCUREMENT POLICY ANNUAL REVIEW (D17/179299) 680

CITY INFRASTRUCTURE

DCI27/17 PUBLIC TOILET STRATEGY (D17/51053) 710

DCI28/17 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT UPDATE (D17/163547) 740

DCI29/17 REVIEW OF ROAD MANAGEMENT PLAN 2013 (D17/166348) 770

DCI30/17 FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTING 40KM/H SPEED LIMIT IN AREA BORDERED BY MORELAND ROAD, TULLAMARINE FREEWAY, REYNARD STREET AND MOONEE PONDS CREEK (D17/162342) 783

DCI31/17 PROPOSED PARKING RESTRICTIONS - SAGES ROAD, GLENROY (D17/168310) 787

11. NOTICES OF MOTION

NOM26/17 COUNCILLOR ATTENDANCE STATISTICS AT BRIEFINGS AND MEETINGS (D17/192421) 791

NOM27/17 MAXIMISING COMMUNITY BENEFIT FROM LEVEL CROSSING REMOVALS ON THE UPFIELD LINE (D17/192909) 792

NOM28/17 INSTALLATION OF DISABLED PARKING BAYS FOR THE SOLE USE OF THE MOIRA KELLY CREATING HOPE FOUNDATION LOCATED ON BARKLEY STREET, BRUNSWICK (D17/192432) 794

NOM29/17 ENCLOSED OFF LEASH DOG PARK (D17/192441) 796

NOM30/17 MORELAND CITY COUNCIL'S ONGOING SUPPORT FOR THE LGBTIQ+ COMMUNITY (D17/192501) 797

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 5

NOM31/17 COBURG COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRE (D17/192519) 799

NOM32/17 TREATY (D17/192538) 801

NOM33/17 ROAD SAFETY ASSESSMENT – MAJOR ROAD, FAWKNER (D17/192551) 803

NOM34/17 SYDNEY ROAD STAKEHOLDER WORKING GROUP (D17/192565) 804

NOM35/17 MAKE RENTAL FAIR CAMPAIGN (D17/192589) 805

NOM36/17 ASYLUM SEEKERS (D17/192597) 807

NOM37/17 MCC CALLS ON THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO STOP INVESTING IN WESTGATE TUNNEL TOLLWAY AND TO PROPERLY ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY IN SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT SOLUTIONS (D17/192610) 809

NOM38/17 LANEWAYS (D17/192618) 811

12. GENERAL BUSINESS

13. NOTICE OF RESCISSION

Nil.

14. URGENT BUSINESS REPORTS

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

DSD21/17 AQUATIC AND LEISURE SERVICES - FUTURE MANAGEMENT MODEL (D17/120994)

Pursuant to section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 this confidential report will not be publicly disclosed because it relates to (d) contractual matters.

DCS33/17 PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF LAND (D17/156592)

Pursuant to section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 this confidential report will not be publicly disclosed because it relates to (d) contractual matters.

EMOD6/17 PERSONNEL MATTER (D17/191811

Pursuant to section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 this confidential report will not be publicly disclosed because it relates to (a) personnel matters and (d) contractual matters.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 6

PET18/17 SYMONS PARK, BRUNSWICK - PARK IMPROVEMENTS (D17/165247)

A petition has been received containing nine signatures from seven properties, requesting Council improve Symons Park located on Trafford Street, Brunswick by redeveloping the playground, providing fencing, reviewing maintenance practices and providing recognition of the original custodians of the land.

Recommendation Council resolves: 1. The petition be received and noted. 2. The petition be referred to the Director City Infrastructure for consideration. 3. Any proposed action is emailed to all Ward Councillors and Councillors Responsible for City Infrastructure, allowing seven clear days for Councillor feedback. 4. The petition organiser be advised of this action.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Petition - Symons Park - Trafford Street, Brunswick D17/197166

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 7

PET19/17 PETITION TO INSTALL SPEED HUMPS - DOMAIN STREET, HADFIELD (D17/165550)

A petition has been received containing 36 signatures requesting Council to install speed humps in Domain Street, Hadfield.

Recommendation Council resolve: 1. The petition be received and noted. 2. The petition be referred to the Director City Infrastructure for consideration. 3. Any proposed action is emailed to all Ward Councillors, and Councillors Responsible for Sustainability, Transport, Climate Change and Water, allowing seven clear days for Councillor feedback. 4. The petition organiser be advised of this action.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Request to install speed humps - Domain Street, Hadfield D17/173188

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 9

PET20/17 REQUEST FOR PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN CUMMING STREET, BRUNSWICK WEST (D17/172023)

A petition has been received containing 14 signatures requesting Council to install parking restrictions in Cumming Street, Brunswick.

Recommendation Council resolve: 1. The petition be received and noted. 2. The petition be referred to the Director City Infrastructure for consideration. 3. Any proposed action is emailed to all Ward Councillors, and Councillors Responsible for Sustainability, Transport, Climate Change and Water, allowing seven clear days for Councillor feedback. 4. The first named signatory to the petition be advised of this action.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Petition from residents in Cumming Street, Brunswick West regarding D17/173367 parking issues

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 12

PET21/17 PETITION FOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT - TRAFFORD STREET, BRUNSWICK (D17/177824)

A petition has been received containing eight signatures requesting Council to improve the sight lines at the bend, provide an area for vehicles to turn around, and modify the parking restrictions in Trafford Street, Brunswick.

Recommendation Council resolve: 1. The petition be received and noted. 2. The petition be referred to the Director City Infrastructure for consideration. 3. Any proposed action is emailed to all Ward Councillors and Councillors Responsible for Sustainability, Transport, Climate Change and Water allowing seven clear days for Councillor feedback. 4. The first named signatory to the petition be advised of this action.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Petition - Traffic Management Request - Trafford Street - Brunswick D17/195452

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 15

PET22/17 METHVEN PARK TOILET INSTALLATION (D17/196863)

A petition has been received containing approximately 1,000 signatures requesting Council to suspend the installation of the toilet at Methven Park, Brunswick East in order to undertake assessment of alternative locations.

Recommendation Council resolves: 1. The petition be received and noted. 2. The petition be referred to the Director City Infrastructure for consideration. 3. Any proposed action is emailed to all Ward Councillors and Councillors Responsible for Sustainability, Transport, Climate Change and Water, allowing seven clear days for Councillor feedback. 4. The petition organiser be advised of this action.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Methven Park toilet installation petition D17/196953

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 17

RCC15/17 RECONCILIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES (D17/165325)

The minutes of the Reconciliation Advisory Committee meeting held on 2 February 2017 are provided for Council’s information. Key Items Discussed:  It was recommended that Council no longer holds a citizenship ceremony on 26 January because this date represents the start of colonisation and dispossession of the Australia’s first nations.  Council is organising Wurundjeri Traditional Games Day to be held on Saturday 3rd June at ATC Cook Reserve in Glenroy  Council will design banners acknowledging the Wurundjeri people to be displayed on Brunswick Town Hall, Coburg Town Hall, Coburg Library between June 26 – October 2 (recurring each year). The text is in Woi Wurrung language is Wominjeka Wurundjeri-Bik: Welcome to Wurundjeri Land.  State Government undertaken series of consultations on Treaty around Victoria culminating in the Aboriginal Victoria Forum on 13 December 2016. The Government is working with the Aboriginal Treaty Interim Working Group and hoping that by July 2017 there will be Aboriginal representative body that will start consultation on the content of the treaty. By 2019 the next Government is projected start the negotiations.  Council’s Human Rights Action Plan Reconciliation specific actions. One of the key projects to improve the cultural inclusiveness and welcoming of MCH centres. It was suggested that Council could review the name of the centres to Family Child Health Centre to reflect the varied types of families.

Recommendation Council resolves that the report from Committee to Council be received and noted.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Moreland Reconciliation Advisory Committee Minutes - 2 February 2017 D17/36706

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 19

RCC16/17 MORELAND FESTIVALS REFERENCE GROUP MEETING – 27 APRIL 2017 (D17/180734)

The minutes of the Moreland Festivals Reference Committee meeting held on 27 April 2017 are provided for Council’s information. Key Items Discussed:  Feedback on 2017 Brunswick Music Festival and Sydney Road Street Party  Discussion regarding Movies in the Park events  Update on Moreland Arts and Culture Strategy.

Recommendation Council resolves that the report from Committee to Council be received and noted.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Festivals Reference Group - 27 April 2017 Meeting Minutes D17/145931

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 23

RCC17/17 MORELAND HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE- MINUTES 2 FEBRUARY 2017 (D17/182766)

The minutes of the Moreland Housing Advisory Committee meeting held on 2 February 2017 are provided for Council’s information. Key Items Discussed:  Moreland Affordable Housing Strategy- final year priorities and evaluation  Fairer Safer Housing Review- submission on Rental Tenancies Act options paper  Homelessness Working Group- progress report.

Recommendation Council resolves that the report from Committee to Council be received and noted.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Moreland Housing Advisory Committee Minutes - 2 February 2017 D17/40487

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 26

RCC18/17 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT FORUM - APRIL MEETING (D17/141206)

The minutes of the Metropolitan Transport Forum meeting held on 5 April 2017 are provided for Council’s information. Key Items Discussed:  Presentation by Infrastructure Victoria Chief Executive Officer Michel Masson on the State 30 year infrastructure plan  Metropolitan Transport Forum advocacy planning for 2017.

Recommendation Council resolves that the report from Committee to Council be received and noted.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Metropolitan Transport Forum - Meeting Minutes - April 2017 D17/141160

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 29

DSD15/17 AFFORDABLE HOUSING - SITE SELECTION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF MORELAND AFFORDABLE HOUSING LTD (D17/167775) Director Social Development Social Policy and Early Years

Executive Summary This is a report on the progress of key actions of the Moreland Affordable Housing Strategy 2014-2018 as identified in Council Action Plan item 30. Effective governance and processes have been identified in supporting the establishment of Moreland Land Trust, known as Moreland Affordable Housing Ltd (MAH), through the commissioning of a comprehensive risk assessment and a detailed plan to recruit MAH board members. A site selection process has been undertaken by internal Council units to support a proposed ‘pipeline’ of development sites with a range of yields and partnering options. Relevant changes in the housing market, in particular relating to private rental affordability, are reflected in an updated Moreland Housing Profile published on the Council website. Further to the Councillors requesting additional information on the scope of the overall project, finalisation of the establishment of MAH is now premised on a future report to Council confirming a clear purpose for Council’s involvement in affordable housing development within the current context of local, state and federal policy settings and community need.

Recommendation Council resolves: 1. That with regard to Council’s responsibilities under the Local Government Act 1989, note that officers will continue to progress further work on the establishment of Moreland Affordable Housing Limited (e.g. entrepreneurial activity under s.193 of the Act) for inclusion in the further report. 2. To note the governance structure outlined in the MAH Constitution. 3. To receive a further report by December 2017 which provides additional information on the scope of the overall project and outlines a clear purpose for Council’s involvement in affordable housing development within the current context of local, State and Federal government policy settings and community need.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 37

REPORT

1. Policy Context The recently released Homes for Victorians strategy promises significant new investment by the Victorian Government in social and affordable housing, including changes to taxes and concessions, and providing more certainty in planning and housing supply. Local government is noted throughout the strategy as a key partner. The Moreland Affordable Housing Strategy 2014-2018 (MAHS) aims to maximise the supply of affordable housing in the municipality. The Moreland Council Plan 2013-2017 includes a strategy:  to support the improvement of affordable housing options to accommodate the diverse Moreland community. This work also supports the implementation of the visions in the place framework/structure plans. 2. Background In November 2015, Council endorsed the Affordable Housing Options Paper (DSD29/15) which recommended establishing a Land Trust as a defined purpose entity which can ensure a consistent approach to meet Council’s policy goals to increase the availability of affordable housing in Moreland. Council obtained specialist legal and strategic advice on the establishment of the Land Trust entity and in June 2016 Council supported a recommendation to set up Moreland Affordable Housing Ltd, a company limited by guarantee with charitable status which has the ability to participate in innovative development and financing models, and has the scope to include multiple agencies as well as State and other local governments in affordable housing developments. In addition to establishing this entity, a key aspect of this project is the selection of Council-owned land to be transferred to affordable housing demonstration project. 3. Issues The establishment of a new entity with a purpose to achieve genuine and sustainable benefits for the community, while effectively managing risk and uncertainty, is complex and multi-faceted. This report provides Council with an opportunity to understand the steps that have undertaken by officers to date and the further steps required to launch Moreland Affordable Housing Ltd in a way that it is most likely to succeed.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 38

Council Action Plan deliverables The report progresses deliverables of CAP Item 30: Implement Moreland Affordable Housing Strategy. Strategic 2016-2017 Measure Target Result Action Plan Action Implement Effective Minutes of Progress While MAH not Moreland governance and minimum four report to formally established, Affordable processes for board Moreland strong proposed Housing new Moreland meetings Executive governance and Strategy Land Trust Group by June board processes in established. 2017 place. Feasibility of Development Progress Risk assessment and demonstration yield and report to site selection work housing project partnering Moreland progressed. New including market options Executive state government testing identified Group by June initiatives announced completed 2017 in March 2017 have expanded opportunities in social housing market. Monitor research Appropriate Annual update Changes to the and trends systems of Moreland housing market, developed to Housing including decreased monitor Profile by June rental market research and 2017 affordability, noted in trends updated profile om the Council website. A major revision will be made in 2017/18 to include new census data. Progress report Cap 30 Item 1: Effective governance and processes for new Moreland Land Trust established. MAH Constitution- draft 4 (Attachment 1) The draft of the MAH Constitution implements amendments resolved by Council in June 2016 (DSD14/16), namely:  Support the establishment of Moreland Affordable Housing Ltd based on the recommendations in this report with amendments to the Constitution to:  Include a provision that the Chairperson gets a casting vote should the vote be tied and to note that abstentions are permissible; and  Clause 3.2.1 by deleting the word ‘Council’ and inserting in its place ‘land from Council and other public private owners’  The composition of the Board include 7 board members appointed by Moreland City Council including 4 independent members and 3 internal members. The Chairperson must be one of the independent members of the board. An independent board member cannot be a staff member or Councillor at Moreland City Council. An internal board member may be a staff member or Councillor at Moreland City Council.  The nominations committee will make recommendations to Moreland City Council on the appointment of independent board members, including the chairperson. The Moreland City Council administration will make recommendations to Moreland City Council about the appointment of internal board members.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 39

Amendments The approval draft of the proposed constitution for MAH has incorporated the following amendments:  As per clause 12.8.7, the chairperson will have a casting vote if the vote is tied  Clause 3.2.1 has been amended by deleting the word ‘Council’ and inserting ‘land from council and other public or private owners’ With respect to the further amendments carried within the resolution:  A mechanism has been created to allow Council the right to veto the appointment of an independent director within 45 days of Council being notified by the Nominations Committee.  To occupy one of the 3 Council Director positions a Director: must have regard to the requirements of the Board under clause 15.1.3 [Which says: ”The Board will comprise individuals who have the skills and experience determined by the Directors from time to time which are relevant to the pursuit of the Purpose”]; may be, but is not required to be, a Councillor or an employee of Council; may not be made without prior consultation with the Chairperson; and must be by resolution of Council and notified in writing to the Company.  The Nominations Committee of the MAH Ltd will make all recommendations for the appointment of Directors to the board:  via resolution from Moreland City Council for Council Directors, and  via resolution from the board for independent Directors, which will then provide notice to Moreland City Council to allow for a veto if necessary.  Within the formation of Moreland Affordable Housing Ltd as a charitable entity, it is not possible to strictly adhere to the amendment in its entirety as the entity’s charitable status is placed at risk. The Australian Charities and Not for Profit Commission has issued clear guidelines on establishing a demarcation between government and independent entities.  The constitution has best incorporated the intent of the amendment on legal advice from Maddocks. Specific legal advice confirming this has been requested and will be included in the June Council report. Board recruitment (Attachment 2) The ‘Board Recruitment and Appointment Plan’ addresses CAP 30 item 1. It outlines the process to appoint the required board members to MAH in accordance with its constitution. It has been compiled to adhere to the best practice guidelines from the Victorian Public Sector Commission document: ‘Recruitment and Appoint to the Board: A Governance Officers’ Toolkit’. The plan details the role of Council with regard to the initial recruitment and appointment of nominees for the board, the constitutional requirements of the board and particulars around the recruitment of nominees. People with specialist knowledge of NFP and government boards in State and local government have been consulted and, after consultation with the Human Resources Manager, it is proposed that that the Independent Chair role is found through a dedicated agency campaign by Davidson Recruitment while EOI’s are sought for the remaining role through a Council–led public process. This plan can only be actioned once the s193 of Local Government Act 1989 risk assessment has been approved via a resolution of Council. Approval of the Independent Chair and the Council-appointed directors that would for the first Board will require a further Council resolution.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 40

Cap 30 Item 2: Effective governance and processes for new Moreland Land Trust established. Risk assessment Under section 193 of the Local Government Act 1989 (The Act) – Entrepreneurial Powers, it is a requirement of Council to have regard to the risks involved in taking part in any entrepreneurial venture. The risk assessment is required to be carried out by an appropriately qualified person. On receiving quotations from Council’s RFQ process, the appropriately qualified entity selected was Mach2 Consulting. As they have calculated the value of the enterprise to be $865,000, it falls well below the lower threshold of $1.294m where Council requires Ministerial approval. The value of the enterprise has been calculated based on the first 4 years of operational expense; any future projects and/or developments are considered outside the initial value of the enterprise. This assertion has been confirmed as per advice from the relevant agency, Local Government Victoria. Any future project, development or transfer of land will incorporate its own risk assessment obligations. However, due to the entities capacity to undertake borrowings, as per s193 5(g) of The Act, Ministerial approval of the entrepreneurial venture will be required. Site selection process (Attachment 3) The site selection process addresses Item 2 of CAP30. The process document outlines the steps towards a final proposal where Council will be presented with a small number of options for a potential site transfer to MAH. The steps include: an initial list of Council owned property, an initial assessment according to certain quantitative and qualitative criteria, an internal consultation process with the Property, Places, Planning and Transport units, and finally the preparation of the Site Options Report for Council. Approval of the site options report will then lead to a feasibility analysis and assessment by the newly established MAH for the development of affordable housing. Councillors have been briefed with a draft Site Options Report and have offered comment and feedback to officers. Any conceptual design on the proposed sites are to indicate the potential scale of development that could possibly be achieved. The intent of the report is to provide a group of potential sites that MAH can develop a full pilot project proposal on one of the sites. This pilot project proposal will then initiate Council to make a decision about the transfer of the site to MAH. Economic and social implications An increase in the provision of affordable housing in Moreland will provide local employment both during construction and in the provision of support services once the homes are tenanted. Recent Australian research has shown that social housing provides a significant multiple of positive community impact for each dollar invested. 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 Officers from a number of units of Council including finance, Property, Strategic Planning, Places and Strategic Transport have been consulted throughout. The Moreland Housing Matters Committee provided comment and input on the work to establish MAH. 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 14 June 2017 41

6. Financial and Resources Implications The funds required to action this resolution are from the Housing Reserve and budgeted for within the current year budget and proposed 2017-2018 budget of the Community Development and Social Policy unit. Costs such as consultancy advice to establish MAH are funded from the Moreland Housing Reserve. Should Council proceed with the establishment of MAH after December 2017, estimated funds of $865,000 over four years will be required to support its secretariat and governance functions. 7. Implementation Council officers will work with Councillors, relevant State Government departments and agencies and the social housing and NFP sector to build capacity for the establishment of MAH.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Moreland Affordable Housing Limited constitution - draft 4 D17/79091 2⇩ Board recruitment and appointment plan D17/64248 3⇩ Site selection process for Moreland Affordable Housing Ltd D17/115862

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 42

DSD16/17 BRUNSWICK MUSIC FESTIVAL AND SYDNEY ROAD STREET PARTY 2017 (D17/156097) Director Social Development Cultural Development

Executive Summary The Brunswick Music Festival was successfully delivered by Council for the first time in over 20 years in 2017. It featured 38 events, including two free community events in the Sydney Road Street Party and Music for the People, engaged over 500 artists, 166 stallholders and traders, and was attended by over 60,000 people over two weeks. This report provides both an overview of the 2017 Brunswick Music Festival and Sydney Road Street Party and also responds to the items raised at the 8 March 2017 Council meeting, which including commenting on the outcomes based on the key performance criteria used in previous years. 10 out of the 17 Key Performance Indicators formerly required of Performing Arts Moreland (PAM) were met or exceeded, two were under achieved (by between 1.5% and 7.5%) and five were not relevant in the context of Council producing these events. It is important to note however that these were not formerly applied during the planning process for these events as they were developed for a significantly different context. It is recommended that new and more relevant objectives are developed for these events in consultation with the Moreland Festivals Reference Group. The objectives of the 2017 Brunswick Music Festival were informed by a 2016 consultation, where attendees expressed that they wanted the Festival to reflect the diversity of the community, including gender and genre, highlight local artists and venues and feature more collaborations (cross-cultural, international/local, art form). This feedback informed the programming of the festival, exemplified through events such as Unity for International Women’s Day, Listen Records Party at the Triple R Performance Space and Wantok at the Wick at Wick Studios. In response to considerations proposed at the 8 March Council meeting and following feedback from evaluation and debriefs held for the 2017 Festival, moving the official opening time of the Sydney Road Street Party can be trialled at the 2018 event, and measures to ensure events are accessible and DDA compliant will be improved. The consideration to extend the Street Party hours is not feasible, or in the event’s interest, for both safety and budgetary reasons.

Recommendation Council resolve to: 1. Develop new objectives and performance indicators for the Brunswick Music Festival and Sydney Road Street Party in line with changes to their delivery model. 2. Trial moving the Official Opening to a later time in 2018. 3. Note that it is not feasible to extend the duration of the Street Party beyond 7pm. 4. Continue to develop a more inclusive program in regard to both diverse community engagement and accessibility.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 83

REPORT

1. Policy Context This report aligns to the Arts and Culture Strategy objective of: ‘Present, facilitate and partner a range of arts and culture experiences’. Specifically it aligns to the Initiative: ‘Evaluate the Brunswick Music Festival and Sydney Road Street Party to ensure they continue to provide tangible benefits to the Moreland community’. This reports also responds to the 8 March 2017 Council meeting resolutions to:  Receive a report into the success of the Brunswick Music Festival and Street Party. The report should:  Comment on the outcomes based on the key performance criteria used in previous years (attached).  Investigate the possibility of the official opening being later in the late afternoon.  Investigate the possibility of the Street Party finishing time being extended to 10pm.  Investigate more options to involve our culturally diverse community in both the Music Festival and Street Party.  Investigate options to make the Sydney Road Street Party and Brunswick Music Festival more physically accessible (DDA compliant) to our community. 2. Background In December 2015 Council resolved to transition to a new festivals model that packages all major events supported by Council into one program. This has included assigning the delivery of the Brunswick Music Festival, Sydney Road Street Party and Coburg Night Market to the Arts and Culture Unit. The Sydney Road Street Party and Brunswick Music Festival have received ongoing funding from Council and in more recent years have been delivered by Performing Arts Moreland through their contract with Strut and Fret production house. 2017 is the first year that Council, through the Arts and Culture unit, has directly presented this event for over 20 years. While the majority of Key Performance Indicators formerly required of Performing Arts Moreland were met or exceeded, it is important to note that these were not formerly applied during the planning process for these events. Instead the objectives of the 2017 Brunswick Music Festival were informed though community consultation in 2016. The context for which the KPIs expected of PAM were developed needs to be taken into account given they were to ensure accountability for significant Council funding provided to PAM. By bringing the events in-house, legislation such as the Local Government Act 1989, and Council’s own Policies and procedures, now provide comparably strong accountability measures, particularly with regard to financial and risk management. There are also some KPIs that are no longer applicable, for example at least one Director of PAM was required to participate at Moreland Arts Board meetings and in major consultations. For this reason, it is recommended that in future years, instead of using KPIs that were developed in a significantly different context, that new and more relevant objectives are developed for these events in consultation with the Moreland Festivals Reference Group.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 84

3. Issues 2017 Brunswick Music Festival overview The 2017 Brunswick Music Festival program received excellent feedback from artists and audience members. With its eclectic mix of genres, including both local and international performances, it responded to the key directions proposed for the Festival at the June 2016 community consultation. The Festival featured 29 Council produced events, which included 128 performances by solo artists or bands, and 9 events produced by venues or independent producers. The program was developed by Music Programmer, Chelsea Wilson, from a combination of open EOI applications and then carefully selected local and international artists. The programming was driven by four key programming objectives  creation of new content  creation of partnerships  championing diversity and inclusion in all forms, and  incorporating feedback from the 2016 community consultation. Program highlights included a specially commissioned International Women’s Day performance, two sell out nights of New Orleans’ brass band The Hot 8, and a local record label showcase for HopeStreet Recordings. The Brunswick Music Festival raised in excess of $135,000 in earned income, including sponsorship, ticket sales, advertising sales and bar sales. The Sydney Road Street Party raised in excess of $35,000 in earned income, including stall holder fees and bar takings. While securing corporate sponsorship is challenging, the Brunswick Music Festival and Sydney Road Street Party attracted $32,888 in cash sponsorship and $124,084 in in-kind sponsorship. Some measures to increase income can be considered in 2018, such as increasing stallholder fees for Sydney Road Street Party, however this would need to be considered in the context of current stallholder expectations. Key Performance Indicators required of Performing Arts Moreland Audience Satisfaction Audience surveys were completed online post event, with 77% of Brunswick Music Festival attendees and 88% of Sydney Road Street Party attendees giving the events a four or five star rating. These both met PAM’s KPI of receiving 70% audience satisfaction.

Affordable Ticket pricing The Brunswick Music Festival continued to present affordable tickets in line with previous Festival programs. This included free events, as well as events at a variety of price points, ranging from $5 to $50. The average full ticket price was $35.83 and the average concession ticket price was $31.11.

Maintain established audience and attract new audiences From the 2017 audience and ticket buyer survey, 83% of respondents were return patrons to the Brunswick Music Festival with many commenting they have attended year on year for several years and even close to a decade, and 94% indicated they would return to the Festival in the future.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 85

A range of audience development initiatives took place in 2017, including programming for specific audiences, connecting with specific communities for cross- promotion (for example, University LGBTIQ associations for Listen Records Party) and providing artists with a range of digital artwork for them to promote the Festival through their networks. Performers new to the event The Brunswick Music Festival featured a high rate of new programming, with 76% of Brunswick Music Festival artists and 83% of Sydney Road Street Party who had not performed in at least the last two years of programming. This is well in excess of the KPI expectation of 40%.

Percentage of local performers 61.4% of Brunswick Music Festival performers and 42.5% of Sydney Road Street Party performers were Moreland based. While the 20% KPI for the Brunswick Music Festival was well exceeded, the 50% KPI for Sydney Road Street Party wasn’t met. This can be addressed in 2018 if considered appropriate for the new objectives.

Percentage of artists from culturally diverse backgrounds 48% of performers in the Brunswick Music Festival came from a CALD background, far exceeding the KPI of 20% for the Festival. The KPI of 40% for the Sydney Road Street Party wasn’t quite met, with 38.5% of performers coming from a CALD background. Again, more culturally diverse programming at the Sydney Road Street Party can be considered in 2018.

Community engagement initiatives Council held a highly successful community consultation event for the Brunswick Music Festival in June 2016 and feedback from this event informed the programming framework for the 2017 Festival. This was particularly strong in areas of diversity in all its forms and use of different venues. The open call out application process had 311 applications and there was also an open mic event, Brunswick Songwriter’s Club to attract young and emerging songwriters from the area.

Newly established partnerships and sponsors Three new sponsorships were negotiated in 2017 - the East Brunswick Hotel, Wick Studios and TCK Solar. In addition, two previous sponsors increased the value of their sponsorship - Thunder Road Brewing Company and Flexicar. This was a strong outcome for the Festival. New partnerships were established with Sydney Road venues, including the Sydney Road Traders Association as an official programming element of the Sydney Road Street Party. Connections were also made with Womadelaide, Amelia Shaw and the Australian Western Sahara Association. Timing of Official Opening The official opening at the Sydney Road Street Party has traditionally been at 12 pm, immediately following the Welcome to Country. Whilst the Mayor’s speech could be moved to later in the day, when audience numbers increase, this change would need to be considered with regard to the timing of the Welcome to Country ceremony which is expected at the very beginning of an event. It may be more appropriate, and culturally respectful, to consider another speaking opportunity rather than shifting the Opening, however Council officers can discuss this with Indigenous elders and trial this for 2018.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 86

Sydney Road Street Party Duration The Sydney Road Street Party has operated from 12 pm – 7 pm over the past 10 years. As requested by Council, the possibility of extending the event to 10 pm was considered in preparation of this report. Primarily, this proposal was discussed at the event debrief. The debrief was attended by the event’s Risk Management Consultant, Coleby Consulting, who are also responsible for similar events such as the St Kilda Festival and Moomba, as well as Victoria Police, other event contractors and Council Officers. Both Victoria Police and Coleby Consulting expressed concern about extending the event to 10 pm. They noted that while the event currently has very few issues with alcohol or violence, these types of incidents can increase significantly if the event duration is longer as it goes into the darker hours. A potential increase in incidents at this event would decrease public safety and cause significant reputational damage to Council, potentially jeopardising the future of this event. In addition to public safety issues, the costs to add an additional three hours to the event would need to be considered. These costs would be significant and would include programming costs of 15-20 additional performances, staffing costs, site lighting costs as street lighting is not sufficient for events taking place after dark, production and security costs. Finally, Public Transport Victoria and Yarra Trams are unlikely to allow the event to run to 10 pm given the increased interruption to their services. Inclusion and accessibility As noted earlier, 43.3% of artists across the Brunswick Music Festival and Sydney Road Street Party were from culturally diverse backgrounds. Considering diversity more broadly, the 2017 Festival was significantly genre-diverse, had a high proportion of female performers, programming specifically for the LGBTIQ community and four events featuring Indigenous performers. Two accessibility issues were noted at the 2017 Brunswick Music Festival; the website did not effectively communicate the accessibility of venues and not all contractors were briefed appropriately to sensitively manage the needs of community members. These issues will be addressed in 2018, including working with Metro Access Officers at Council to further improve accessibility for future festivals. 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 Due to Council’s resumption of responsibility for the Brunswick Music Festival and Sydney Road Street Party, a community consultation was held for this event in June 2016 and feedback from this consultation was taken into consideration for the planning of the 2017 event. Internal debriefs were held with Arts and Culture staff, the Festival Logistics contractor, the Music Programmer and Marketing Coordinator to inform the planning of the event in the future. Debriefs with sponsors will also be held. Audience surveys were completed online post event. The Festivals Reference Group meeting on 27 April noted improvement of the Brunswick Music Festival in 2017. 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 14 June 2017 87

6. Financial and Resources Implications The Brunswick Music Festival and Sydney Road Street Party were delivered within the budget for festivals and events in 2017 and there are no financial or resource implications for the recommendations of this report. 7. Implementation Planning for the 2018 Brunswick Music Festival commenced in May 2017.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Brunswick Music Festival 2017 Artistic and Marketing Report D17/169515

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 88

DSD17/17 LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR ALLARD PARK, BRUNSWICK EAST (D17/163829) Director Social Development Youth and Leisure

Executive Summary Council is the primary provider of community based sports and recreation facilities, and is responsible for maintenance and development of these assets, in partnership with its users. Due to the significant investment in sporting facilities, it is crucial that facilities are planned and managed to ensure maximum benefit and usage for the total community. At the February 2017 Council meeting (NOM7/17), Council resolved via a Notice of Motion: That a landscape plan be prepared for the Allard Park sporting precinct. This is to include investigation into the costings for a refurbishment of the ground and to assess the future uses of the facilities and ways to maximise its potential. All with a view to future-proof a resource which will come under increasing pressure in the years to come, to create a surface that can cope with both the weather and the human traffic. Considerations to include: a) The North Brunswick Junior Football Club and other relevant stakeholders to be consulted throughout. b) The landscape plan is required in time for Council to make a decision for the 2017-2018 year otherwise, the tenant clubs will experience a further not one, but two or more years of sub-standard playing conditions. Following this resolution, Council engaged a consultant to undertake a landscape design and cost estimate to meet both AFL and Cricket minimum facility requirements for local competition and to increase its capacity of use to better serve the clubs and the local community. This report enables Council to consider the outcomes of the landscape design and cost estimate phase undertaken for Allard Park.

Recommendation Council resolve to note the Allard Park Landscape Plan as shown in Attachment 1 and develop a business case to enable the project recommendations to be scheduled into Council’s forward capital works program.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 102

REPORT

1. Policy Context The Allard Park sporting precinct redevelopment referred to in this report contributes to the following key outcomes in the Council Plan 2013 – 2017:  Moreland’s People – Moreland community members are mentally and physically healthy and active.  Moreland’s People – Moreland community members feel connected to others and have access to the necessary services.  Moreland’s Places and Spaces – Attractive and well maintained built environment. The landscape plan also aligns to the Moreland Sport and Physical Activity Strategy 2014-2018:  Goal 1: To encourage participation in sport and physical activity.  Goal 2: To ensure an adequate supply and distribution of good quality sporting infrastructure, used in the most effective and efficient manner possible. 2. Background Moreland City Council owns and manages 56 sporting fields, 59 pavilions and 24 leased facilities, that service and support 73 sports clubs, community based programs and numerous casual users. In 2009 Council opened the new sports pavilion and community centre at Allard Park in Brunswick. This Council funded project, at a total cost of $2.13m, provided a complete overhaul of the existing pavilion and community facilities. Though at this time, no works were undertaken on the Allard Park sports field. The North Brunswick Junior Football Club expressed their concerns with the state of the ground and its ability to meet the needs of the club members, both in its current capacity, and with the additional growth it is experiencing. The club identified a range of concerns including:  Generally poor ground condition including undulations across the field and the need for improved grass surface and synthetic pitch levelling;  Oval realignment;  No perimeter field fencing;  Non-compliant goal posts; and  Issues with ground drainage. In response to this, at its meeting held 8 February 2017 (NOM7/17), Council resolved that a landscape plan be prepared for the Allard Park sporting precinct. This plan was to include investigation into the costings for a refurbishment of the ground and to assess the future uses of the facilities and ways to maximise its potential. Following this resolution, Council engaged a specialist consultant to undertake a landscape design and cost estimate to meet both AFL and Cricket minimum facility requirements for local competition and to increase its capacity of use to better serve the clubs and the local community. This report provides an outcome from the landscape design, as well as an indicative cost estimate of the works for Council’s consideration.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 103

3. Issues Allard Park is a large recreational park (approx. 1.6ha) on Donald Street in Brunswick East. It features a sports field (AFL / cricket), bocce courts, a circuit walkway and a small playground near the Mitchell Street entrance. Allard Park is connected to the Merri Creek Linear Park via Jones Park. The Allard Park facility is an immensely valuable community resource, as it is one of the few active reserves in the Brunswick East area. The following information provides demographic and site specific information and outlines the results of the landscape plan process: Demographic context The current population of Brunswick East is 14,746, and is forecast to grow to 23,028 by 2036. The suburb of Brunswick East continues to have the largest projected proportional growth in Moreland at 125.3% between 2011 and 2036, which will provide an additional 12,809 residents. Population growth in Brunswick East is driven by increased densification, with an increase in apartment projects bringing an influx of residents to the suburb. Residential development forecasts assume the number of dwellings in Brunswick East will increase by an average of 234 dwellings per annum to 10,517 in 2036. Currently, Brunswick East has a larger percentage of people aged 25 to 34 years old (28.6%), compared to the overall City of Moreland (19.9%). However, it has a smaller percentage of residents aged 5 to 11 year olds (5.1%), 12 to 17 year olds (3.3%) and 70 years and older (7.9%) compared to Moreland overall (7.0%, 5.4% and 11.8% respectively). Brunswick East has five sports fields, and Allard Park is the only AFL and cricket competition ground in the suburb. Fleming Park caters for lacrosse and cricket, whilst both Balfe Park and Sumner Park are home to soccer. Allard Park – current use Allard Park consists of a sporting pavilion, sports oval with AFL goal posts, a synthetic cricket wicket, four light poles and two player’s benches. Allard Park is the home ground for the Brunswick Junior and Auskick Football Club, North Brunswick Football Club, North Brunswick/Rosebank Cricket Club and the Brunswick Ultimate Disc Frisbee Club. In addition to this, five local schools access the facility two days per week throughout the year. The North Brunswick Junior Football Club runs a very successful Auskick clinic and has five teams playing within the Yarra Junior Football League. The North Brunswick Football Club is the senior club who have two team playing in Division Four within the Victorian Amateur Football League. Combined they have a playing membership base of 180. The Brunswick Ultimate Disc Frisbee Club commenced in 2014 and hosted the only pick-up ultimate Frisbee game in the northern suburbs. The games cater for females and are mixed gender teams for all ages. They currently have 120 playing members. The North Brunswick Rosebank Cricket Club (NBRCC), had 220 playing members in the 2016-17 season, including junior and senior competitions as well as facilitating Milo Cricket, a junior development program. It is notable that of the 14 cricket clubs based in Moreland, NBRCC is the only club that does not have cricket practice nets at their home ground. As such, the club have to travel outside of the municipality to L.E. Cotchin Reserve in Reservoir to access cricket nets for training.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 104

The need for practice nets at Allard Park has been the subject of past Council budget bids and it is listed in the 10 year capital works plan, however the need for practice nets on the site has also been identified as part of this landscape plan (Attachment 2). Landscape plan development The priorities identified by the sporting clubs, and project stakeholders for the redevelopment of Allard Park are listed as follows:  Full ground reconstruction: to include, installation of new irrigation and drainage system, and sodding of a new hard wearing turf species. Preference is for works to be undertaken throughout the AFL offseason.  Goal post and oval realignment: to provide a symmetrical playing surface.  Perimeter oval fencing: chain mesh fence constructed around the perimeter of the oval, inclusive of a high chain mesh ball protective fence behind the goals at the Eastern end of the ground.  Lighting upgrade: sports field lights be upgraded to meet Australian Standards (100 LUX).  Spectator seating: surrounding the fence line around the perimeter of the oval for spectators.  Cricket nets: installation of three full length cricket practice nets.  Synthetic wicket: new, level synthetic cricket wicket. Following the inspection and assessment of the Allard Park sportsfield, two landscape plan options were developed for (capital) improvement as a community asset (Attachment 1). The recommendations of the plan cover works that are beyond the scope of normal on-going maintenance and require planning, provision of funding, and closure of the field during works and recovery. The landscape plan has been designed to improve the overall infrastructure at the facility and enable a greater usage of the ground (25 hours per week) than the current usage levels (15 hours per week). In order to provide a quality field the landscape plan identified that:  The field would have a constant grade of 1.0 % from North to South with a new cricket wicket at RL 11.10. The cricket wicket (New all weather) would have 100 mm of fall from North to South and be offset 3.0 m to the centre of the field to allow for a multi-purpose facility (Cricket/AFL).  The growing medium will need to be a manufactured sand with a drainage rate of 200-250 mm per hour to a depth of 250 – 300 mm.  AG drains both 100 & 150 mm size are required at 4.0 – 5.0 m centres with lateral 225-300 PVC drains at 35.0 – 40.0 m centres.  Instant turf laid in maxi rolls (1.2 m * 18 m) would be laid to allow for re- commencement of play in 8-10 weeks from date of completion of turf laying.  A new automatic irrigation system and in-line pressure boosting pump-set would be required due to the low pressure in the area.  A 1.2 m high chain mesh fence with vehicle and pedestrian access is required.  A 6.0 m high chain mesh fence is required at the Eastern end behind the re- positioned goal posts to prevent balls being kicked into the neighbouring houses.  The existing coaches boxes are required to be removed and re-installed to maximize the field of play. The works identified in the landscape plan would address all of the concerns currently expressed by the Club. However it is important to note that there is a significant capital cost impact to deliver these recommendations, which has not yet been factored into Council’s forward works program. Business cases will need to be developed to enable the project recommendations to be scheduled into Council’s forward capital works program. As such, there is no current program or timeframe for Council to deliver of the landscape plan as it is presented.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 105

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 officers consulted with the Brunswick Junior Football Club, North Brunswick Football Club, Brunswick/Rosebank Cricket Club and the Brunswick Ultimate Disc Frisbee Club and Council’s Open Space Department in the development of the landscape design. 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 landscape plan identifies the level of investment required to bring the ground up to a standard of 25 hours of use per week (currently used 15 hours per week). This upgrade would result in less deterioration in surface conditions, which would support the growth of sporting clubs and casual / non-structured sporting use of the site, in line with the population growth occurring in Brunswick East. The consultant has provided two options and indicative costs estimates (Attachments 1 and 3) for the recommended works to Allard Park. In summary the estimates costs are as follows:

Option Description Cost Option A New playing surface $1,009,760 Drainage/Irrigation Line planted turf Fence 1.2m high chain mesh Ball protective fence 6.0 m high to eastern side All weather synthetic cricket wicket Ready for play in 12-14 months Option B New Playing Surface $1,118,186 Drainage/Irrigation Turf Fence 1.2m High Chain Mesh Ball Protective Fence 6.0 m High to Eastern Side All weather synthetic cricket wicket Ready for play in 8-10 weeks after turfing Sportsfield LED Lighting (100 LUX) $230,000 Australian Standards Cricket Synthetic Practice Nets $250,000 Total Option A plus lighting plus practice nets $1,489,760 Option A Total Option B plus lighting plus practice nets $1,598,186 Option B Currently, there are no funds allocated in Council’s forward 2017-2018 capital works budget to implement the recommendations of the Allard Park landscape plan. Business cases will need to be developed to enable the project recommendations to be scheduled into Council’s forward capital works program. As such, there is no timeframe for delivery, or resource implications at this point.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 106

However, Council Officers will continue to review the program of works to consider how the works identified in this landscape plan may be incorporated into the forward works program. Further to this, Officers will identify opportunities to source grants and funding from external sources to support project delivery. 7. Implementation Nil.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Allard Park - Landscape Plan Final D17/182530 2⇩ Allard Park - Cricket Practice Net Location D17/182531 3⇩ Allard Park - Cost Estimates D17/182532

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 107

DSD18/17 UPDATE ON COMMEMORATIONS FOR THE CENTENARY OF THE 1916 AND 1917 CONSCRIPTION REFERENDUMS AND ANTI-CONSCRIPTION CAMPAIGNS IN MORELAND (D17/182520) Director Social Development Cultural Development

Executive Summary The fierce conscription debate during World War I divided Australia and was also a key period in Moreland’s history. Frank Anstey, Frank Hyett and John Curtin led the opposition to conscription in Moreland where many anti-conscription campaigns took place. St Ambrose’s Hall in Brunswick was their headquarters. Conscription was put to a national public vote twice, in October 1916 and December 1917, and was defeated in both referendums. Council resolved for various events and activities to take place to mark this centenary, including ten resolved activities at its 9 December 2015 Council meeting and a further four Council resolved activities the March 2017 Council meeting. This report gives a progress update on those fourteen Council resolved activities. These activities build on the significant activities that took place in 2015 as part of the commemoration of the centenary of World War I, which included marking the anti- conscription campaigns and peace movement during the war.

Recommendation Council resolve: 1. To accept this report indicating the successful progress to date on fourteen Council resolved events and activities to mark the centenary of the 1916 and 1917 conscription referendums and anti-conscription campaigns in Moreland. 2. To receive another progress report in 2018 following the close of the centenary commemoration period.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 111

REPORT

1. Policy Context This report responds to a Council resolution from the 5 October 2016 Council meeting to receive a report updating Councillors on actions to commemorate the centenary of the two conscription referendums in October 1916 and December 1917 and anti-conscription activities. This report outlines progress to date on ten Council resolved activities from the December 2015 Council meeting, and a further four Council resolved activities from the March 2017 Council meeting to mark this centenary. 2. Background The fierce conscription debate during World War I divided Australia and was also a key period in Moreland’s history. Frank Anstey, Frank Hyett and John Curtin led the opposition to conscription in Moreland where many anti-conscription campaigns took place. St Ambrose’s Hall in Brunswick was their headquarters. Conscription was put to a national public vote twice, in 1916 and 1917, and was defeated in both referendums. As part of the commemoration of the centenary of World War I, Council organised activities that were launched at a civic event on 14 April 2015 at the Brunswick Library. These activities included marking the anti-conscription campaigns and peace movement during the war. A key activity included the Moreland Remembers World I travelling exhibition that outlined the experience of the Moreland community, both on the battlefield and on the home-front. Exhibition themes included the conscription debate and peace movement which featured on four of the exhibition’s twenty panels. This travelling exhibition has been displayed at all Moreland libraries, the Civic Centre, local schools and local RSL Clubs and will continue to be displayed at other Moreland venues during the four year centenary of World War I. A three month program of talks to complement the exhibition was also held at the libraries in 2015 as part of the ‘War and Peace’ Read More program. Well attended talks included a presentation by Stuart Macintyre, a professor of history at the University of Melbourne, who spoke about the wartime experience and its effects, including the strong conscription debate in Moreland. International artist, human rights advocate, pacifist and winner of the Courage of Conscience Award Bill Kelly also gave a talk on ‘A painting can stop a bullet from being fired’ which focused on artists who have actively supported the pacifism. The Council resolved activities for 2016 and 2017 have built upon these prior events and activities and continue to mark this very important period in Moreland’s history. The centenary of the first conscription referendum occurred in October 2016. The centenary of the second and final conscription referendum will occur in December 2017.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 112

3. Issues The 14 resolved Council activities and actions to date are listed below, commencing with the activities from the December 2015 Council meeting. Progress report on December 2015 Council resolved anti-conscription centenary commemoration activities: 1. A major display at the Brunswick Library in partnership with the Brunswick- Coburg 1916-1917 Anti-Conscription Commemoration Committee (BCACC). A display was mounted at the Brunswick Library in October 2016 to mark the centenary of the first conscription referendum. Two of the ten double sided banners from the Moreland Remembers World War I travelling exhibition were displayed which featured four panels of information and images specifically relating to the Peace Movement and Anti-Conscription debates in Moreland. Relevant items from the library collection also formed part of the display. A second display was mounted at the Brunswick Library in mid-February 2017 featuring anti-conscription posters provided by the Brunswick Coburg Anti-Conscription Commemoration Campaign (BCACC). BCACC kindly donated additional copies of the posters for the Moreland City Libraries’ local history collection. 2. A series of talks on the World War I conscription debates at Moreland’s libraries and possibly at other venues, featuring speakers including former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, International artist, human rights advocate, pacifist and winner of the Courage of Conscience Award Bill Kelly, and local resident and BCACC member Emeritus Professor Michael Hamel-Green and other relevant speakers. Moreland’s library service has organised events as listed below relating to the conscription debates and the peace movement. The first event was organised in liaison with BCACC. Further events will be held towards the end of 2017 to coincide with the centenary of the December 1917 conscription referendum.  When Australians said no to war - 28 October, Brunswick Library 50 people attended a talk by Emeritus Professor Michael Hamel-Green (also a member of BCACC) on the success of the 1916–17 anti-conscription movement, the important roles that Brunswick and Coburg played at the time, and the implications for Australian opposition to war and conscription.  Peace or war – the big picture - 8 November 2016, Coburg Library International artist, human rights advocate, pacifist and winner of the Courage of Conscience Award Bill Kelly gave a presentation to 18 people on art and illustrations through history depicting anti-war and peace themes. He also spoke about his own recent work Peace or war – the big picture which was produced as part of a State Library of Victoria Fellowship Award. 3. The 2016 Maurice Blackburn oration to have an anti-conscription theme be considered as Maurice Blackburn played a key role in the anti-conscription and anti-war campaigns during World War I. An anti-conscription theme was considered for the 2016 biennial Maurice Blackburn oration. The Honourable Linda Dessau AM, the Governor of Victoria, was chosen to give the oration and she spoke about the topical theme of the changing face of Australian families. However as part of her oration, she referred to the centenary of the movement that opposed conscription and she also referenced Maurice Blackburn’s role as an active opponent to overseas conscription. Consideration will be given to having an anti-conscription theme for the 2018 Oration.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 113

4. A partnership with the Brunswick High School and teacher Pamela Duncan involving students using the library’s local history archives and resources and culminating in the re-enactment of a mock trial or anti-conscription debate, potentially at the St Ambrose Hall. Teacher Pamela Duncan has retired from the Brunswick Secondary College and unfortunately the school is not in a position for students to perform a re-enactment due to time-tabling conflicts. Year 9 students undertook research tasks on the anti- conscription referendums in late 2016 but the school was unable to timetable a visit to the library for a guided research session. However there are plans for a guided research session at the Brunswick Library to occur in 2017 with Year 9 students studying the anti-conscription campaigns. 5. A walking tour of sites in Brunswick connected with the anti-conscription debates in partnership with BCACC and possibly also the Brunswick High School. On 17 November 2016, 11 people participated in a walking tour organised by the library service of some of the significant sites related to the anti-conscription movement in Brunswick. Sites included St Ambrose’s School and Hall, Percy Street Drill Hall, the Corner of Stewart Street and Sydney Road and the homes of Frank Astey and Patrick Durnin in Howard Street. 6. Local histories and research of the period being placed on the library’s local history online database WikiNorthia. An active campaign will take place in the latter part of 2017 to solicit more articles and photographs for WikiNorthia for this theme and period of history. Some materials for WikiNorthia and the library’s local history collection have already been received through the good work of BCACC. 7. A commemorative artwork. Council’s Public Art Officer issued a brief for an expression of interest that closed on 17 March 2017 regarding a commemorative anti-conscription artwork, following consultation with academics in this field. The commission was for a prominent artwork for the foyer of the Brunswick Library. Given the library’s annual visitation, this work will be regularly viewed by many. The risk of any vandalism to the work will also be minimised by its location. The artwork is being funded through the 2016-2017 CAPEX public art budget and therefore the artwork and installation could not exceed $12,000. The commission was awarded to Matthew Blackwood for his concept work ‘Yes No’. An event to launch this commemorative artwork is expected to take place in July 2017. 8. Installing a plaque commemorating former Prime Minister John Curtin’s role in the anti-conscription campaign in a prominent place, plaques on the homes of John Curtin and Frank Anstey, which are still standing and a plaque in Pentridge commemorating the anti-conscription activists including Adela Pankhurst and John Curtin who were imprisoned in Pentridge Prison. Work will commence on progressing this resolution during the latter part of 2017. 9. Lobbying Metro Trains and VicTrack for a plaque commemorating former Labor parliamentarian Frank Anstey’s role in the anti-conscription campaign at Anstey station. Work will commence on progressing this resolution during the latter part of 2017. 10. Council start the process of consulting the community about naming the new public space at Wilson Avenue ‘John Curtin Place’ and that a report be presented to a future Council meeting. The Property Services unit has commenced the process of the proposed naming of ‘John Curtin Place’. It has been assessed and meets the Moreland’s Place Naming Policy criteria.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 114

Property officers are currently consulting with the Office of Geographical Names Victoria and seeking their authorisation for the name John Curtin Place to be used. They are the state governing body that approves names. If approved, Council will consult with the community by publicly advertising in the Leader Newspaper Council’s intent to name the former Wilson Avenue as John Curtin Place. A report will be presented on the outcome of the proposed name. Update on the March 2017 Council resolved anti-conscription centenary commemoration activities: 11. To endorse the following planned commemoration activities of the anniversary of the 1916 Conscription Referendum:  Brunswick Conference titled, ‘Democratic Opposition to War: the 1916-17 Anti-Conscription Campaigns, Impacts and Legacies’, at Siteworks, Saxon St, Brunswick on May 20 2017; and  the early January 2018 re-enactment of the women’s demonstration and chorus at Pentridge Prison. Council promoted the Conference 'Democratic opposition to war: the 1916-17 anti- conscription campaigns, impacts and legacies’ organised by the Brunswick Coburg Anti-Conscription Commemoration Campaign (BCACC) and held at Saxon Street in May 2017. 12. To provide $3,500 in funding to assist with the conference venue, print materials, and catering costs at these two events. Council provided $3,500 in funding to assist the Conference organised by the Brunswick Coburg Anti-Conscription Commemoration Campaign (BCACC) 13. To invite consideration of proposals for a permanent peace sculpture memorial at Pentridge as part of the commemoration process Scoping will occur for a permanent peace sculpture memorial at Pentridge. An outdoor public artwork is expected to cost a minimum of $80,000. As there are no funds available for this work, an EOI process for proposals will be dependent on receipt of funding from the 2018/2019 budget. 14. That the next Maurice Blackburn Oration, scheduled for 2018, be focused on the theme of war, peace and anti-conscription. Discussions are yet to take place in planning for the next Maurice Blackburn Oration scheduled for 2018. Additional Activities In addition to Council endorsed, Council presented or partnered activities; Council has also supported a number of community activities related to the anti-conscription campaigns through promotion. For example Council promoted playwright Neil Cole’s play “1916” performed at the Mechanics Institute in 2016. 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 Community consultation has occurred through meetings with representatives from the Brunswick Coburg Anti-Conscription Commemoration Campaign (BCACC) and the Moreland Libraries Advisory Committee (MorLAC).

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 14 June 2017 115

6. Financial and Resources Implications No additional human or financial resources were allocated to the endorsed activities from the December 2015 Council meeting. They were, and continue to be, carried out within existing resources, including diverting resources from other activities in order to action them. In regard to the resolved activities from the March 2017 Council meeting, $3,500 was paid to the Brunswick Coburg Anti-Conscription Commemoration Campaign (BCACC) for their ‘Democratic opposition to war’ conference in May 2017. The funds required to action the resolution for a commemorative outdoor public artwork will be referred to the 2018-2019 budget process for consideration. The commission is expected to cost a minimum of $80,000 and a further 60 to 80 hours of officer time to oversee the EOI and implementation process for the artwork. 7. Implementation A further report will be given to Council in early 2018 following the completion of the activities to mark the centenary of the October 1916 and December 1917 conscription referendums and the anti-conscription campaigns.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 116

DSD19/17 CB SMITH RESERVE - SPORT AND EDUCATION FACILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 2017 (D17/171006) Director Social Development Youth and Leisure

Executive Summary In 2010, Council and the Department of Education and Training (DET) Victoria committed in excess of $6.4 million to the construction of the CB Smith Sport and Education facility, a joint use facility which accommodates the needs of local football clubs and John Fawkner Secondary College. Fawkner Soccer Club are the primary sporting club tenant of this facility. Pascoe Vale Soccer Club and Moreland Zebras Football Club have access to the facility for senior grade match days and one training session in the week preceding each home game. The CB Smith Reserve Sport and Education Facility Management Plan was adopted by Council on the 11 February 2015 (DSD1/15). The role of the Management Plan is to provide the user groups, the Community Reference Group, Moreland City Council, and the community with guidelines for the use, management and operation of the CB Smith Reserve Sport and Education Facility. At the March 2017 Council meeting, Council resolved via a Notice of Motion to review the CB Smith Reserve Sport and Education Facility Management Plan with a view to giving more access to the main pitch for the primary tenants (NOM10/17). The revised management plan, as shown in Attachment 1, optimises the use of the facility for its stakeholders and the community benefit it provides.

Recommendation Council resolve to: 1. Adopt the revised CB Smith Reserve – Sport and Education Facility Management Plan 2017 (Attachment 1). 2. Authorise the Director Social Development to make any necessary amendments to the Management Plan to ensure smooth operation of the facility.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 117

REPORT

1. Policy Context The North West Region Football Strategy was adopted by Council in 2009 (DSD28), and prioritised the redevelopment of the CB Smith Reserve pavilion as the municipal football facility within Moreland. A detailed CB Smith Reserve Sports and Education Facility Management Plan was also adopted by Council in February 2011 (DSD2/11). A review of the management plan that identified the range of operational requirements and services to be delivered at the facility was undertaken and endorsed by Council in February 2015 (DSD1/15). The CB Smith Reserve – Sport and Education Facility Management Plan 2017 (Attachment 1) has been prepared in the context of relevant legislation and Council strategic policy and planning. 2. Background At the August 2010 Council meeting, (DSD48/10) Council resolved to authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign a notification of intention for the development and joint use of a sporting and educational facility at CB Smith Reserve. The CB Smith Reserve Sport and Education Facility (referred to as ‘the Facility’) replaced the existing sporting pavilion and serves as an extension to the John Fawkner Secondary College teaching and learning space by day and transformed into a vibrant hub of training, sport and community engagement after school hours. Under the notification of intention, Council initially committed $3 million to the construction of the facility and entered into an agreement to receive $1 million in funding from the Department of Education and Training (DET) to fund the provision of additional teaching and learning areas to be used by John Fawkner Secondary College. The original draft CB Smith Sport and Education Facility Management Plan was developed in 2010-2011 with key stakeholders of the facility, including John Fawkner College, Fawkner Soccer Club, Pascoe Vale Football Club and Moreland Zebras Football Club. All Moreland clubs were consulted and invited to comment on the development of the original Management Plan. Council at its meeting held 11 February 2015 (DSD1/15) resolved to adopt the updated CB Smith Reserve - Sport and Education Facility Management Plan 2015. The current revision of the management plan has been consulted with and supported by all stakeholder clubs and John Fawkner College. 3. Issues The municipal facility acts as the principal sporting and education facility for John Fawkner Secondary College and home to Fawkner Soccer Club (community club), as well as hosting National Premier League Victoria games. Pascoe Vale Soccer Club (NPL - top tier competition) and Moreland Zebras Football Club (NPL1 - second tier competition) have been offered access to the premier facility and pitch only for senior grade match days and one training session in the week preceding each home game. Brunswick City Soccer Club (NPL1 - second tier competition) will continue to play from their home ground at Dunstan Reserve. Moreland City Soccer Club (NPL1-second tier competition) will continue to play from their home ground at Campbell Reserve. The overall management of the CB Smith facility lies with Council. A Community Reference Group has been established comprising of Council officers and representatives from the user groups.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 118

Council’s role  Allocating the use of the facilities;  Setting fees and charges;  Ground maintenance;  Building maintenance;  Facility development;  Marketing and promotion of the precinct;  Support and liaison with the users;  Scheduling and convening meetings with the Community Reference Group; and  Provision of building insurances. Community Reference Group role  Ensure representation of local interests including the user groups and the wider community;  Share information and discuss ideas and reach solutions;  Make recommendations on facility improvements or utilisation;  Provide informed local community input;  Keep Council informed of the needs of the community;  Contribute to discussions regarding Councils priorities for development;  Facilitate communication between user groups and the community;  Contribute to the development of programs and services; and  Contribute to the development and enhancement of a strong recognisable public profile for the facilities. Operational procedures CB Smith Sporting and Education Facility is available for the use of a range of community based activities including sport, recreation, and community programs, services, activities and events. Specifically permitted uses include:  Sporting activities associated with John Fawkner Secondary College, local clubs and State sporting associations.  State sporting or higher standard sporting activities that provide participation and spectator opportunities for residents.  One off (or casual) community and social events that local residents can participate in.  Other events and activities that residents and visitors can participate in where there will be broad community benefit.  Under Seasonal User Agreements, facilities will be available for use of the ‘regular’ sporting group users for day to day functions such as matches training and social events.  The community sporting organisations accessing the facility will continue to be independent entities responsible for all operational tasks in relation to affiliation with their respective State/National sporting associations and Council.  Recommended maximum usage for a ground with this profile, turf type and drainage system is 15 hours of activity a week.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 119

Amendments to the CB Smith Reserve – Sport and Education Facility Management Plan  Officers will monitor the allocated hours of use and will offer additional access to Fawkner Soccer Club only where this is within the maximum recommended hours of use (Attachment 2). Additional access has been provided to the Fawkner Soccer Club for 2017 with an additional access to the pavilion and premier pitch for senior female games.  Seasonal sporting users will receive priority allocation over casual and one-off hirers.  Any Moreland soccer club that participates in the last round of 32 teams in the Football Federation Australia (FFA) cup, will have priority access over any scheduled training session.  A cleaning schedule and specification has been developed for all users (Attachment 2). Pascoe Vale Football Club and Moreland Zebras Football Club to use cleaning contractor after game day, with club members cleaning the facility after each training session. Fawkner Soccer Club members will clean their facility after each use, with John Fawkner Secondary College continuing to use their contractors to undertake their cleaning at the conclusion of the school day.  Sanitary bins to be arranged by Fawkner Soccer Club with associated costs shared between all primary tenants.  Smoking at the facility – clubs to discourage members/visitors to not smoke however the grassed mound area is to be a designated smoker’s area.  Junior and female teams to be allowed to use premier pitch – clubs are responsible for distributing the hours allocated within their respective clubs. 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 officers from Recreation Services, in collaboration with John Fawkner Secondary College, Fawkner Soccer Club (community club), Pascoe Vale Football Club (NPL), and Moreland Zebras Football Club (NPL2) have reviewed and agreed on the revised management plan. Portfolio Councillors for Recreation Cr Kavanagh and Cr Carli-Hannan have also been consulted. 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 14 June 2017 120

6. Financial and Resources Implications Council subsidises the cost related to maintenance of sports grounds and pavilions according to their grading level. Fees are calculated to recover a proportion of these expenses. Council considers this fee to be a Maintenance Recovery Level. The fees and charges for the use of the CB Smith Sporting and Education Facility is in line with Council’s fees and charges schedule and is listed within Council Sporting Facilities, Grounds and Pavilions User Guide. The schedule of fees and charges for the facility is based on the following principles:  The reserve and pavilion is graded according to the level of maintenance with higher graded competition reflecting higher maintenance costs.  Council only recoups approximately 10% to 20% of total expenditure related to maintenance of sporting reserves and pavilions according to grading level.  Where more than one club shares the use of a sport ground and/or pavilion, each club will be charged a proportion of the fee amount.  Fees and charges will be indexed yearly in accordance with a percentage increase in CPI or any other factors that Council deems appropriate in relating the fee to the cost. 7. Implementation Officers will commence implementation of the CB Smith Sporting and Education Facility Management Plan 2017 on formal adoption by Council.

Attachment/s 1⇩ CB Smith Reserve Sport and Education Facility Management Plan D17/62466 2017 2⇩ Two week schedule of ground use and cleaning specification CB Smith D17/122301 Reserve - 2017

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 121

DSD20/17 WHEATSHEAF COMMUNITY HUB - REVISED CONCEPT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY BUSINESS CASE (D17/170178) Director Social Development Social Policy and Early Years

Executive Summary Council purchased the former Glenroy Primary School site in Wheatsheaf Road in 2010, with the intention to provide the community with public open space. Approximately half of the site is now used for this purpose (Bridget Shortell Reserve). Research undertaken since 2010 has identified that the Glenroy community is experiencing significant levels of socio economic disadvantage (including low household incomes, low educational attainment and high unemployment), high population growth and has high levels of cultural diversity. In addition, the Glenroy community lacks access to contemporary and accessible social infrastructure. Much of the existing social infrastructure in Glenroy is fragmented and at capacity, or will be within the next five years. Key facilities are poorly located, at the end of their asset life and not fit for purpose. Limited accessibility and functionality constrains the scope of services available to meet contemporary needs of a growing Glenroy population. Moreland Council has identified the need to address and improve the health and wellbeing, educational and social cohesion outcomes for the Glenroy community and the former Glenroy Primary School site offers a unique opportunity to fundamentally change the expectations and capacity of the Glenroy community through providing integrated social, educational, health and wellbeing services and open space. In 2014, an initial Concept Plan for a new community hub to be located on the site was created which included a range of stand alone buildings, each representing particular services. Through extensive stakeholder consultation on the initial Concept Plan, it was determined that the preference was for a single, integrated hub, containing all services under the one roof. An updated Concept Plan (Attachment 1) has now been developed based on an integrated hub model. The Concept Plan design is centred around providing a fully integrated community hub building with shared reception, activity and programming spaces, staff spaces, governance and operating arrangements. Under this option, Glenroy Library, Glenroy Neighbourhood Learning Centre, Glenroy Memorial Kindergarten, Glenroy Maternal Child Health service, and Merri Health would all relocate to the site. These services are currently situated across three separate sites in the Glenroy Activity Centre. Approximately half the site would become a local park. The preferred integrated Wheatsheaf Community Hub option has been assessed as having the best capacity to address the current and future health, wellbeing, education, open space and social cohesion needs of the Glenroy community. Through an integrated design and operational model, the Wheatsheaf Community Hub and open space will eliminate the fragmented access to services the Glenroy community currently experiences and provide shared spaces for the community to gather. In addition, the increased footprint of each service will fundamentally increase the service capacity of service providers and therefore improve their capacity to meet the current and future needs of the community. Consultation on the revised design was undertaken in April 2017 with the Glenroy community and potential hub partners, with further updates made to the design. Moreland Council, Merri Health, Glenroy Neighbourhood Learning Centre and Glenroy Memorial Kindergarten are working in partnership to continue to progress the project. In conjunction with the development of the Wheatsheaf Hub Concept Plan, a Business Case has been developed to outline the various options that have been considered and to assist in advocacy to potential funding partners (Attachment 2).

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 162

The next step is for Council to continue refining the Concept Plan and Business Case, in collaboration with potential Hub partners, and to seek funding from external sources to deliver the project.

Recommendation Council resolves to: 1. Note the development of the Wheatsheaf Hub Concept Plan and Business Case to deliver an integrated community hub with an emphasis on health and education, on the former Glenroy Primary School site. 2. Endorse the progress of the project to the next phase including Concept Plan and Business Case refinement (which includes finalising the Concept Plan and costings), further development of partner relationships, advocacy and funding strategies. 3. Endorse further work to explore options for Council’s Cromwell Street site to ensure future planning is integrated with decisions about the Wheatsheaf Hub.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 163

REPORT

1. Policy Context The Wheatsheaf Hub project is aligned with 2016-2017 Council Action Plan item 16, to ‘Develop a revised concept plan and business case including funding strategy and advocacy plan’. The Glenroy Structure Plan 2008 establishes Council and the community’s vision for the Glenroy Activity Centre. The original Structure Plan directions for a new library and community hub in Glenroy were to explore opportunities of either expanding the library/community hub on its current site or constructing a new facility elsewhere in the activity centre, preferably on the key pedestrian spine, close to Post Office Place and the train station. Since 2008, opportunities for the library/community hub flagged by the Structure Plan have been looked into with no suitable sites on the key pedestrian spine becoming available. When Council purchased the former Glenroy School site, this opened up an alternative library/community hub opportunity not foreshadowed by the Structure Plan (noting that the Glenroy Primary School was still an operating school with no plan for closure at the time the Structure Plan was adopted in 2008). Following discussions with Council it was agreed that the school site was a suitable location for the hub and a broad brief was established for the work that has brought Council to this point. The proposed location of the library/community hub (‘Wheatsheaf Hub’) on the former Glenroy Primary School site does not undermine other directions of the Structure Plan. It is intended to review the Glenroy Structure Plan following finalisation of the design for the level crossing removal in Glenroy, as this will have a significant impact on the physical structure of the centre, including likely moving of the train station south of Glenroy Road (and therefore a need to revisit the location of the key pedestrian spine through the centre). 2. Background Council purchased the former Glenroy Primary School in 2010 following a resolution of Council on 8 September 2010 (DED25/10) as it was recognised that there was a lack of public open space in the area. In October 2010 Council resolved to allocate $50,000 to fund an initial project to design a proposed kindergarten for the former Glenroy Primary School site (DSD59/10). After further research into the Glenroy population, it was determined that the community would benefit from a range of services that could be relocated or developed on the site, creating a community hub. An initial Concept Plan was created in 2014, proposing a range of stand alone buildings, to represent each service at the Hub. Consultation was conducted on this design with potential Hub service partners and the local community. This resulted in a recommendation to change the Hub design to an integrated model. In December 2015, Council allocated a reserve fund of $500,000 over 5 years to the Wheatsheaf Hub Project (DCS101/15). A revised Concept Plan has now been prepared (Attachment 1). The revised plan has been informed by consultation with:  Key Council officers  Potential partnering service providers  The local Glenroy Community (two public meetings were held in April 2017)

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 164

A draft vision and Guiding Principles has been developed to guide the design of the Concept Plan, as follows: Wheatsheaf Community Hub will fundamentally change the expectations and capacity of the Glenroy community through providing integrated social, educational, health and wellbeing programs, services and outcomes. The draft Vision is underpinned by the principles of:  Integration  Innovation  Connectivity  Adaptability and flexibility  Partnerships  Activation  Quality  Access and equity In conjunction with development of the Concept Plan, a business case has been developed to support the project (Attachment 2). The business case will assist to support advocacy for funding from Federal, State and other sources. 3. Issues Commitment from partners At present, the proposed hub inclusions and partners are as follows:  Glenroy library (to relocate from current site in Pascoe Vale Road, Glenroy)  Maternal and Child Health (to relocate from current site in Cromwell Street, Glenroy)  Merri Health in whole or in part (to relocate from current site in Cromwell Street, Glenroy)  Glenroy Neighbourhood Learning Centre (to relocate from current site in Cromwell Street, Glenroy)  Glenroy Memorial Kindergarten (to relocate from current site in Murrell St, Glenroy)  A new children’s centre (childcare)  Community meeting rooms  Café  Open space area  Exhibition space for display of art  Possible public art installation. Three main external partners (Merri Health, Glenroy Memorial Kindergarten and Glenroy Neighbourhood Learning Centre) have been recognised with the potential to provide complementary services within the Hub. To date, positive discussions have been held with these agencies but no formal agreements have been finalised to confirm their inclusion in the Hub. Recently Merri Health have raised the possibility of remaining and expanding at Cromwell Street, Glenroy, assuming the Glenroy Neighbourhood Learning Centre and Maternal and Child Health will relocate from Cromwell St into the Hub. Merri Health have an interest in preserving the current equity they have in the Cromwell Street site and can utilise the freed up adjacent space in Cromwell Street to expand their service footprint. Nevertheless, the option of also maintaining a presence at the proposed Hub (i.e. consulting rooms) is of considerable value.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 165

Revised Concept Plan The draft Concept Plan for the Hub (Attachment 1) embeds the elements of a fully integrated hub (eg. one primary entrance, one shared staff room, shared meeting rooms and amenities). It includes the following key features:  To accommodate as best as possible the indicative spatial requirement of each service noting that further value management will most likely be needed.  Preserve approximately half the site for passive open space reflecting Council’s rationale for purchasing the site.  Reflect the community consultation feedback, summarised as:  support for an active and multifunctional open space area  support for a modern library and community meeting rooms  desire for car parking in and around the site to be managed adequately  (noting that overall the feedback was very supportive). The proposed floorspace for each service included in the Concept Plan is summarised in the table below, along with a comparison to each service’s current size. Further work is underway to refine size and consequent costs. Service Current size (sqm) Proposed size (sqm) Library 815 1990 – Internal space 246 – External space Glenroy Neighbourhood 653 493 Learning Centre (plus the use of 907sqm of shared meeting and activity rooms, which includes a commercial kitchen) Merri Health 431 668 Maternal and Child Health 127 205 Children’s centre N/A 836 – Internal space (kindergarten and 803- External space childcare) Shared meeting and N/A 907 activity rooms Café N/A 244 Design options As detailed in the preliminary business case (Attachment 2), 6 options for the future of the site have been explored for their potential to meet the following identified strategic outcomes:  Improve the Glenroy Community’s access to knowledge, skills and education.  Expand health and wellbeing services in Glenroy.  Provide integrated community services with flexibility to change and adapt to meet the needs of the community over time.  Provide space and opportunities for community interaction and cohesion.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 166

The 6 options include: 1. Develop Wheatsheaf site solely as a district park. 2. Re-use existing buildings and develop local park on Wheatsheaf site. 3. Develop collocated services and local park on Wheatsheaf site. 4. Develop integrated community hub and local park on Wheatsheaf site – full Merri Health involvement (preferred option). 5. Develop integrated community hub and local park on Wheatsheaf site – reduced Merri Health involvement (consulting rooms only), fewer meeting rooms, café as future option. 6. Develop integrated community hub and local park on Wheatsheaf site – smaller footprint and fewer services. Noting that all options are unfunded at this stage, option 4 is the preferred option that is illustrated in the Concept 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. 4. Consultation Community and stakeholder consultation on the initial concept plan was undertaken in 2015. Proposed partners have been consulted on the updated concept plan at a meeting held on 19 April 2017. Community consultation on the updated concept plan has occurred through two consultation meetings held on Thursday, 20 April 2017. A summary of feedback from the partner and community consultations undertaken in 2017 is included in (Attachment 3) along with commentary as to how the concept plan was refined in response. Councillors have been consulted at the Council Briefing held on 15 May 2017. The concept plan has also been developed with input from relevant officers from the City Infrastructure, Social Development and Planning and Economic Development Departments. 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 In 2015, Council endorsed an allocation of $500,000 over 5 years to the Wheatsheaf Hub Project (DCS101/15). Current spending of this allocated reserve is $100,000 for the creation of the revised Concept Plan and Preliminary Business Case, with $400,000 remaining. The remaining reserve amount will be drawn upon to implement the next stage of the project, and further funding sources will be further explored. All options are unfunded at this stage. The preliminary cost of the preferred option 4 is approximately $31m. Options 5 and 6 are estimated to cost in the order of $28m and $23.5m respectively. Further scope refinement is underway to arrive at a design that meets the majority of needs at a reasonable price.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 167

Funding opportunities A preliminary assessment of potential funding sources includes:  Proceeds from sale of other properties (e.g. Glenroy library, Glenroy memorial kindergarten) – up to approximately $6.9m (assuming sale of unencumbered sites).  State Government grants (e.g. living libraries fund and early years funding) – up to approximately $2.6m.  Federal Government - 2016 ALP election commitment of $6m.  Partnering service contributions (e.g. Merri Health) – approximately $1m.  Total estimate: $10.5m. The table at Attachment 4 includes further details on potential funding sources. Funding opportunities will be further examined in conjunction with development of the business case, partner relationships and an advocacy prospectus. 7. Implementation Subject to resolution by Council, the following steps will be undertaken, which will be the subject of a future report to Council:  Refinement of concept plan  Refinement of business case  Development of partner relationships, funding and advocacy strategies (including Prospectus to assist with marketing the project to key funding audiences)  Ongoing community and partner engagement.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Revised concept plan - May 2017 - Wheatsheaf Community Hub D17/180076 2⇩ Wheatsheaf Integrated Community Hub - preliminary business case - D17/185645 June 2017 3⇩ Stakeholder feedback and concept design updates 2017 - Wheatsheaf D17/180109 Community Hub 4 Scoping funding opportunities May 2017 - Wheatsheaf Community Hub D17/180120 - This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 89(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with matters affecting the security of Council property.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 168

DED41/17 ZERO CARBON EVOLUTION STRATEGY (ZCE): ANNUAL REPORT ON 2016-2017 ACHIEVEMENTS AND OUTCOMES OF THE MIDWAY DELIVERY REVIEW (D17/147096) Director Planning and Economic Development City Strategy and Design

Executive Summary This report provides the annual report on the achievements as delivered in 2016-2017 for the implementation of the Zero Carbon Evolution – Getting on track to carbon neutrality by 2020 (ZCE) strategy, endorsed by Council at its June 2014 meeting. It also provides the outcomes of an independent midway delivery review completed in partnership between Moreland Energy Foundation Limited (MEFL) and Council and responds to General Business Item GB12/17 as resolved by Council at the March 2017 meeting. The ZCE strategy sets out to achieving a 22% reduction in community carbon emissions by 2020 and that this ambitious goal will only be achievable through collaborative effort, partnerships and commitment across the Moreland community including significant investment by the community and all levels of Government. Thus far, the significant $220M investment required beyond Council’s investment identified in the strategy is yet to be realised. Achievements for the 2016-2017 period are outlined in the background section of this report. While a number of achievements have been made in 2016-2017 the midway review has identified that total progress for the life of ZCE thus far shows that two of the five strategic areas are ahead of target (Strategy 2 - using energy efficiently and Strategy 4 - minimising urban heat island effects), one is slightly behind target (Strategy 5 - activating the community), and two are significantly behind target: Strategy 1 - generating local renewable energy (lead by MEFL); and Strategy 3 - low emissions transport (lead by Council). The review has identified an issue wherein the measures contained in ZCE do not take into account the business as usual activities that are also contributing to emission reductions, and a number of goals are not measurable. Further, there is a recognition that there is not a linear equation between dollars expended on actions and the attainment of goals. In 2017-2018 MEFL and Council will develop ‘reset’ plans for Strategies 1 and 3. This work will inform the development of ZCE post 2020 in the lead up to 2040. Of critical importance to both the reset work and future development of a fully costed 2040 Strategy for a zero carbon city is the scheduled review of the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS).

Recommendation Council resolve to : 1. Note the progress of implementation of the Zero Carbon Evolution – Getting on track to carbon neutrality by 2020 strategy for 2016-2017. 2. Endorse and implement the five key review recommendations arising from the midway delivery review of the strategy as outlined in the issues section of this report. 3. Note that the 2017-2018 Draft Budget makes provision for $305,000 grant funding for ZCE implementation by MEFL as detailed in the financial and resource implications section of this report and a further $50,000 to progress a plan for a 2040 zero carbon goal.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 226

REPORT

1. Policy Context The implementation of ZCE aligns with the Council Action Plan Item 69 - Continue to collaborate with MEFL/Implement Moreland Community Climate Action Plan in partnership with MEFL. The following strategic actions in the 2013-2017 Council Plan are directly relevant to this project:  12.1 Update and implement the Moreland CCAP (Community Climate Action Plan) – now known as ZCE.  12.5 In partnership with the community and environmental organisations (particularly MEFL), continue working towards making the Moreland municipality carbon neutral by 2020.  14.1 Update and implement the Moreland Community Climate Action Plan (ZCE) in collaboration with MEFL. 2. Background Strategy development and leadership The Zero Carbon Evolution – Getting on track to carbon neutrality by 2020 (ZCE) strategy was endorsed by Council 11 June 2014. The purpose of the strategy is to facilitate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions across the Moreland community. Council’s own corporate emission reductions are facilitated through its adopted Corporate Carbon Reduction Program 2015-2020 (being separately reported to Council in June) and lead by Council’s ESD Unit. In preparing ZCE, MEFL and Council endorsed an alternative method of framing the emissions reduction challenge to 2020 based on the idea of a ‘carbon budget’. Considered more realistic, this approach specified an ambitious reduction target for Moreland by 2020 that reflects Moreland’s ‘obligation’ in terms of the quantity that can be emitted in the period 2013-2020 if we are to be on track to avoiding dangerous climate change. For the Moreland community to be within its carbon budget by 2020, a 22% reduction in emissions from 2011 levels was found to be necessary. This ambitious goal will only be achievable through collaborative effort, partnerships and commitment across the Moreland community (including significant investment by the community and all levels of Government), as highlighted in the table overleaf.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 227

Development and carriage of the implementation of ZCE continues to be lead by MEFL in partnership with Council. MEFL champions the implementation of three key ZCE strategies: generating local renewable energy; using energy efficiently; and activating our community to reduce emissions. Council champions the implementation of two ZCE strategies: low emissions transport and minimising urban heat island effects. Implementation of ZCE is reported to Council annually through this partnership. Importantly three of the five strategies align closely with MEFL’s 2015-2018 Strategic Plan. The ZCE strategy has also informed the update of Council’s Memorandum of Understanding with MEFL for the period 2015-2020 endorsed by Council (DED50/15). Midway delivery review At the time of its midway delivery point MEFL and Council Officers jointly commissioned an independent review in December 2016 to check the progress of ZCE’s implementation, the findings of which are contained later in this report.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 228

Council General Business Item At the March 2017 meeting (GB12/17) Council resolved to:  Write to the Moreland Energy Foundation (MEFL) and seek the following information be included as part of the independent strategic audit process to be delivered in a report to Councillors at a Council meeting prior to the adoption of the draft budget:  MEFL's assessment on progress towards our Zero Carbon Evolution (ZCE) strategy goals (i.e. will we achieve our goals for community carbon emissions reductions by 2020).  Barriers to achieving our ZCE 2020 goals and potential solutions including new schemes and funding arrangements that could address these barriers.  MEFL's feedback and advice about how Council could achieve 100% carbon emissions reductions by 2040 and the level of funding and programs required from Council to achieve this goal. It is imperative that by the end of this month Council provide MEFL with detailed information on how its ZCE responsibilities are tracking to allow them to provide this assessment. The findings of the independent review were presented to Council at the 27 March 2017 Council Briefing which included the recommended 2017-2018 ZCE draft budget figure $305,000. MEFL subsequently responded to Council’s letter on 7 April 2017 (Attachment 1). The ZCE budget and expected outcomes are outlined in the Financial and Resources Implications section of this report. 3. Issues Annual ZCE achievements Throughout 2016-2017, a number of key initiatives have been implemented as detailed below: Strategy 1 - creating local renewable energy  Household solar photovoltaic (PV) installations totalled 958kW by the end of March 2017 against a target of 8,000kW for 2016/2017 across Moreland; the final figure is expected to be closer to 1,500kW (of this 127kW were delivered through Positive Charge versus broader private uptake by the community).  The community solar bulk buy promotion has continued and has included outreach activities and mail-outs to 700 Moreland households, resulting in 126 solar photovoltaic (PV) quotes requested and 43 installations (totalling 127kW) through Positive Charge to the end of March 2017, which provided for $334,728 of investment (i.e. households) into installing renewable on their homes.  MEFL worked with Council to implement the Environmental Upgrade Agreement (EUA) legislation and develop a strategy to increase take up of solar by local businesses. To support this MEFL developed and launched a commercial solar panel through Positive Charge, helping local businesses navigate the solar industry and obtain trusted quotes and advice. Since its launch in March seven Moreland businesses have requested quotes from the panel, however no agreements have been struck to date.  MEFL worked with Powershop to deliver Moreland’s first Community Energy projects. Both CERES and Milparinka received a $10,000 donation from Powershop’s ‘Your Community Energy program’, which originated from a MEFL suggestion. MEFL have an agreement to source further Moreland recipients for this program. MEFL have also been supporting Moreland Community Solar to find potential host sites and are currently in discussion with RMIT and Coburg Basketball stadium.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 229

 Implementation of Council’s innovative Solar on Leased Council Facilities has continued, with collaborative delivery by Council and MEFL. Round two of the program in 2016-2017 will include installation of solar at Robinson’s Reserve Neighbourhood House, Brunswick Bowls Club and Anne Sgro Childcare Centre.  Advocacy: MEFL have been supporting the Victorian Community Solar Alliance on their New Energy Jobs Fund project to develop legal documents which will enable community energy groups to enter agreements with host sites. Strategy 2 - using energy efficiently  To date over 2,000 households and 300 business have undertaken energy efficiency upgrades as part of the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target scheme.  This scheme has provided significant energy efficiency outcomes in Moreland, however residential actions are starting to decline as most households have now switched over to LED lights. Under VEET, accredited businesses can offer discounts and special offers on selected energy saving products and appliances installed at homes, businesses or other non-residential premises.  ZCE set two key ‘using energy efficiently’ targets for 2016-2017; 5,400  households and 240 businesses to implement energy efficiency. VEET figures indicate that over 2,000 households and 300 businesses have undertaken energy efficiency upgrades as part of the scheme. This demonstrates the impact of external government policy on local action, but also highlights the need for expansion of the scheme to additional measures such as:  MEFL has worked to increase VEET providers actions in Moreland through a partnership with a residential lighting provider and the Light$mart program which supported businesses to switch to LEDs. To the end of March 8 businesses had taken action, delivering over $125,000 of private sector investment (i.e. businesses) into energy efficiency measures in Moreland, saving Moreland over 550,000 kg CO2 and local businesses over $45,000 annually.  Launch of a draught-proofing and insulation bulk buy promotion: This has included outreach activities and media campaign, resulting in 145 quotes requested and 30 installations through Positive Charge to the end of March 2017, which provided for $47,378 of investment (i.e. households) into a range of energy efficiency measures at their homes. Strategy 3 - low emissions transport  Targets are below community aspirational targets set in ZCE. The five sites approved for car share spaces across the municipality are well below the ZCE target of 200 car share bays highlighting the need to develop a reset plan for this strategy including investigating new schemes and funding arrangements to support delivery of this strategy.  The review has revealed that while the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS) continues to be implemented many of the actions are not measureable within the context of their contribution to emissions reduction. The now scheduled MITS review in 2017-2018 will enable this to be revisited.  Although no new funding to ZCE for transport projects was received this financial year the business as usual activities delivered by Council's City Infrastructure team include activities such as: part of the continued implementation of the Moreland Bike Strategy completion of a 12 month bikes on buses trial which will support further roll out across Melbourne; and as part of the continued implementation of the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy public transport advocacy, support for a community study extending route 19 tram to Fawkner.  Council’s ESD team have delivered an MOU with H2U to progress the hydrogen refuelling station/fleet project and also lodgement of a funding application with the State Government to further support the project.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 230

Strategy 4 - minimising urban heat island effect  Council continues to deliver actions from the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE) Action plan, including the development of the Urban Forest Strategy, which was released for community consultation in May 2017.  Council have worked with MEFL to deliver the State funded Cooling Communities program (funded through DEWLP’s Victorian Climate Change Grant). Upgrades delivered to those identified at most risk to UHIE as part of the pilot included installation of vegetation, shading and upgrades to buildings. This project highlights the need for strong Environmentally Sustainable Development requirements for new developments through the planning and building systems to avoid the need to mechanically ventilate apartments to ensure they are habitable in summer. Strategy 5 - activating the community  MEFL are continuing to build partnerships with the community and local partners to reduce carbon emissions and encourage others to take action. In addition to the recently launched ZCE website and portal, MEFL have also worked with Council and 16 traders along Lygon Street to launch the ‘Make it Visible’ Lygon Street Green Mile campaign to promote uptake of actions to reduce emissions.  MEFL delivered a successful community event as part of the SPARK conference which was attended by over 60 people, with 50 participating in a walking tour. Midway delivery review In November 2016 Council and MEFL engaged independent consultants to undertake a midway delivery review of ZCE. This joint review was undertaken to assess the implementation progress, analyse barriers to achieving targets, and assess what actions have the greatest potential to achieve targets set out in the ZCE strategy. The table on the following page provides a summary of the review report, including the delivery status of ZCE strategies in terms of which strategies are: meeting targets; behind target; are substantially behind target.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 231

Based on the information available the review assessed ZCE as having achieved a 57.3kT per annum (17%) carbon emission reduction against the overall reduction target of 327kT to 2020. To be considered on track to meet the 2020 target the program would reasonably need to have achieved, or planned to have achieved, a carbon emission reduction of 153kT per annum (46%) by the end of 2016. The midway review report notes that whilst the program is behind schedule this is due in part to:  The lack of available data on a number of carbon reduction activities (e.g. car trips/mode shift) and/or data that can inform a quantum of emission being reduced;  A number of carbon reduction activities (‘business as usual’) have been undertaken by Council outside of the ZCE Program, and those activities and their results have not been reported as part of this review meaning actual progress is difficult to measure and likely to be higher; and  The fact that many key actions are outside of the control of Council and MEFL; the uptake of actions by stakeholders (especially State and Federal Governments, electricity distributors and the community more broadly) are not at the pace or levels of investment required to achieve the 22% reduction in community carbon emissions by 2020.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 232

The review makes 5 key recommendations:  Unlock renewable energy funding through: new partnerships; overcoming the split incentive for tenants; and exploring alternative funding options (by preparing a new reset plan in 2017/2018);  Report all of Council’s business as usual activities relating to carbon emission activities undertaken through the ZCE framework;  Activate the Low Emissions Transport Strategy and initiative (by preparing a new reset plan in 2017-2018)  Conduct cost benefit analysis on ZCE activities performed and update the ZCE Strategy and Action Plans to reflect the optimal mix of carbon emission reduction activities for the remainder of the Strategy resetting ZCE targets, budget and/or schedule as appropriate.  Improve project governance and project delivery arrangements. Next steps Given the small window of opportunity to get ZCE on track to 2020 it is recommended that the primary focus of the implementation of the review findings is to ‘reset’ Strategy areas 1 and 3 as those strategies that are behind target. Once new project governance and delivery arrangements are in place (currently in train) work on the reset plans will progress. This will occur over the first half of 2017/18 and will consider the barriers to achieving the 2020 goals and potential solutions including new schemes and funding arrangements. The independent review findings and strategy resets will assist in the development of a new ZCE 2020 to 2040. To this end, and acknowledging the urgent need to engage more broadly with partners in order to deliver even more ambitious emission reductions in the future, MEFL and Council officers are scoping a ‘brains trust’ initiative to assess how zero carbon emissions could be achieved by 2040 and the level of funding and programs required from Council to help achieve this goal. Possible linkages to the Resilient Melbourne and Take 2 are also being explored. Once scoped a further briefing will be provided to Council. 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 The ZCE program manager (based at MEFL) and MEFL’s Chief Executive Officer were involved in the preparation of this report. Councillors were briefed on the independent midway delivery review findings at a Council briefing on 27 March 2017. 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 2016-2107 budget expenditure: In the 2016-2017 budget, Council allocated $510,000 towards future delivery of ZCE implementation. These funds were provided to MEFL and the ZCE Project Board agreed to allocate $250,000 for expenditure in 2016-2017, with $260,000 held in reserve for future investment in the strategy. The intention for the reserve ($260,000) is that this balance will be invested in opportunities that will enable MEFL to scale up delivery in Moreland. This could be direct funding into projects or utilised to leverage grant funding.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 233

The $250,000 allocated for 2016-2017 enabled MEFL to:  continue to engage a full-time ZCE project officer for $125,000; $70,000 was allocated to a renewables broker (0.6 FTE);  $25,000 for project support (0.2FTE); and $30,000 on project expenses. In addition Council secured the State funded grant for the Cooling Communities project ($85,000) and Council engaged MEFL to deliver the pilot which included a range of retrofit actions to minimise the Urban Heat Island Effect. Of this $40,000 was allocated to:  engage a project co-ordinator (0.6 FTE);  $40,000 was for capital works; and  $5,000 was for project expenses. In 2016-2017, $12,000 of the reserve funding provided by Council to MEFL was allocated to complete ZCE mid-life delivery review report. The draft Council Budget for 2017-2018: $305,000 for ZCE implementation has been allocated in the draft budget. Importantly, Council funding for ZCE will not directly equate to achievement of the ambitious ZCE targets set out in the strategy highlighting the need for the work of many beyond MEFL and Council to achieve ZCE’s ambitions. There are many interdependencies which are highlighted in more detail below. MEFL will use the anticipated funding of $305,000 for ZCE implementation to aim to deliver the following actions in 2017- 2018: Generating local renewable energy - residential solar – target 4,500 homes Currently there are only 5,151 households in Moreland with solar, so reaching the ZCE target of 21,200 homes by 2020 is an ambitious target to hit. It will be impossible to achieve this without:  changes in State policy and funding opportunities;  an effective mechanism enabling low income households to finance solar that doesn’t rely on Council upfront investment alone;  mechanisms to make it easier for apartment dwellers to access solar;  closer working with Council's planning team to enable to facilitate solar uptake in heritage areas; and  those in heritage areas to install solar;  maximise solar in new developments (noting this is a process of negotiation and not a compulsory requirement);  Council’s Communications team working with MEFL to create a year-long awareness campaign around solar; and  consumers deciding not to wait for batteries to go solar. The proposed $305,000 to MEFL will facilitate:  Trialling a mechanism for low income families to access funding for solar.  Targeted campaigns at apartment dwellers and those living in heritage overlay buildings to help them take action.  Work with Council teams to drive uptake of solar.  Advocate for retainment of increased feed-in-tariff.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 234

Business solar – target 200 businesses Again this is a challenging target to hit given that under 300 businesses in Moreland currently have solar however (the ZCE target is 1,200 businesses by 2020). Supporting achievement of this target includes MEFL and/or Council have in place: a commercial solar panel provider; an engagement strategy; an effective funding mechanism (EUAs); and a continued high level of support from Council’s Economic Development team. Hitting this target is resource intensive and Council funding is required to maximise on these assets described above and also enable MEFL to:  Develop materials for engaging businesses and work with Council to run events and tours.  Engage 100 businesses face to face.  Provide technical support to businesses to make the solar installation process easy. Community solar – target 10 systems Achievement of this target (the target to 2020 is 27 community solar systems installed) is dependent on Moreland Community Solar and it is clear that progress will be slow without support from MEFL to set up a donation model and provide technical support for investment projects. Council’s anticipated funding in 2017-2018 will support MEFL to:  Find recipients for Powershops’ Your Community Energy model.  Develop and launch a donation model for community solar.  Provide technical support for Moreland Community Solar’s investment projects. Systems on schools and community groups – target 15 systems The ZCE target is 60 installations on schools by 2020. Achievement of this 2017-2018 target is dependent upon:  continuation of Moreland Council’s Solar on Leased Facilities program;  funding for solar schools through state government:  development of a donation community solar model in Moreland; and  funding from State government for solar gardens project. Council’s anticipated funding in 2017/2018 will support MEFL to:  Develop and launch a donation model for community solar.  Support Moreland’s schools to access solar funding from State government.  Work with our commercial solar panel to develop a campaign focused on schools. Using energy efficiently: energy efficiency retrofits to 5,000 homes This target is a stretch, but within reach as long as state government expands VEET measures as anticipated (the target to 2020 is 36,000 homes). The 2017-2018 funding to MEFL will enable them to:  Run two campaigns for both draught proofing and insulation.  Work with Council teams to disseminate information to ‘hard to reach’ groups.  Improve data capture processes to ensure that actions are captured effectively. Energy efficiency retrofits to 300 businesses This target is within reach as long as State Government expands VEET measures as anticipated (the target to 2020 is 1,400 businesses). The 2017-2018 funding to MEFL will enable them to:  Support businesses to switch to LED lights.  Work with State Government to include coffee machine timers on VEET scheme.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 235

Activating the community The target to 2020 includes reducing average annual household energy consumption by 9% per person and removal of food waste from landfill for 70% of households. In 2017-2018 contribution to these targets will be through the measures outlined above along with:  support from Council’s waste team to address emissions related to food waste;  support from Council’s Communications team; and  investment from Citipower in a program to reduce peak energy consumption in Brunswick. The 2017-2018 funding to MEFL will enable them to:  Support existing community groups and encourage them to take action.  Provide accurate, up to date information to households, businesses and community groups to enable them to take action.  Develop a sustainable neighbourhoods package, making it easy for committed community members to drive action in their streets and neighbourhoods. Council funds are only part of the funding required to meet goals within ZCE. External grant funding, private sector investment, opportunities with community partners and State and Federal legislation also play a major role in the implementation of the ZCE strategy. The above targets for 2017-2018 assume that around 50% of the external factors (such as policy changes and funding opportunities) will be realised in 2017-2018. All of the above information helps demonstrate that Council’s direct expenditure alone does not have a direct correlation with achievement of the ambitious ZCE targets. There are many dependencies beyond both Council’s and MEFL’s control, which is a message reinforced in ZCE itself. The Strategy flags some $220 million is required over the life of the strategy to be invested by other levels of Government, key stakeholders and the broader community (as per the table included in section 2 of this report). MEFL will continue to pursue funding models which support scale up of PV and energy efficiency actions for both households and business. For the 2 strategies Council is leading, budget implications include:  Low emissions transport: No new operational budget will be allocated in 2017-2018 in addition to the annual budget provided to implement Council’s Bike Strategy and Sustainable Transport program. Effort will be placed in developing the reset plan for this strategy to ensure future investment best aligns to contribute towards achievement of the ZCE strategy with measurable outcomes. Council will continue to delivery it’s business as usual activities in this space which are all contributing to a reduction but are currently not measurable. A key piece of work in 2017-2018 will be the review of MITS which will help inform ZCE II. This strategy is fundamental to the achievement of mode shift. The draft budget makes provision for $400,000 for this vital piece of work.  Minimising urban heat island effect: Council’s tree planting initiatives will be aligned to the new Urban Forest Strategy implementation plan and associated budgets endorsed by Council for 2017-2018. The draft budget provides a further $500,000 towards the delivery of more mature tree stock planting in Council’s annual 5,000 trees being planted. The draft 2017-2018 budget also makes provision for $50,000 towards the scoping and development of ZCE 2020 to 2040.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 236

7. Implementation The ZCE strategy will continue to be implemented in 2017-2018, MEFL will focus resources on the following key areas:  ZCE strategy implementation - project management and reporting, leveraging external resources, developing and maintaining effective partnerships, advocacy, reviewing monitoring and evaluation methodology to ensure all actions are captured.  Delivery of medium scale, innovative solar and energy efficiency projects - drive uptake of business solar, scale up community solar projects, implement a donations based community solar model, and roll out key projects across Moreland.  Delivery of medium scale solar for schools and community groups - develop strategic partnerships to bring additional resources for schools, support schools and community organisations through the installation process, continue to work with Council’s ESD Unit to deliver the solar on leased Council facilities scheme.  Enabling community action - creating a range of guidance packs and communications materials to enable and encourage effective community action on climate change.  Expanding Positive Charge’s offers to the Moreland community - to include heat pumps and storage options as well as the current solar PV, LED light and draught-proofing and insulation programs. Council’s ESD Unit and Open Space Design and Delivery Unit will continue to plan and coordinate the annual implementation of actions in the Urban Heat Island Effect Action Plan as reported to Council in June 2107, including tree planting, water sensitive urban design projects and stormwater harvesting. Council’s Strategic Transport team will also continue to facilitate the car share program and work with ESD to encourage electric bike and electric car usage to staff and throughout the municipality (in addition to the review of the MITS in the year ahead).

Attachment/s 1⇩ MEFL response letter D17/168704

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 237 MEFL response letter Attachment 1

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 238

DED42/17 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL ACHIEVEMENTS REPORT 2016 - 2017 (D17/163375) Director Planning and Economic Development City Strategy and Design

Executive Summary This report outlines the 2016-2017 key achievements and future focus areas for four key environmentally sustainable policy areas: Corporate Carbon Reduction Plan (CCRP) 2015-2020; Watermap 2020; Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP); and Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE) Action Plan 2016-2017 – 2025-2026. Key achievements for 2016-2017 are summarised below.  Corporate carbon reduction plan Council has reduced corporate greenhouse gas emissions in 2016-2017 by 375 tonnes CO2e and will deliver savings of approximately $37,000 per annum as a result of projects delivered (the equivalent of taking 82 average cars off the road). Key projects delivered include solar photovoltaic installations at the Bob Hawke Centre, Anne Sgro Child Care Centre and Brunswick Bowls. Through managing utility bills, the Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) unit has also recovered savings totalling $104,945 in 2016- 2017. The completed bulk change of Councils minor road lighting to LED will net total energy cost savings (south and north distribution areas) of $431,000 and 3400 tonne CO2e savings annually (equivalent to taking 743 average cars off the road).  Watermap 2020 Council’s three stormwater projects deliver up to 25 million litres of treated stormwater for sports filed irrigation equating to $70,825 of potable water savings each year (equivalent to ten Olympic swimming pools). Council receives continued support from Melbourne Water’s Living Rivers Program via grant funding of $592,500 to implement projects.  Sustainable design assessment in the planning process Over 2016-2017, the ESD Unit have reviewed 375 planning permit applications (as at May 2017) to assess if they are meeting best practice sustainable design standards via the ESD Local Planning Policy in the Moreland Planning Scheme (Clause 22.08). Data collected shows for applications submitted, that on average new developments achieve 64% greenhouse gas reduction and 36% potable water savings compared to baseline conventional buildings as a result of SDAPP at Moreland. This policy won two awards in 2016-2017: A commendation in the Victorian Awards for Planning Excellence, and Winner of Best Sustainability Initiative in the LGPRO Awards for Excellence.  Urban heat island effect action plan (UHIE action plan) Key actions delivered include: development of the Draft Urban Forest Strategy for community consultation; and also the Cooling Communities project. The Moreland UHIE Action Plan demonstrates Council’s commitment to reducing UHIE and is also being reviewed by other Councils who also wish to create their own action Plan.

Recommendation Council resolves: 1. To note successful implementation in 2016/2017 of four key environmentally sustainable policy areas adopted by Council (the Corporate Carbon Reduction Plan 2015-2020; Watermap 2020; Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process; and the UHIE Action Plan 2016-2017 – 2025-2026) as detailed in this report.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 239

2. That in partnership with the ‘Joint Councils’ (Banyule, Monash, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Whitehorse and Yarra), Council writes to the Minister for Planning and request an urgent meeting to discuss an extension of the Environmentally Sustainable Development Policy and progression of a state wide approach.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 240

REPORT

1. Policy Context All four key environmentally sustainable policy areas (CCRP, Watermap 2020, SDAPP, and UHIE Action Plan) align to the Council Plan 2013-207; specific references under the theme of environmentally sustainable Moreland include the following key actions:  2.2 Review and implement Carbon Management Strategy;  12.3 Continue to implement National Carbon Offset Standard/Accreditation for Moreland; and  12.4 Implement the Integrated Water Management Plan and Stormwater Quality Targets Study. The CCRP and Watermap2020 provide a return on investment to Council via energy and water savings, which aligns with the Council Plan theme of civic leadership: Moreland City Council is financially responsible taking account of current and future needs. The SDAPP also aligns with the Council’s Plan outcomes including: reduction of non- renewable energy, fresh water usage and carbon emissions; and Moreland’s places and spaces - attractive and well maintained built environment, streetscapes and landscapes. The UHIE Action Plan incorporates municipal-wide strategies to reduce overall temperatures in Moreland, and includes specifies projects and actions targeting specific problem locations and community groups aligned to the Council Plan theme of environmentally sustainable Moreland. 2. Background This section of the report provides a brief summary of each of the four key policy areas with a high level overview of achievements and how we are progressing against adopted targets. More detailed analysis and reporting on specific targets and projects can be found at Attachment 1. Corporate carbon reduction plan Overview of achievements Since 2011, cumulative savings of $302,990 from gas and electricity bills and 2,473 tonnes CO2e have been achieved from projects delivered under the CCRP and the Council’s previous corporate carbon management strategy (2012). These savings result from a combination of energy efficiency as well as solar photovoltaic (PV) installations. Our largest buildings (Coburg Civic Centre, Brunswick Town Hall, Walter Street operations centre) have all significantly decreased in energy consumption since 2011. Figure 1 on the following page shows the electricity reduction trend for Brunswick Town Hall, a typical example, from September 2011 to present. These buildings and the libraries have all been high value targets for energy efficiency implementation since 2011 and more recently solar installations.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 241

Major Buildings Electricity Reduction Trend

50 (Brunswick Town Hall) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10

Electricity Electricity Consumption (MWh) 5

0

Jun-13 Jun-14 Jun-15 Jun-12 Jun-16

Sep-11 Sep-14 Sep-15 Sep-12 Sep-13 Sep-16

Dec-12 Dec-13 Dec-16 Dec-11 Dec-14 Dec-15

Mar-13 Mar-14 Mar-15 Mar-12 Mar-16 Mar-17

Figure 1 – Brunswick Town Hall Electricity Usage 2011-2017 Since 2011, Council’s ESD Unit has installed 21 solar PV systems on Council buildings with another three underway as part of major building upgrades/renovation. The combined installed capacity once the additional sites are operational will be 660kW providing an annual saving of 1033 tonnes of CO2e and $118,000 in energy costs. Solar PV installations made this year include:  Bob Hawke Centre – 15kW;  Coburg Civic Solar pergola upgrade – 11kW; and  Brunswick Bowls – 20kW; Anne Sgro Child Care Centre – 21kW; and Robinson Reserve Neighbourhood House – 7kW (as part of the solar on Council leased facilities project). For further detail on all solar PV sites implemented since 2011, please refer to Attachment 1. In 2016-2017, the CCRP delivered a number of completed energy efficiency measures:  Coburg Civic Centre high efficiency reverse cycle thermal plant upgrade (stage 3);  Heating Ventilation and Cooling system upgrade servicing Campbell Turnbull Library to a high efficiency reverse cycle with economy mode;  Upgrade of the Heating Ventilation and Cooling system servicing the Mechanics Institute in Brunswick (shifting from 20 year old gas boilers to high efficiency reverse cycle with economy mode);  Installation of Voltage Power Optimisation technology at Brunswick Baths;  Continuation of LED lighting upgrade at both the Coburg Civic Centre and Brunswick Town Hall; and  Upgrade to LED lighting at Coburg Library.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 242

How we are progressing against targets The CCRP emissions reductions target of 30% reduction from 2011 levels by 2020 is on track when investigating current trends in emissions data gathered in Council’s National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS) accreditation process. Figure 2 below shows the annual emissions trend for all of Council’s operations. The lower than trend 2012/2013 result is an outlier caused by the Hadfield operations depot emissions not being included in the calculation for that year. Refer to the issues section for projected emissions to 2019-2020 including future emissions reduction projects in the pipeline for ESD.

Figure 2 – Moreland Total Emissions 2011-2012-2015-2016 Watermap 2020 Overview of Achievements Key projects delivered under WaterMap 2020 in 2016-2017 have included:  Project 1: Hosken Reserve (Coburg North) Stormwater Harvesting Project Construction of new stormwater harvesting system delivering 7 million litres of treated stormwater each year.  Project 2: Herbert Street living stream This project returned a degraded former section of Moonee Ponds Creek to a functional waterway.  Project 3: WSUD for developers Development of new guidance for developers to support and assist them in meeting the stormwater and water efficiency requirements of the Moreland Planning Scheme local policy Clause 22.08 - Environmentally Sustainable Development (Clause 22.08).

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 243

 Project 4: Council building water efficiency Retrofit of water efficiency and water quality treatments to Coburg Civic Centre, including rainwater harvesting and raingardens.  Project 5: Passively irrigated street tree trials – Barrow Street, Brunswick Trialling different street tree planting designs to allow for passive irrigation of trees and assess the most effective designs for improved street tree health.  Project 6: Incorporation of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) into capital works projects Inclusion of streetscape raingardens and tree pits and other WSUD features has been achieved for several capital works projects. A more detailed summary of the achievement/key benefits delivered for each of the above listed projects can be found at Attachment 1. How we are progressing against targets WaterMap 2020 contains seven key targets (including sub targets). Below is a summary of achievement against these targets. Of the seven targets, three are being met, three are progressing towards achieving their metrics and one (target 1) is not on track, however individual sub-targets within this target are being met. Further discussion of how these issues are being address is contained in the Issues section and Attachment 1.  Target 1 – reduce Council’s total potable water usage by 30% from 2001 levels (400 ML/a) to 280 ML/a by 2020: The potable water consumption of Council in 2015/2016 was 447.7 ML. Overall consumption has increased significantly.  Target 1, sub target 1.1 - 30 ML/a of irrigation water to be reuse water from local stormwater harvesting infrastructure by 2020: Council has installed stormwater harvesting infrastructure supplying 25 ML/a as of 30 June 2017 – with an additional 5 ML/a required to meet sub-target 1.1.  Target 1, sub target 1.2 - Improve community sportsground irrigation efficiency to 75% for 100% of class A sportsfields and irrigated parks by 2020: Of Council’s 10 Class A sporting reserves, all 10 have irrigation infrastructure are now classed as ‘good’, corresponding to a minimum 75% irrigation efficiency.  Target 1, sub target 1.3 - All Council facilities to have best practice fittings, appliances and toilets and rainwater tanks installed where possible:  All new Council buildings and facilities meet the standard through the implementation of Moreland’s Sustainable Buildings Policy.  Retrofitting of existing buildings continues, in 2016-2017 this focussed on improving the Civic Centre water efficiency.  Target 2 – Treat 11% of Council’s stormwater catchments to best practice by 2020: Overall 3.63% of Council’s overall catchment area has been treated to date (this figure does not include WSUD implementation such as rainwater tanks installed on existing properties).  Target 3 – Implementation of WSUD into all Council capital works projects: This target is being met by the implementation of: Moreland’s Sustainable Buildings Policy; Clause 22.08; and increased WSUD inclusion in engineering projects.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 244

 Target 4 – Advocate integrated water cycle management (IWCM) to and on behalf of the community: The ESD unit continue to advocate IWCM at local and state government level, conferences and through educational material for the community.  Target 5 – All new residential developments of greater than 2 dwellings and non- residential developments greater than 100m² to incorporate best practice water efficient fittings, water reuse and/or recycling and stormwater management: Clause 22.08 of the Moreland Planning Scheme addresses this requirement, over 375 developments have been required to meet this standard to date in 2016-2017.  Target 6 – 25% reduction in community potable water consumption from 2001 baseline consumption to 10.1 GL/a by 2020:  Total community potable water consumption (both commercial and household) was 12.0 GL/a in 2015/2016. This is a decrease on the 2001 baseline consumption of 13.6 GL/a, however is above the 10.1 GL/a 2020 target. Per household consumption however has fallen by 25%.  Figure 3 shows the community potable water consumption trend from 2001-2002 up to 2015-2016.  Target 7 – 50% of Moreland households have an installed rainwater tank by 2020. 25% of Moreland households have an on-lot stormwater treatment raingarden or other stormwater treatment mechanism by 2020:  The Household Survey found 34.5% of Moreland Households have an installed rainwater tank and another 12.7% are considering installing one; while the WaterSmart survey found 26% of Moreland Households have an installed rainwater tank.  Of all new buildings approved in 2016-2017, over 340 included rainwater tanks.

Figure 3 - Moreland Annual Potable Water Consumption

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 245

Sustainable design assessment in the planning process (SDAPP) Overview of achievements Clause 22.08 of the Moreland Planning Scheme has been in effect since the gazettal of Amendment C71 on 19 November 2015. The ESD Unit has been assessing development applications for compliance with best practice sustainable design and providing feedback to planners and directly to applicants and their consultants. The Clause 22.08 responses from applicants and amendments required by the ESD Unit have resulted in the following environmental outcomes in 2016-2017: Energy  Average NatHERS rating of applications was 6.04 Stars, this increased to 6.55 after assessment by ESD officers and included in planning permits to meet 10% improvement on National Construction Code minimum requirements.  80 applications committed to installing a total of 453 kW solar PV.  BESS data for planning applications submitted indicates on average new developments achieve 64% greenhouse gas reduction compared to baseline conventional buildings. Water and stormwater  357 kL of rainwater tanks approved in Moreland (equivalent of 3.5 Olympic swimming pools).  324,330 m² of land meeting the stormwater treatment best practice benchmarks (0.63% of Moreland’s total area).  BESS data for planning applications submitted indicates on average new developments achieve 36% potable water savings compared to baseline conventional buildings. Good design practice  All developments with exposed north and west facing glazing were required to demonstrate appropriate shading. For west facing glazing this was predominantly achieved with operable shading devices to reduce peak cooling loads and heat stress for occupants. Transport  4085 new bicycle spaces in developments committed to and shown on plans for new developments. Urban ecology  Developments with little or no landscape response were required to provide an improved response, typically this was a problem in multi-apartment developments. Improved responses included planter boxes for balconies, green façade treatments and in some cases rooftop terraces were added to designs.  16 multi-unit developments included a rooftop garden or green façade. Urban heat island effect action plan Overview of achievements The UHIE Action Plan has 5 overarching strategies with several targets which are to be achieved by the 2025-2026 Plan timeframe. These targets range from: incorporating UHIE mitigation and adaptation strategies into all Council policies and processes:  increased vegetation cover;  engaging with stakeholders to encourage cool buildings and cool roofs;  enhancing cool roofs in industrial areas;  research, investigate and trial the installation of cool roads and paths; and  increase community action to response to the UHIE.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 246

The ESD team and other Units in Council have progressed these targets in all 5 strategies and are continuing to work on achieving the overall goals. Key projects which have been delivered under the UHIE Action Plan in 2016-2017 which progress these targets include:  Project 1: Draft Urban Forest Strategy (UFS) The Open Space Unit has prepared the draft UFS which will improve vegetation cover in streets and parks, and improve protection of trees on private land.  Project 2: Cooling communities Working with State Government, the Moreland Energy Foundation and social housing providers, this project has successfully trialled various options for retrofitting homes to reduce heat vulnerability for vulnerable residents.  Project 3: Facilitating cooler and greener buildings through the planning process The ESD team continues to improve urban ecology in new buildings via the planning process, such as via green roofs and landscaping, and to make homes less reliant on air conditioning via measures such as external shading and improved design.  Project 4: Creating cooler roads and paths Council’s Urban Design and Engineering Services units continue to introduce water sensitive urban design into road and footpath reconstructions to provide localised cooler of our streets as well as stormwater benefits.  Project 5: Advocacy and education The ESD team continues to educate the community and external partners about the UHIE, including at various conferences and via the Cooling Communities project. 3. Issues This section of the report details other issues Council Officers are addressing in relation to each of the 4 key environmentally sustainable policy areas (CCRP, Watermap 2020, SDAPP, UHIE Action Plan), as listed below:  Corporate Carbon Reduction Plan key issues: Melbourne Renewable Energy Project; Hydrogen heavy vehicle trial; Sustainable Buildings Policy; and CCRP Targets.  Watermap 2020 key issues: Rising water consumption and costs; and Maintenance of WSUD assets.  Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process: Increase in ESD planning referrals; and Sunset clause for ESD Policy is looming (December 2017).  Urban Heat Island Effect Action Plan: Implementing UHIE Action Plan across Councils operations. Corporate carbon reduction plan Melbourne renewable energy project 54% of our annual emissions are due to electricity consumption. This consumption imposes a heavy financial cost on Council annually and is a common issue for many local governments and other bodies. The Melbourne Renewable Energy Project (MREP) was developed by the City of Melbourne looking to drive change in the purchase of renewable energy. The project vision includes a demonstration of leadership, brand reputation, an identifiable connection with renewables and carbon neutrality aspirations. The object is to assemble a buying group of organisations with likeminded goals and a combined annual electrical load of at least 110GWh to seek a market offer to supply renewable energy directly from a generator (solar or wind).

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 247

The 14 partners (including Moreland) consists of four Councils, two banks, two universities, Zoos Victoria, Australia Post, Citywide, Next DC, Fed Square, and Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. Subject to Council’s endorsement (expected in July 2017), this project will deliver 100% renewable electricity for all Council end uses, significantly reducing the requirements for carbon offsets maintaining Council’s NCOS accreditation. Hydrogen heavy vehicle trial Moreland is once again demonstrating its leadership in alternative transport advocacy and action by progressing the renewable hydrogen fleet fuel project. A feasibility study was delivered in 2016 for the project, which established the framework for a business case to develop a renewable hydrogen refuelling facility in Moreland. An expression of interest was advertised nationally calling for providers with conceptual solutions to transition Council’s heavy fleet operations to a renewable hydrogen system consisting of:  On-site generated renewable hydrogen refuelling infrastructure solutions specific to Councils fleet; and  Provision of options for hydrogen fuel cell powered heavy fleet vehicles capable of delivering at least the equivalent duty cycle of current diesel powered derivatives. The objectives underpinning the need to move to renewable hydrogen as part of Council’s transition to zero emissions fleet and primarily to power Councils heavy fleet operations are:  Understanding the urgency required in reducing emissions from fleet operations, in particular heavy fleet operations;  Acknowledging the devastating environmental, social and health impacts the combustion of fossil fuels is having on the local community and the natural world;  Recognising the inefficiencies associated with continued use of internal combustion engines;  Progressively moving renewable energy into the fleet fuel space;  Acknowledging the power to weight ratio and refuelling time limitations of current battery technology for commercial vehicles;  Significant reduction of noise and local airborne emissions associated with the operation of heavy diesel powered vehicles in the urban environment; and  Promoting the environmental benefits of moving to zero emissions fleet operations to community, business and to all tiers of government. Council’s heavy vehicle fleet accounts for half of the total fleet emissions. The transition to zero emission operation for these heavy vehicles will assist in reaching our CCRP targets and further reducing carbon offsets required for Council’s operations. Sustainable buildings policy The policy is undergoing a gap analysis to assess its benchmarks and sustainability targets against current industry best practice. To date this analysis supports updates to the policy to allow Council buildings to remain at the forefront of sustainable building design. Council’s ESD Unit has been working closely with the Capital Works team to identify improvements to the way the policy is implemented on capital works projects, particularly focused around capturing design requirements for design consultants and ensuring designs are built to the policy standard by the contractors.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 248

As part of this project, an ESD matrix is being developed to enable capital works project managers to tailor each project’s policy requirements, provide detailed scope for design consultants and track achievement of policy benchmarks. This tailored, project specific matrix will become part of the contract documentation, ensuring that contractors are aware of all ESD requirements when tendering for projects, avoiding costly variations during construction. The contractor will be required to report back on all targets included in the matrix to demonstrate compliance with the policy. The matrix is currently being developed by Council Officers and external consultants. CCRP Targets The CCRP Leadership Reduction Goal of 30% reduction in emissions on 2011 levels by 2020 is on track at current rate of reductions. The CCRP “Reach Reduction Goal” of 40% would be unlikely to be achieved without the MREP and Hydrogen vehicle projects (as discussed earlier in this report). Figure 4 below shows projected emissions trajectory up until 2019-2020, should the MREP and Hydrogen projects be successfully implemented and in operation (therefore contributing to Council’s emissions reduction “Reach Reduction Goal” of 40%. Based on 2015/2016 emissions levels, the removal of all electricity based emissions due to the MREP project (subject to successful implementation) and emissions attributed to the garbage truck fleet improvements (again subject to successful implementation) would result in a 70% reduction in emissions against CCRP targets. These projects are critical to the achievement of the 40% Reach Reduction Goal and meeting Council’s net zero target by 2030.

Figure 4 - Moreland Forecast Emissions to 2019-2020

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 249

WaterMap 2020 Rising water consumption and costs Council’s water consumption has risen by over 250% since the millennium drought rising from a low of 172,484 kL (or 172,484,000 litres) in 2010-2011 to be 447,657 kL (or 447,657,000 litres) in 2015-2016. Council is also exposed to further water cost price increases with the forecast of increased water costs arising from desalination plant water orders. Since June 2013 the cost of water to Council has already increased from $1.91/kL to $2.80/kL in May 2017 – a cost increase of 46%. There is an expected 7.75 c/kL increase associated with a 50 ML desalination order, leading to a likely $33,000 increase in 2017-2018. Melbourne Water has forecast future tariff surcharges up-to an additional 25.8 c/kL possible if a 150ML desalination order is placed, leaving Council exposed to an $115,495 increase in water supply charges above current charges under this scenario. These charges will be the same for residential and business customers which will impact the broad community. The above consumption and cost increases provide greater impetus for and increased return on investment with water efficiency, stormwater and recycled water reuse projects. Council’s ESD Unit will continue to work with the Open Space and Sportsground teams to investigate water harvesting opportunities and other water saving initiatives to reduce the amount of potable water used for sports ground irrigation and future proof the grounds for community use. Without such alternate water supplies and water saving actions the useability of Council’s community sportsfields will be significantly reduced in periods of drought. Maintenance of WSUD assets Regular maintenance is required of WSUD assets such as raingardens and tree pits in order for them to continue to effectively work for their design lifetimes. Currently the maintenance of new stormwater assets is being absorbed within existing budgets; however as future maintenance loads increase further funding is required. In particular, the Coburg Hill development will result in a large increase in Council’s maintenance responsibilities due to 45 streetscape raingardens, 3 raingarden swales and a 525m² end-of-line treatment raingarden assets becoming Council’s assets in 2016-2017. The successful implementation of Moreland Watermap 2020 will also result in additional stormwater assets requiring maintenance including new stormwater harvesting infrastructure, raingardens and tree pits. The ESD Unit, Urban Design Unit, Open Space Maintenance and the Capital Works Planning and Delivery Planning team are working together to understand the cost implications of the increased maintenance requirements and identify potential solutions. Sustainable design assessment in the planning process Increase in ESD planning referrals Amendment C71 introduced local policy Clause 22.08 - Environmentally Sustainable Development (Clause 22.08) into the Moreland Planning Scheme and the policy has been in effect since the amendment’s gazettal 19 November 2015. In this time the number of referrals to the ESD team from the Statutory Urban Planning team has greatly increased. As Figure 4 on the following page shows, the referrals to the ESD unit have increased by 300% in 2016-2017 compared to the same time last year.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 250

Figure 5 - Planning referrals to ESD 2006-2007-2016-2017 As shown in figure 5 above, to date this year the ESD team has reviewed in excess of 375 planning permit applications. This figure also does not reflect the additional time spent on these referrals, which often involve a secondary review of the ESD information once a planning permit is issued or if design changes occur. The statutory planning team received nearly 1,976 planning permit applications in the 2015-2016 financial year, being a new record. Many of these applications trigger ESD requirements. Council through its 2016-2017 budgeting process has supported temporary additional resources for a two year period to support the implementation of the ESD Policy. It is likely that a future business case will be presented to Council to recommend continuation of resourcing as trends indicate that planning permit application numbers are increasing, not declining (this business case is also subject to the outcomes of Minister’s for Planning’s consideration of extending the ESD Policy and/or adopting a state wide approach). Sunset clause for ESD Policy is looming (December 2017) As Clause 22.08 approaches the date of the Amendment C71 sunset clause (December 2017), Council’s ESD Unit are working closely with Department of Environment Land Water and Planning (DELWP) and the Council Alliance for Sustainable Built Environments (CASBE) to analyse data captured by the CASBE Councils with ESD policies equivalent to Clause 22.08. The study is focusing on assessing the impact of the policies on the planning process in addition to environmental outcomes achieved in new applications. The ESD Unit, in collaboration with CASBE, is strongly advocating to DELWP for the ESD policy expiry date to be extended beyond 31 December 2017. This includes recently submitting to DELWP six months of data about the policy outcomes/benefits (including timeframes for the ESD assessment, environmental objectives being achieved, etc.). A thorough report is also being submitted to DELWP as part of this process, which details: the history of the policy; how it has achieved excellent environmental outcomes; and how well it is being accepted by the development community. The ESD Unit and CASBE have also had several meetings with DELWP Planning Officers communicating why the ESD policy must be extended in order to fulfil Local, State, Federal and international environmental objectives and commitments (such as the recent Victorian Climate Change Act).

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 251

DELWP Officers have verbally indicated a resistance to extend the policy and have indicated their desire to again review the necessity of the policy and the role of ESD in the planning system. This is of significant concern for all Councils involved, given the recommendation of the Ministerial Advisory Committee Report, which stated that a local approach should not be discouraged while a state wide approach is pursued. The ESD Local Planning Polices (for relevant Councils) each have an expiry clause of 31 December 2017, or earlier if superseded by an equivalent provision of the Victorian Planning Provisions. Letters on behalf of all the Mayors of the Councils with this ESD policy were sent in May 2017 to the Minister for Planning. At the time of writing this report there has been no response from the Minister indicating whether the policies will be extended in the respective planning schemes of:  Clause 22.05 to the Banyule Planning Scheme;  Clause 22.13 to the Monash Planning Scheme;  Clause 22.08 to the Moreland Planning Scheme;  Clause 22.13 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme ;  Clause 22.05 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme;  Clause 22.10 to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme; and  Clause 22.17 to the Yarra Planning Scheme. Additionally, no formal response from the Minister has been received to indicate when a state wide approach will be considered or consulted on. Officers therefore believe there is a significant risk that the ESD policy will be expired, and the significant gains made in this space over a decade plus to influence sustainable design outcomes in the planning process will be lost. Sustainability has been a core part of the planning framework in Moreland for over 10 years and the ESD Policy in Moreland’s planning scheme is achieving tangible benefits for future residents, workers and visitors. Buildings are clearly a key part of Victoria’s climate change mitigation response and this policy ensures that sustainability is considered holistically as part of the early design phase, when the opportunities are greatest. Council officers therefore recommend that Moreland proceed a with ramped up advocacy at a political level (involving Local Members, Mayors and Chief Executive Officers) in conjunction with the joint Councils listed above in order to ensure the ESD policies do not expire and that a state wide approach is progressed.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 252

Urban heat island effect action plan Implementing UHIE action plan across Councils operations The UHIE has 5 key strategies and 37 key actions for implementing the overarching goals and recommendations of the strategy. The responsibility delivering these actions lie across many parts of Council. The background section of this report and Attachment 1 details what has been delivered in 2016-2107, however below are two key actions that haven’t progressed as planned in 2016-2017 (and why) and also the next steps for these actions:  Action 1.5 – subject to an analysis of the pros and cons, prepare a new Landscape Policy and associated guidelines for inclusion in the Moreland Planning Scheme to increase vegetation cover on private land:  The Minister for Planning has recently gazetted changes to the residential zones, which include additional garden area requirements; an assessment of these changes is currently being undertaken by Councils strategic planners to understand the impacts of the changes and also on the scope of this action. Additionally, Council is also currently revising the Local Law, which will also influence how vegetation is protected on private land (Action 1.7 in the UHIE Action Plan), which will also influence how Action 1.5 is progressed by Council Officers.  Action 1.9 – Investigate the potential to encourage the use of electric vehicles through incentives in the Parking Management Policy:  This action was noted as being part of existing base funding rather than being funded by additional resourcing. However the review of the Parking Management Policy is not scheduled to commence until 2017-2018. It is expected that as part of that review the policy will be altered to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. As partnership and/or grant funding opportunities arise, Council Officers will continue to pursue such opportunities to support delivery of the UHIE Action 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. 4. Consultation This report has been prepared in collaboration across the organisation. 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 Corporate carbon reduction plan A continuation of the successful energy efficiency and solar PV program will reduce Council’s energy bills and exposure to offset costs. Council has earmarked capital project funding in 2017-2018 of $400,000 for the ongoing implementation of local renewable energy generation in particular solar PV; and $100,000 for the ongoing implementation of energy efficiency actions across Council buildings.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 253

Utility data management Utility bill management resulted in total savings of $104,945.21 for 2016-2017 (as at May 2017), a breakdown of the savings achieved is shown below: Item $ Credit Cheques received $47,713.07 Credits applied $7,794.73 Charges withdrawn $29,037.22 Charges written off $492.24 Tenant site - $ retracted and transferred to $1,780.22 tenant 12 months projected savings on overcharged $18,127.73 accounts Total $104,945.21 Watermap 2020 Continuation of the successful Watermap program of works will reduce Council’s water bills and expose to future water prices increases from desalination water orders. In 2017-2018 Council has earmarked capital funds of:  $100,000 for design of a new stormwater harvesting system (Melbourne Water has also committed $65,000 for this project);  $150,000 for implementation of water sensitive design (Melbourne Water has also committed $150,000 for these projects); and  $50,000 for building water efficiency and stormwater improvement works (Melbourne Water has committed $50,000 for the implementation of these works). SDAPP Through Council’s membership ($6,000 per annum) Council will continue to support the Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment (CASBE) network in 2017-2018. CASBE is coordinated by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) and provides advocacy and education for improved sustainability in the built environment. To access the Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard (BESS tool), administered by MAV, Councils pay an annual subscription fee which provides free access to the tool for planning permit applicants within their municipalities. The funding supports ongoing administration, minor upgrades and maintenance of the tool. The funds required for this BESS subscription ($10,000) are also budgeted for. Funding for one Council Officer position responsible for SDAPP is supported by Melbourne Water, however neither Council or Melbourne Water’s funding is guaranteed to be an ongoing. It is likely that a future business case will be presented to Council to secure a more permanent arrangement to advocate for the ESD unit to continue to maintain the high level of service it currently provides to internal and external stakeholders.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 254

Moreland Urban Heat Island Effect Action Plan 2015-2016 – 2025-2026 Continuation of the successful implementation of the UHIE Action Plan program of works will reduce the impact and severity of the UHIE across the municipality. There are approximately 25 key action plan projects which are either unfunded or only partially funded, therefore relying on new funding and/or partnerships to be delivered. These projects have varying delivery dates. Council has demonstrated its capacity to receive funding grants for UHIE projects, as the Cooling Communities project has been facilitated by $80,000 grant funding from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s 2015 Climate Change grant program. Council’s Lead Units nominated to delivery key actions in the UHIE Action Plan will actively prepare business cases, seek partnerships and apply for grant funding opportunities as appropriate to ensure ongoing implementation of the plan. 7. Implementation Key deliverables for the four environmentally sustainable policy areas for the 2017-2018 period are detailed below. CCRP  Delivery of Stage 4 (final stage) of the Coburg Civic Centre high efficiency reverse cycle thermal plant upgrade.  Implementation of the Melbourne Renewable Energy Project (MREP) sourcing all of Councils electricity directly from a renewable energy generator along with 13 corporate partners led by City of Melbourne.  Deliver of 4 Solar on Leased facilities projects in partnership with MEFL. Sites include Dawson St Child Care Cooperative, Barry Beckett Children’s Centre and two others to be confirmed.  Hydrogen Heavy Fleet Fuel partnership agreement and development application establishment. Implementation of the renewable hydrogen fleet refuelling station at Hadfield Operations Centre. Partner in the development and testing of prototype hydrogen fuel cell waste vehicles beginning the transition to zero emissions for Moreland heavy fleet operations. Watermap 2020  Design of a new stormwater harvesting system. The preferred option currently being investigated is City Oval with both precinct level and local scale options being considered.  Design work and construction of large-scale WSUD at Jones Reserve, Brunswick East.  Continuation of monitoring of the Barrow Street passively irrigated street tree trials. Expected completion is in December 2017 with reporting to Council in early 2018.  Design and construction of water efficiency and stormwater treatment improvement works at the Coburg Civic Centre. SDAPP  Continued assessment of ESD information submitted with planning permit applications against Clause 22.08 criteria and standards.  Improvement of support materials, internal processes and training for Urban Planners to support the ongoing implementation of Clause 22.08 assessment.  Establishment and implementation of improved data management to allow monitoring and evaluation of Clause 22.08 implementation process.  Advocate to the State Government to extend the sunset clause on Amendment C71 which introduced Clause 22.08, including advocacy via CASBE and the MAV.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 255

UHIE Action Plan  The ESD and the Engineering Services teams will continue to collaborate to create cooler roads and paths in Moreland in road and path reconstructions. When road reconstructions are designed, opportunity for street tree planting, passive irrigation and water sensitive urban design is explored in all projects rather than traditional pipe and pit drainage infrastructure.  The Open Space Unit will progress the actions of the Urban Forest Strategy, including doubling Moreland’s public realm canopy cover by 2030 and improving protection of existing private canopy. This will work towards the targets of the UHIE Action Plan which focus upon improving green infrastructure and cooling the municipality.  The Open Space Unit and ESD will continue to maximise opportunities for planting, increased tree canopy, passive irrigation and water sensitive urban design in the private realm, including via working with developers through the planning process and with community groups.  The Strategic Transport team will continue to implement 40km/hr speed limitations which has UHIE benefits such as allowing the opportunity for traffic calming via vegetation. Streets which will be investigated in the coming year include streets in Pascoe Vale South to the west of CityLink, north of Moreland Road and east of the Moonee Ponds Creek.  The Strategic Transport Unit is undertaking a review of the Parking Management Policy in 2017-2018 which will include provisions encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles.  The Strategic Transport Unit, Urban Design and other Units will continue to review the Sydney Road corridor (Brunswick to Coburg) with VicRoads and the Department of Transport. This includes greening options, such as increasing street tree and raingardens, prioritising trams and bicycles over private vehicles and traffic calming via methods such as vegetated median strips.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Environmentally Sustainable Development Annual Achievements D17/177080 Report

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 256

DED43/17 A PARK CLOSE TO HOME: A FRAMEWORK TO FILL OPEN SPACE GAPS (D17/147812) Director Planning and Economic Development City Strategy and Design

Executive Summary The Subdivisions Act 1988 allows local government to seek a cash payment or land contribution (or a combination of both) in a subdivision. Funds collected are held and accounted for in a specific reserve, in Moreland’s case, the Public Resort and Recreation Land Fund (PRRLF). Moreland is undergoing a period of rapid growth and Council is committed to investing in a high quality open space network that keeps pace with this growth. A Park Close to Home: A Framework to Fill Open Space Gaps (the Framework) will deliver improved open space to those areas in Moreland with the lowest access to open space and where there is high population growth. It will ensure that land is purchased using the PRRLF to provide for new open space in a proactive and strategic manner, to ensure the greatest improvement in open space provision to both the existing and future populations of Moreland. The Framework (at Attachment 1) identifies the open space gap areas in Moreland that are not adequately serviced by open space, and prioritises these gap areas. It then provides for a proactive approach to land purchase to service these gap areas, by either negotiating purchase with landowners, purchasing through the open market, and/or acquiring land in lieu of a cash based open space contribution. No landowner will be forced to sell their land, and the land will not be compulsorily acquired. Lease agreements or shared use agreements may also be pursued to improve service to open space gap areas. Ongoing monitoring of the Framework will ensure its effectiveness, and allow for informed decision making about expenditure of the PRRLF on other open space needs. The Framework is the culmination of extensive strategic work undertaken by Council’s Strategy, Property, Open Space and Urban Design Units. It is an innovative and forward thinking approach to creating new open space. The Framework will ensure Council achieves the Strategic Initiative set out in the Draft Council Plan, 2017-2022, to create at least two new parks, in areas of most need in the city, and this is the ultimate measure of success for the Framework. This report recommends that Council adopt the (draft) Framework for community consultation; noting there will be a further report to Council to adopt the Framework.

Recommendation Council resolves: 1. To endorse the draft ‘A Park Close to Home: A Framework to Fill Open Space Gaps’ at Attachment 1 for community consultation. 2. To note the open space gap areas identified within the draft framework at Attachment 1 to this Report. 3. To receive a further report that presents a summary of community consultation, provides a response to the consultation and presents the final Framework for adoption. 4. That the Director Corporate Services be authorised to commence negotiations to purchase land to service gap areas, in accordance with the draft Framework and open space gap areas identified in the Framework. 5. To adopt an approach of allocating approximately ten percent of the previous full financial year’s income to the PRRLF on open space upgrades/improvement projects across Moreland as part of the annual budget process.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 268

6. To note that officers will commence work to recruit a dedicated officer to expedite implementation of the Framework, and that this officer will be funded through the PRRLF.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 269

REPORT

1. Policy Context Draft and current Council Plans The draft Council Plan, available for community consultation between 22 May and 21 June 2017-2021, recognises Council’s services must respond to the cities changing form while maintaining and enhancing our transport and open space networks, community facilities and services, and the wellbeing and connectedness of our people. In response, the draft Council Plan contains the strategic initiative to:  Increase tree canopy cover, enhance existing open space and create two new parks, in areas with the lowest access to open space. The current Council Plan 2013-2017 contains the key strategy to implement the Moreland Open Space Strategy (MOSS). The Moreland Open Space Strategy provides the overall policy direction for Council’s future provision, planning, design and management of publicly owned open space. The Subdivision Act 1988 and Public Resort and Recreation Land Fund (Open Space Contribution Reserve) The Subdivision Act 1988 allows Council to seek a cash payment or land contribution (or a combination of both) towards open space at the time of subdivision. Cash contributions are held in the ‘Public Resort and Recreation Land Fund (PRRLF).’ The PRRLF is also referred to as the Open Space Contribution Reserve. There is no requirement for Council to spend the funds collected in the suburb that they were collected from, as the public open space contribution is a form of taxation that is tied to a specific purpose. When monies are collected, Council has discretion on where to spend the collected funds, as long as the funds are spent on open space projects. Section 20 of the Subdivision Act 1988 provides that:  A Council must set aside for public open space any land which is vested in the Council for that purpose.  The Council must use any payment towards public open space it receives under this Act or has received under section 569B(8A) of the Local Government Act 1958 but has not applied under subsection (8C) of that section or the proceeds of any sale of public open space to:  buy land for use for public recreation or public resort, as parklands or for similar purposes;  improve land already set aside, zoned or reserved (by the Council, the Crown, a planning scheme or otherwise) for use for public recreation or public resort, as parklands or for similar purposes; or  with the approval of the Minister administering the Local Government Act 1989, improve land (whether set aside on a plan or not) used for public recreation or public resort, as parklands or for similar purposes. Section 5 of the Framework at Attachment 1 outlines Council and other stakeholder strategies and policies that identify open space projects which may be eligible for funding through the PRRLF.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 270

The Moreland Open Space Strategy (MOSS) The MOSS defines the areas of Moreland not adequately served by open space as being areas further than a 500 metre safe walking distance from open space outside of an activity centre, or further than 300 metres if within an activity centre. MOSS sets out that these areas are to be prioritised for the provision of new open space or improvement of linkages to open space. The MOSS maps these areas using ‘as the crow flies’ measurements, the best available tool at the time of the MOSS preparation, however using a crow flies measurement results in the gap areas appearing ‘smaller’ than they actually are when measured using a walking distance, as required by MOSS policy. To address this inconsistency, and to ensure best practice analysis, the Framework identifies the actual ‘walkable’ distances to open space and uses these to identify the open space gap areas. The MOSS contains the goal (goal 1) to provide parks close to home, and seeks to achieve this through a strategy to:  improve the provision and access to functional open space, within designated principal, major, neighbourhood and local activity centres, by providing high quality open space within 300m safe walking distance of the activity centre. Further to this strategy, the MOSS recommends that open space is provided within 500m of all residential properties, and 300m to all activity centres. The MOSS includes the strategy, to which this Framework responds:  to prepare a land acquisition policy to guide Council’s strategic acquisition of land for open space and open space improvements. 2. Background Previous reports to Council on Open Space Contributions At the April 2015 Council Meeting, Council resolved via a General Business item (GB15/19) in relation to Open Space Contributions. This item resolved to receive a report outlining both the options to identify and pursue land acquisition in priority areas of the Moreland Open Space Strategy, and to identify the items that have been funded from the Open Space Contribution Reserve since 2012 and the proposed expenditure allocated against the Open Space Contribution Reserve in the Strategic Resources Plan and five year capital works plan. A report on these items was tabled at the September 2015 Council Meeting (DCS72/15 - Open Space Reserve Expenditure). At this meeting, Council resolved to note that scoping of a project had commenced to identify and pursue land acquisition in priority areas on a more proactive basis. At the October 2016 Council meeting, a report DED80/16 - Review of the Public Resort Recreation and Land Fund (PRRLF) for Open Space 5 October 2016 was considered, and Council resolved to note that a review of the PRRLF would recommend a strategic approach to the allocation of the fund across upgrade of existing open space and proactive purchase and development of new open space. This report and the Framework is the output of that review. Current process for acquiring land for open space The current Council approach to purchasing land is not proactive; it is essentially based on a ‘watch and wait’ principle of assessing land available for purchase as to whether it would be suitable for acquisition for open space. This is approach is undertaken mainly through informal monitoring of the real estate market in Moreland and through notification by State Government departments and agencies (particularly VicRoads, VicTrack and the Department of Treasury and Finance) advising of government land declared as surplus.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 271

These opportunities are investigated and assessed against the MOSS. The assessment includes an internal consultation process. Reports are then presented to Council on whether to acquire the land or not, and how it might be funded. A more proactive approach is recommended in future, as set out in the Framework, to ensure purchasing occurs where land is needed most to service those areas with lowest access to open space. 3. Issues The need for a proactive approach to strategic land purchase in gap areas Moreland is undergoing a period of rapid growth and it is important that Council’s investment in a high quality open space network keeps pace with this growth. Population projections for the City of Moreland prepared by i.d Consulting released in May 2017 indicate that Moreland is now projected to have a total population of 228,807 by 2036. This represents an increase of 48.3% between 2011 and 2036, or an additional 74,562 residents. In this context of strong and continued population growth across all suburbs (with the exception of Gowanbrae), it is appropriate that Council prioritise spending from the PRRLF on the open space gap areas. As of May 2017, the current balance of the PRRLF is approximately $37 million. Expenditure of the existing monies in the PRRLF is best undertaken in an accelerated, proactive manner. This will ensure strategic land acquisition not only where existing open space gaps exist, but where gaps will be further exacerbated by population growth. By establishing that open space gap areas are a key priority for open space expenditure, and that expenditure should be accelerated in these areas, other open space needs will become a lower priority for expenditure of the fund in the interim. This does not mean the spending on these items will not occur. Any decision made on expending the fund on any other open space need must be considered in the context of prioritising the delivery of new open spaces in accordance with the Framework. Ongoing monitoring and reporting on fund expenditure will ensure appropriate priority is given to improving provision of open space to service gap areas. Scope of the draft framework to fill open space gap areas The draft ‘A Park Close to Home: A Framework to Fill Open Space Gaps’ at Attachment 1 sets out how the PRRLF could be spent on closing open space gaps, to provide new open spaces to areas that are deficient in open space to meet the needs of an increasing population associated with expected residential growth. In essence, there are four main parts to the Framework:  identifying the open space gap areas;  purchasing land to service the gap area;  converting this land to open space; and  ongoing monitoring of the Framework. These parts are set out in detail in the Framework, and in summary below: Identifying the gap areas The gap areas identified in the Framework at Attachment 1 are not serviced by open space at appropriate levels. Gap areas do not have the access to open space, of any size or type within the distance that the MOSS identifies to be appropriate. This is a particular concern for Council due to the high rate of growth in the residential population across Moreland, particularly within activity centres. These gap areas will become a greater issue as population continues to grow.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 272

In response to the fact that Activity Centres will see the most dense forms of development and highest population growth, the MOSS requires a greater provision of open space within walking distance to these areas (under MOSS policy, more parks will be required in and around Activity Centres as properties within Activity Centres must be within 300m of open space, rather than 500m for the rest of Moreland). This Framework will ensure that by developing additional parks within gap areas, that as Moreland’s population increases, access to parks will also improve. High and Medium priority gap areas have been identified in the draft Framework. High priority gap areas are those that currently have the highest number of properties within them, and medium priority gap areas are all remaining areas located within an Activity Centre. Population growth will continue to occur within all gap areas, further exacerbating the inadequacy of the open space provision across all gap areas, and furthering the need to ensure proactive acquisition of land. Purchasing land The Framework sets out a series of tasks to be undertaken to identify land that would be appropriate to purchase to convert to open space. The purchase of these sites will be pursued through a process of negotiation with landowners. No landowner will be ‘forced’ to sell their land, and the land will not be compulsorily acquired. Aside from the potential distress compulsory acquisition may cause land owners, compensation costs could be significantly over and above the property’s value. Given that compulsory acquisition is an expensive, lengthy and difficult process and that Council has the ability to acquire sites through other mechanisms (e.g. negotiated purchase, on market purchase, as an open space contribution) there is little benefit in reserving land via compulsory acquisition. Prior to the purchase of any land, as with the standard land purchasing process followed by Council, a confidential report would be tabled at a Council Meeting, seeking Council to resolve a maximum price to be paid for the land. This price will be based on a valuation and consideration of the market. The approach of purchasing land identified as appropriate for open space which may not be available for purchase on the open market, may result in a higher than market price being paid for the land as the landowner was not originally intending to sell. Land will also be pursued through open market purchases, negotiation of open space contributions in the form of land, and through other mechanisms such as shared use agreements, proactive contact with potential sellers and though purchase options where appropriate. This report recommends that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to commence negotiations to purchase land to service gap areas, in accordance with the Framework. This is to ensure that any opportunities to purchase land are taken and actively pursued, since residential growth and land prices will continue to increase whilst the Framework is finalised. Converting land into open space Following acquisition of any land, a review of the open space needs in the surrounding area will be undertaken to inform a decision on the type, form, purpose, and timing of delivery of the new open space will be undertaken in consultation with the community. As set out in the draft Council Plan 2017-2022, it is a strategic objective to create at least two new additional parks in the areas of most need by 2022. Ongoing monitoring of expenditure and Framework success Appropriate monitoring of the Framework will ensure expenditure is appropriately tracked, and a determination will be able to be made about whether overall PRRLF expenditure has been prioritised on open space gap areas. This will allow informed decisions around expenditure of the fund on other open space priorities.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 273

Creation of open space in alternate ways to acquisition The focus of the Framework is on land acquisition within gap areas to ensure that permanent, well located high quality open spaces, are created before growth continues and land prices continue to rise. This will also enable the existing fund to be expended at a time more closely linked to when it was accumulated. This does not however, preclude alternative ways in which open spaces can be provided being pursued (such as shared use agreements, road closures, lease agreements to use land for open space) and funded through either the rates base or PRRLF. Improving open space service delivery in gap areas and beyond Other open space priorities Whilst it is recommended that the use of the PRRLF be prioritised on purchasing land to service open space gap areas, it is acknowledged that the fund is also available to fund other open space needs across the City. The MOSS sets out actions that will improve open space service delivery across Moreland. Activity Centre Structure plans and other strategic documents also identify open space projects that are potentially eligible for PRRLF expenditure. Further work to better understand open space provision across Moreland Concurrent to the work to implement the Framework, officers will undertake further strategic work. This work will assist in better understanding the gap areas, and the ongoing implementation of other actions in the MOSS and other strategies. This work will include matters such as:  Develop and adopt a standard approach to determining what open space is required, for what, where, and how it should be provided including corresponding core service levels to ensure open space is fit for purpose; planning tools to aid planning, site selection and design; and better guidance to open space planning and development.  Analyse the distribution of spaces by type, function and landscape setting to determine omissions, duplications and opportunities for varying experiences.  A strategic review of the quality of existing open spaces across Moreland, and identification of improvements to existing open spaces to increase their use/value.  Undertake a comprehensive assessment of the existing and potential public value of poor quality, undeveloped open spaces to identify opportunities to diversify open space uses, experiences and landscape settings in those, or future development or divestment actions.  Implement the open space recommendations of the:  Brunswick, Glenroy, and Coburg 2020 Structure Plans  Merri Creek Environs Strategy (2010)  Moonee Ponds Creek Strategic Plan (2011) – Chain of Ponds (2017)  Resting Places Strategy  Merri Creek Shared Trail Review  Moreland Indigenous Vegetation Assessment 2011  Existing master plans i.e. Moomba Reserve, Westbreen Creek  Review opportunities to acquire land to create vegetated buffers and public open space corridors along Merri, Moonee Ponds, and Edgars creek corridors.  Identification of improved pedestrian links that could be developed to improve access to existing open space (including consideration of how laneways could be made more accessible).  Develop implementation plans (prioritisation, costs and timing) for open space to improve provision and access to local open space, including civic places, within designated principal, major, neighbourhood and local activity centres.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 274

 Revisit the open space typologies included in the MOSS, to consider creation of new typologies in addition to the existing Regional/District/Local typologies (e.g. create new types to cover smaller open space, such as Neighbourhood, Small Local and Local Linkage types).  Resolve ownership, public access and lease arrangements with State agencies for open space along waterways, service easements and rail reserves, in order to consolidate and enhance the open space network.  Progress shared use agreements, Memoranda of Understanding, Section 173 agreements, lease agreements, committees of management in open space creation to fill gap areas and meet other open space goals.  Potential identification of areas across Moreland where a land contribution over a cash contribution is preferred as part of the open space contribution. Continued use of the PRRLF for open space upgrades/improvements Extensive background research has been undertaken to inform the preparation of the Framework. This research has included:  Confirmation of what the PRRLF can be spent on (legislative context).  Review of other Councils’ approaches to expenditure of the PRRLF.  Literature and best practice review.  A review of how the PRRLF is currently allocated.  Modelling of the projected growth of the PRRLF. The research has assisted in achieving a better understanding of the overall picture of current PRRLF expenditure. Officers have identified that an appropriate level of expenditure of the PRRLF on Council open space upgrades and improvements is 10% of income to the fund, per financial year (with the ten per cent calculation made based on the previous financial years income to the fund). Expenditure of 10% of the fund on upgrades and improvements will:  Result in adequate funding on upgrades and improvements, in line with the spending on these items undertaken in previous years and forecast for future years; and  Ensure sufficient funds are available to create new open space in accordance with the Framework. The use of a percentage, rather than a set dollar amount, ensures expenditure on upgrades and improvements can reflect the annual income to the fund. The proposed Moreland City Council Budget 2016-2017 adopted by Council on 22 May (DCS27/17), forecasts PRRLF expenditure on open space upgrades as follows: Financial Year Proposed Moreland City Council Budget Forecast 2016-2017 funding allocation from PPRLF 2017-2018 $1,216,960 2018-2019 $1,025,000 2019-2020 $1,255,000 2020-2021 $500,000 2021-2022 $500,000 The forecast rates for 2017-2018 – 2019-2020 reflect an allocation of approximately 10% of the PRRLF on upgrades, given income to the fund is modelled to be between $7 to $15 million per year. It is anticipated that should an approach of allocating 10% to upgrades/improvements be adopted for future years, spending in the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 financial years would increase to a similar figure.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 275

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 Council Briefings held in September 2016 and April 2017.  Community consultation on the framework will occur through Councils website, the Moreland Leader newspaper, and 2 consultation meetings that will be organised during August 2017. Community groups and stakeholders will also be sent direct notification of the draft Framework. Critique will be sought from the community, community groups and stakeholders on the content and direction of the draft Framework. Written comments will be sought.  The project board established to govern the delivery of the Framework includes the Chief Executive Officer (project executive), Directors of City Infrastructure, Planning and Economic Development, and Corporate Services. The framework has been prepared collaboratively by the following Council Units – the Open Space Design and Development Unit, Strategic Planning, Urban Design, property, Finance, Capital Works Planning and Delivery and Youth and Leisure (Recreation). 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 As of May 2017, there is $37 million dollars in the PPRLF. As detailed in the Framework, the fund income is modelled to be in the vicinity of $7 million to $15 million per year, depending on land value and quantum of subdivision. The financial and resource implications of the various aspects of the Framework are set out below: Framework preparation The funds required to prepare the Framework ($50,000) are budgeted for within the current year budget of the Open Space Design and Development Unit, and have been drawn from the PPRLF. To date, $20,000 of this budget has been spent on a Report by HillPDA Consultants that details each of the multiple land acquisition options available to Council, and provides examples of these, and the pros and cons of each option. Any remaining budget will be transferred back to the PRRLF. Framework implementation officer To ensure the timely and proactive implementation of this Framework a new Implementation Officer position will be created, and funded through the PRRLF. As the position is directly tied to the creation of new open space, it is eligible for PRRLF funding. The roles and responsibilities of this officer are set out in the Framework. Purchasing of land The purchase of land, and all items associated with land purchase such as valuations, buyer advocate representation and other costs will be funded through the PRRLF. It is anticipated that in the first year of Framework implementation the purchase of land will be the focus of implementation, rather than creation of new open space which will require design and community consultation. The cost of this purchase will depend on the location and size of the land.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 276

Conversion of land to open space Conversion of land to open space will be funded through the PRRLF. Depending on resource capacity within the Open Space Design and Development Unit and/or Urban Design Unit, resources to deliver the open space may be contracted to a consultant. All costs associated with conversion of the land to open space are eligible for funding through the PRRLF. Rezoning of land to a Public Park and Recreation Zone would be undertaken within existing resource of the Strategic Planning Unit. Ongoing open space costs Maintenance costs/resourcing for newly created open spaces will need to be factored into the ongoing maintenance base budget allocation moving forward. Maintenance of open space is not eligible for PRRLF funding. Further work to better understand open space provision across Moreland As set out in the issues section of this report, there is further strategic work required to holistically understand and improve gap areas, and deliver open space beyond the gap areas. This work will be undertaken across Council by relevant units, including the Open Space Design and Development Unit, the Places Unit, Urban Design and Recreation, as existing resources allow. Parts of this work that are directly related to the creation of new open space could be eligible for funding through the PRRLF. 7. Implementation Finalising the draft Framework Following the resolution of Council to endorse the (draft) Framework for consultation, a consultation process will commence, anticipated to begin in August 2017 for a period of one month. A further report will be prepared for Council, scheduled for October 2017, to include a summary of community consultation, response to the consultation and a final Framework for adoption. The final Framework will reflect the finalised Council Plan 2017-2022, Councils Strategic Resource Plan and 5-year Capital Works Plan. Framework implementation The draft Framework sets out in detail how it will be implemented, and the roles and responsibilities for implementation, including the steps to be followed for gap area identification, land purchase, and conversion to open space. As set out in the Framework, further reports to Council (confidential reports) prior to the purchase of any land in accordance with the Framework would be received as per the standard usual land purchase process.

Attachment/s 1⇩ A Park Close to Home: A Framework to Fill Open Space Gaps - Draft D17/174961

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 277

DED44/17 MORELAND PARKLET PROGRAM (D17/171960) Director Planning and Economic Development City Strategy and Design

Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to seek approval for the adoption of the Moreland Parklet Program, at Attachment 1. Council resolved at the July 2016 meeting to endorse the development of a parklet program and commence a temporary parklet program, which has informed the development of the program being presented now for Council’s adoption (DED55/16). Parklets are permanent or temporary structures located in on-street parking spaces that can serve as public space. This program enables organisations (including businesses and community groups) to host and care for a parklet adjacent their site. The program offers two streams to the host: short-term and long-term. In the short-term stream, a host can lease existing Council parklets for a period of 6 months. This stream gives the host a low cost opportunity to trial the concept of a Parklet adjacent their space. The long-term stream allows the host to design, build and install their own parklet. Once the design and construction submission is approved, a permit is granted to lease on-street parking, with the option to renew annually (provided the host meets agreement requirements). The design and development of these long-term submissions are informed by the design guidelines within the parklet program itself.

Recommendation Council resolve to: 1. Adopt the Parklet Program at Attachment 1 and begin accepting and processing applications for both the short and long-term parklet program streams. 2. Adopt the new permit fees for both the short and long-term parklet program streams and include them within Council’s fees and charges as detailed in section 2 of this report.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 306

REPORT

1. Policy Context The program connects with the theme of Moreland’s Places and Spaces as well as Civic Leadership in the Council Plan 2013-2017. The program will result in people having access to local places and spaces (outcome 7) and contribute towards an attractive and well-maintained built environment of streetscapes and landscapes (outcome 9). The success of the program will come from partnerships with local stakeholders who will assist Council in delivering the desired outcomes (outcome 17). 2. Background The program is broken down into two streams - short-term and long-term. The short term stream offers a low cost opportunity for a business or organisation to try the concept by leasing Council’s parklet before committing to the economic and more resource intensive exercise of a long-term install. It is further complemented by a set of design guidelines to assist those taking the step to pursue a more long term installation. In July 2016, Council resolved to endorse the short-term stream of the program. The first installation resulting from this resolution was on Piera Street, Brunswick (see image below).

Together, Small Block Café and Bikes Please hosted a 3 carpark long parklet for the agreed 6 month term. This installation has offered many benefits beyond those anticipated. Through day to day interactions and community led events, the Parklet has become a platform that has help strengthen community connections and resilience (as illustrated in the parklet community survey results in Attachment 2). It has also assisted Council officers to test the community’s appetite for more interventions in this area. Its proven success with the business and wider community is evident in their desire to investigate a long-term installation.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 307

Council officers will continue to measure the success (or otherwise) of the program and gather evidence via:  continued community surveys;  the host of a parklet will be required to report to Council on a monthly basis (i.e. the condition of the parklet, estimated visitor numbers and impact on sale); and  Council Officer consideration of the ‘success indicators’ detailed further in this report). Parklets provide a range of benefits to all involved. For businesses, benefits of parklets include:  the opportunity to extend or introduce footpath trading; and  increased street presence and contribution to the creation of a unique identity. For Small Block Café, this was an increase in more than 10% trade and engagement of one new staff member. For the community, the benefits of Parklets, as evidenced through this first project (Attachment 2) include:  improve pedestrian amenity on the street;  present a space to use as a form of passive open space;  calm traffic and improve safety in the street; and  provide a platform for greater community engagement and interaction. For Council, the benefits of supporting parklets include:  responding to gaps in open space using a tool leverages community effort with a minimal resource draw upon Council; and  being able to test the community appetite for short term activation of spaces within their neighbourhood. The program outlines the process for both the short term and long term streams in separate sections of the document; below is a summary of how each stream of the Program would work. Attachment 3 to this report is a brochure for community members who may be interested in installing a Parklet, which includes responses to frequently asked questions about the parklet program. Attachment 4 to this report is the expression of interest form to be used by interested stakeholders to apply for either the short or long term streams. Short-term stream To apply for a short-term installation the applicant is required to complete a self- assessment checklist. If the site meets site criteria requirements, they are invited to complete a parklet proposal application. These applications are collected and reviewed against a set of selection criteria twice a year. All applicants are notified of the outcome of each round three months before each installation. The permit cost to the applicant is $2000 for one car space, and $1000 for each additional space. This cost covers resourcing the installation and removal of the parklet. In the short-term stream, Council takes on public liability responsibility of the parklet. Once installed, the host is responsible for the upkeep and presentation of the parklet. Council officers will perform routine maintenance checks (once every 2 months) of the parklet to ensure the host is fulfilling their responsibilities and also to ensure safety measures are in place. Once the 6 month lease of the parklet is up, Council officers will move the Parklet to the next location.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 308

Long-term stream Similar to the short-term stream, if an applicant would like to apply for a long-term installation, they must first complete a self-assessment checklist. If the submission meets site criteria requirements, they are invited to complete a parklet proposal application and then commence design development. The applicant is encouraged to use the program’s design guidelines to inform this application. Once the applicant achieves approval and obtains an annual permit, the installation can proceed. In this stream the applicant is responsible for their own public liability cover (minimum $10 million). Costs paid to Council include the permit fee of $200 (one off fee), plus fees (paid annually) associated with the amount of car spaces they wish to use ($500 for the first car space, and $350 for each additional space). Like the short-term stream, the host is responsible for the upkeep of the parklet. Council officers will also conduct regular audits of the parklet to ensure the space is kept safe and clean. Provided the host successfully fulfils their obligations whilst hosting the parklet, they are welcome to annually renew their permit. Additionally, the program does not preclude community members requesting a parklet to be installed in areas outside of activity centres (e.g. a friends group applying to have a parklet installed, subject to the requirements of the program being met). Success indicators Success of a parklet installation could present in a number of ways, including:  the hosts buy in and ownership of the installation;  the host is willing to take on the responsibility of cleaning and maintenance of the parklet;  the host invests additional furniture (e.g. tables and chairs) to increase use of the parklet;  the host may program different activities on the parklet;  the hosts may experience an increase in patronage; and  experienced hosts may recommend the program to other potential hosts.  Support from the local community.  locals will regularly visit and use the parklet during and outside of business hours;  individuals from the community may work together with the host to program different activities on and around the parklet;  there would be heightened pedestrian activity on or near the parklet; and  there is a desire for more parklets from the wider community in Moreland. Key differences and features of the short-term and long-term streams are shown in the diagram below:

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 309

3. Issues Management and resourcing Council’s Urban Design Unit will manage the program with stakeholder input from Transport, Place Management, Amenity and Compliance, Economic Development, Street Cleansing, Open Space Design and Open Space Maintenance. The Urban Design Unit will manage the program with existing resources. The amount of time required from other units will be minimal and will include assistance in assessment of the applications and approval of permits. The resource requirements detailed above are based on an expectation of 3-4 requests short term and 1- 2 long term requests annually (noting the team can resource up to 4 long term requests annually). The existing short term parklet infrastructure can be broken up to allow for a maximum of 6 short term installations annually (this level of interest can also be delivered under existing resources). If the program is hugely successful (for both streams) and Council receives more applications than anticipated, additional resources will be required to deliver and manage the program. This will be monitored and reported to Council as required.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 310

Maintenance A maintenance agreement template has been prepared for future installations. This agreement would be signed by the Host, and outlines roles and responsibilities regarding use, risk, maintenance and monitoring of both parklet streams. If the host doesn’t meet the terms of the agreement, the permit will be rescinded and the Parklet will be removed (this is clearly outlined in the program documentation). Hosts of both streams are also asked to fill and submit monthly maintenance checklists to ensure issues are identified and resolved quickly. Renewal of long term permits will depend on the timely submission of the monthly maintenance reports (also clearly outlined in the program documentation). Council officers have also liaised with Council’s legal team to ensure the agreement between Council and the host for a short-term installation meets the requirements for Council to take on the responsibility for public liability. To date, the maintenance of the Council’s parklet has been conducted by our in- house open space capital works delivery team. The money secured from host payments will go towards asset upkeep, as well as tools and machinery which facilitate a safe and timely installation and removal of the parklet itself. Council also needs to facilitate a secure facility to store the Council parklet componentry at its depot when not in use. This will ensure that parklet pieces are not lost or inadvertently used for other purposes, and minimises the need for maintenance of the assets. Environmental implications Parklets introduce new pedestrian amenities to the public realm. As a result, there would be a rise in pedestrian activity around the installation. By making public space more engaging and inviting, there is potential to reduce the numbers of car trips in favour of walking and cycling. Social implications Parklets are a form of passive open space. They create new spaces for people to meet, connect and interact. They also offer a space to sit and rest for people of all access abilities. Importantly these are public spaces that provide for shared use. Businesses and organisations are not allowed to:  Ask public users to move so that users of the business or organisation can sit down.  Place condiments, napkins, eating utensils on the tables in the parklets.  reserve for use a place settings in the parklet. Design specifications require that they be accessible to all and signage is restricted to the installation of two Moreland public parklet signs. Economic implications Parklets create the opportunity for local businesses to introduce or extend existing footpath trading. These installations heighten the street presence of a business and also gives them the opportunity to offer their patrons an alternative to sitting inside. This increase in available capacity and presence can lead to a rise in net profit for a host. For Small Block café, this was a 10% rise in trade and engagement of one new staff member. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 311

4. Consultation Council’s Urban Design Unit have produced this program in consultation with internal stakeholders, including Transport, Place Management, Amenity and Compliance, Economic Development, Street Cleansing, Open Space Design and Open Space Maintenance. Working group meetings were held with members from this group in December 2016, and again in April of this year. The pilot installation at Small Block Café, was a great opportunity to understand how the program will run, and what resources will be required to be involved. Council officers have also conducted a number of different consultations at the recent Small Block Café installation on Piera Street. The community had multiple opportunities to provide feedback in paper survey format, online, and in person at the Piera Street Party. The feedback gained at these sessions is summarised in Attachment 2, and was used to inform this program. 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 It is proposed to operate the parklet program utilising existing resources and assets. New income generated from both long and short-term installations will help cover ongoing costs associated with resourcing, maintaining and administering the program annually. The existing Council parklet asset has the potential to be broken down into 3 separate parklets. Short-term installations last 6 months. Therefore this stream has the potential to bring in a maximum of $12,000 a year. However, as this program is still new, this forecast is more likely to be from $3000, up to $6000 a year. It is envisaged that the long-term parklet stream will have a slower take-up due to the financial commitment required by the host in designing and constructing the parklet. Currently, there are no capital funds available to expand the program beyond Council’s existing investment in the parklet asset developed in order to trial the program. If the short term program is hugely successful, Council may need to invest in new parklets. A parklet costs around $50,000 to design and fabricate so the potential income generated will not cover these costs. A business case will be presented to Council for consideration in the future if required. Interest for this program has already been received from a business outside of Moreland. This shows future potential to raise revenue from beyond Moreland. 7. Implementation If approved, Council officers will start accepting parklet applications for both the short and long-term streams. Short-term applications will be assessed bi-annually. Long-term applications will be reviewed at the time of submission. Council officers will also submit the new permit fees to be incorporated within Council’s fees and charges. It is understood that the existing short-term host (Small Block Café) is interested in pursuing a long-term installation. All parklets installed will be monitored and assessed for their impact on the community and businesses by the Urban Design unit. This will help the development and refinement of the program over the longer term.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 312

Attachment/s 1⇩ Survey feedback – Piera Street Short Term Installation D17/173298 2⇩ Expression of interest brochure with frequently asked questions D17/173309 3⇩ Expression of interest form D17/173303

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 313

DED45/17 AMENDMENT C160 - 1-9 MORELAND ROAD, COBURG (D17/121473) Director Planning and Economic Development City Strategy and Design

3Executive Summary Amendment C160 affects land at 1-9 Moreland Road, Coburg (the site) and seeks to facilitate the following changes:  Rezone the site from Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) to part Commercial 2 Zone (C2Z) and part Mixed Use Zone (MUZ).  Introduce a new Design and Development Overlay to the site (DDO25), which applies built form requirements including mandatory building heights ranging from 4 to 6 stories across the site.  Modify the extent of the Heritage Overlay (HO) to apply to the office building fronting Moreland Road.  Apply the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to the precinct to ensure potential contamination issues are addressed. At the September 2016 Council meeting, Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent panel to hear submissions to Amendment C160 (DED73/16). A Panel Hearing was held over four days from 7 to 11 November 2016. The Panel appointed to consider the Amendment questioned the strategic justification for the Amendment (including the existing strategic framework and the interpretation of the Moreland Industrial Land Strategy (MILS) 2015-2030), which had been adopted by Council but not yet approved by the Minister for Planning at the time. Council Officers have major concerns with the recommendations of the Panel which include deletion of the proposed MUZ at the rear of the site, retention of the IN3Z and also deletion of the proposed DDO25. A proposed way forward on these key matters is detailed in the Issues section of this report. Pleasingly, the proponent is in support of mandatory height controls for the site, as per their attached letter (Attachment 2). Further, the proponent has worked with Council officers to ensure that the redevelopment of the site will enhance the open space corridor along the Merri Creek; specifically through new landscaping opportunities and by ensuring development is set back from the eastern boundary which fronts the Merri Creek and allowing for unrestricted public pedestrian and bicycle access. Despite Panel’s views, Council officers recommend the proposal to rezone the land to C2Z and MUZ, which is consistent with Council’s strategic framework set out in the Municipal Strategic Statement and the Moreland Industrial Land Strategy 2015-2030. Since the Panel report was provided to Council, discussions have been held with the proponent and officers from the Department of Land, Environment, Water and Planning (DELWP) to develop a way forward with the Amendment in relation to the Panel’s recommendations and built form requirements of DDO25. As a result of these discussions, Council officers recommend a number of changes to the amendment package outlined in this report. The rezoning of this underutilised industrial site will significantly improve the interfaces with Campbell Reserve and the Merri Creek by removing the blank industrial buildings and creating new opportunities for landscaping and public access to open space. The future redevelopment will provide new employment and housing opportunities within Moreland with excellent access to public transport and amenities.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 320

Recommendation Council resolve to: 1. Note the findings and recommendations of the Panel appointed to consider Amendment C160 documented in the Panel Report dated 9 January, 2017 and included at Attachment 1. 2. Note the letter of support provided by the proponent for the inclusion of mandatory height controls within the Design and Development Overlay (DD025) at Attachment 2. 3. Adopt Amendment C160 to the Moreland Planning Scheme, pursuant to section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, with the recommended changes shown in the revised Design and Development Overlay (DD025) at Attachment 3. 4. Adopt the proposed changes to the Local Planning Policy Framework and the Moreland Industrial Land Strategy 2015-2030 at Attachments 6 and 7. 5. Delegate to the Director Planning and Economic Development the authority to finalise changes to Amendment C160 in accordance with Council’s resolution and also to undertake any changes as required to correct errors, grammatical changes and map changes. 6. Subject to this Amendment C160 (including the built form requirements set out in the and Design and Development Overlay (DD025) at Attachment 3) being adopted by Council, delegate to the Director Planning and Economic Development the authority to enter into a section 173 Agreement with the landowner/amendment proponent, requiring a financial contribution of $200,000-$250,000 from the proponent towards the upgrading of Campbell Reserve. 7. Revise the Statement of Significance to reflect the reduced extent of the Heritage Overlay (HO117 - 1-9 Moreland Road - Former Spicer Paper Mills) as part of a future heritage study. 8. Submit Amendment C160 with changes to the Minister for Planning for approval, pursuant to section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, following finalisation of the section 173 Agreement that details the landowner/amendment proponent’s financial contribution to the upgrade of Campbell Reserve. 9. Notify all submitters of Council’s resolutions above and of the Minister’s decision on Amendment C160 once confirmed.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 321

REPORT

1. Policy Context A detailed summary of the existing policy context was reported to the December 2015 Council Meeting (DED104/15). State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and Moreland’s Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Amendment C160 is consistent with both the SPPF and LPPF Frameworks. The Frameworks seeks to:  encourage housing growth with good access to transport, retail and services; and  contribute to economic regeneration through the transition of specific precincts of industrial zoned land to accommodate more diverse employment opportunities and housing supply. On large sites and urban renewal sites, state and local policies seek to achieve high quality architectural and urban design outcomes that increase housing supply and contribute positively to local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties. Moreland Industrial Land Strategy (MILS) 2015 - 2030 Amendment C160 is consistent Council’s adopted MILS. Council adopted MILS at the July 2016 Council meeting (DED51/16). The amendment was then approved by the Minister for Planning on the 6 March 2017 and subsequently gazetted on 6 April 2017 in the Moreland Planning Scheme. The MILS retains Moreland’s three large concentrations of industrial zoned land in Brunswick, North Coburg and Newlands, and a number of smaller concentrations of industrial land are also recommended for retention. The MILS allows for the transition of other industrial zoned land to prioritise alternative employment uses and in some instances to allow for a transition to multi-use or residential outcomes. The MILS categorises all industrial land into one of the following three categories: Category 1 - core industry and employment areas  Maintain for industry and other employment uses including office and restricted retail and prohibit new residential uses. Category 2 - employment areas  Support the transition from industrial uses to a broader range of employment uses and prioritise employment over residential uses. Category 3 - transition - residential areas  Support transition to facilitate quality residential development to contribute to Moreland’s housing supply. Under MILS, the site is categorised as Category 2 Employment. Under this category residential uses are supported subject to meeting employment floorspace benchmarks.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 322

Moreland Neighbourhood Centres Strategy (NCS) Moreland’s NCS, to be implemented into the Moreland Planning Scheme through Amendment C159, was adopted by Council at the March 2017 meeting (DED21/17). Under the NCS, the site is identified as a ‘Focus Area of Change’ and there is also a key direction in Holmes Street, Nicholson Street and Moreland Road neighbourhood centre to rezone the site to an appropriate mix of zones to guarantee employment priorities (e.g. Commercial 2 and Mixed Use zones). Development expectations for large industrial sites in neighbourhood centres and where rezoning is supported by designation as a MILS Category 2 area, are to seek to ensure high quality design that maximises the sites contribution to the public realm through new streets, footpaths and surveillance of the public realm. 2. Background In December 2015 Council resolved to seek the Minister’s authorisation to prepare Amendment C160 to the Moreland Planning Scheme and following receipt of authorisation, to publicly exhibit the amendment (DED104/15 Amendment C160 - 1-9 Moreland Road, Coburg - Request for Rezoning - Decision Gateway 1: Authorisation and Exhibition). The Minister’s authorisation was received 12 January 2016 to publicly exhibit the Amendment. Amendment C160 was publicly exhibited from 3 March 2016 to 7 April 2016. The exhibition process included:  Direct notification (of almost 700 letters) to owners and occupiers within an approximate 400m radius of the site including to properties in the City of Darebin on the eastern side of the Merri Creek  Letters sent to key stakeholders including the Friends of Merri Creek and the Merri Creek Management Committee  Letters sent to prescribed Ministers  Notice in the Moreland Leader  Notice in the Victorian Government Gazette  Information on Council’s Public Website During exhibition a total of 16 submissions were received. The submissions were generally supportive of the proposed rezoning but concerns were raised with regard to:  Building height in relation to Moore Street, Campbell Reserve and the Merri Creek corridor.  Car parking and traffic impacts on Moore Street.  The proposed reduction in the extent of the Heritage Overlay.  The implementation of landscaping for the site.  The implementation of Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) measures. The extent of notification and the location of submitters is illustrated on the two maps provided below:

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 323

Approximate extent of notification

Location of submitters An information session was held on 9 June 2016 after the exhibition of the Amendment which provided an opportunity for the proposal to be explained in more detail and for submitters to elaborate on their issues. Approximately 15 people attended including representatives of the proponent. No submissions were withdrawn at the conclusion of the meeting. A separate meeting was held with the Merri Creek Management Committee (MCMC) and the Friends of Merri Creek on 4 May 2016.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 324

In September 2016 Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel and to make the following changes to the DDO25:  Reduce the height along the Merri Creek boundary from five storeys to four storeys.  Ensure that the eastern boundary building setback is 50m from Merri Creek or 12m from the eastern boundary, whichever is greater.  Add a further requirement that a section 173 agreement is entered into to confirm that the eastern boundary building setback (as set out in 3 (b), excluding landscape areas immediately adjoining the buildings) is kept publicly accessible.  Add a further requirement that the use of permeable surfaces is maximised within the eastern boundary setback.  Require the submission of a preliminary assessment on Cultural Heritage prior to the commencement of the Planning Panel Hearing (Attachment 8). The Panel hearing was held over four days from 7 to 11 November 2016 at the Brunswick Town Hall. The Panel report was provided to Council on 9 January 2017 and released on 24 January 2017. The Panel report is found in Attachment 1. 3. Issues Council Officers have major concerns with the Panel’s recommendations and consider that the Panel:  Gave undue weight to the existing planning framework and insufficient weight to the emerging planning framework, particularly in relation to the MILS (Amendment C158) and the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy (Amendment C159);  Has misunderstood Category 2 of MILS in that it appears to have considered the prioritisation of employment uses to mean that employment should be provided to the exclusion of other uses;  Has misinterpreted Council’s Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), including the Municipal Strategic Statement’s (MSS) Strategic Framework Plan with regard to the land use directions for the subject land;  Failed to provide clear directions on the built form issues in the DDO25; and  Did not provide an opportunity for the proponent or Council to address the Panel’s concerns before submitting its report. Following the release of the Panel report, and a meeting with officers from DELWP, the proponent’s planning consultants (Urbis) and two of the proponent’s expert witnesses prepared a response to the Panel findings and recommendations. Council officers have also prepared comments in response to the issues raised by Urbis and the expert witnesses. This document is found at Attachment 4. Given the above, this Issues section of the report will provide a more detailed response on key issues for Amendment C160 below (including a summary of Panel findings and recommendations and also Council officer comments and recommendations) for each key issue listed below.  Strategic justification for Amendment C160  Economic impacts  The role of the DDO25  Built form, heights and setbacks  Mandatory heights  Heritage  Traffic, access and car parking  Landscaping  Role of the Panel  Issues raised by DELWP

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 325

 Re-drafting the MILS provisions:  Drafting of the DDO25  Financial contribution to upgrade Campbell Reserve 3.1 Strategic justification for Amendment C160 Panel findings and recommendations The Panel found the proposed Amendment was not consistent with the existing LPPF because the MSS states the appropriate zones for land within the ‘Multi-Use employment precinct’ are Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) or Commercial 2 Zone (C2Z). It also noted that the Strategic Framework Plan map in the MSS (at the time) designated the site as non-residential. In relation to the emerging planning LPPF through MILS (Amendment C158, which was in progress at the time), the Panel found the proposed policy changes strengthen the emphasis on employment being the focus for the land, rather than residential, with the objective: To support the transition from traditional industrial uses to a broader range of employment uses and prioritise employment uses over residential uses within Employment Areas (Category 2) and that: Where multi-use development including a residential component is proposed, the amount of employment floorspace should be at least equivalent to the amount of all proposed ground floor and first floor building floor space (inclusive of car parking, other services and circulation space. [Panel’s emphasis]. Accordingly, the Panel’s interpretation was that this provision should result in more space for more employment use, not less. With respect to providing residential uses on the site, the Panel stated that: whilst the employment category recognises there is the potential to accommodate some residential development, it clearly expresses the emphasis is on employment uses first and foremost, with residential (if considered and assessed as a suitable use on the site) a secondary and subservient component to the employment use on the land. Council officer comments: In finding that the rezoning of the rear of the site did not have strategic justification under the existing LPPF, the Panel placed considerable weight on the fact that the Strategic Framework Plan (SFP) in the MSS designates the subject site as ‘non-residential’. The SFP is a high level map that explains the MSS in a spatial context across the whole municipality. Council officers advised the Panel that the SFP is not intended as a control mechanism that guides whether a proposal should be supported or not. Further, Council officers advised the Panel that it would be appropriate to update SFP as it relates to the subject site upon the approval of C160 because it was this Amendment that would change the designation from non-residential (at least to the rear of the site). In response to the Panel’s comments about the Category 3 (Multi-Use Employment) designation of the subject site under the former industrial strategy (Moreland Industrial Land Use Strategy – MILUS), Council officers pointed out to the Panel that this Category also allows residential uses if Council was satisfied in relation to employment uses.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 326

While it is appropriate for the Panel to consider amendments in the context of the existing LPPF, it is disappointing that the Panel failed to give sufficient weight to two significant amendments that were relevant to Amendment C160 namely: Amendment C158 (MILS) and Amendment C159 (NCS). At the time of the Hearing, Amendment C158 had been adopted by Council (July 2016) and was awaiting approval by the Minister (which occurred on 6 April 2017). Amendment C158 designates the land in Category 2. Under this category, employment is prioritised over residential uses. Clause 21.03-2 contains the following objective, strategies and implementation measures:  Objective:  To support the transition from industrial uses to a broader range of employment uses and prioritise employment uses over residential uses.  Strategies (as relevant):  Facilitate the transition of Employment Areas to accommodate a broader range of employment generating uses, including a mix of industry and office based uses and other compatible employment uses.  Where multi-use development including a residential component is proposed, the amount of employment floorspace should be at least equivalent to the amount of all proposed ground and first floor building floorspace (inclusive of car parking, other services and circulation space).  Require new residential and multi-use development in Employment Areas to adopt the agent of change principle, by incorporating design and noise attenuation measures to protect residents from noise from nearby businesses, such as locating bedrooms away from noise sources and using appropriate acoustic measures.  Implementation measures - Under Employment Areas (Category 2):  Apply the Industrial 3 Zone or Commercial 2 Zone to Employment Areas (Category 2) to prioritise employment.  Where residential uses are to be permitted in Employment Areas, apply one of the following zoning and overlay configurations to achieve Strategy 5.3 of Clause 21.03-2: . The Commercial 1 Zone and prioritise employment uses as per Strategy 5.3. . The Special Use Zone or Comprehensive Development Zone and use the schedule to the zone to tailor use provisions to establish permit triggers for residential and other uses, as necessary. A mix of zones over larger sites, with zones applied to ensure employment uses are prioritised (Council Officer emphasis). With respect to this site, Council officers were satisfied that employment had been prioritised because:  The front portion of the site fronting Moreland Road would be rezoned to the Commercial 2 Zone (C2Z). This area contains the existing heritage building and has scope for a new four storey office building to the east of the heritage building. This would result in 4,000 to 4,500 square metres of commercial floor space that could accommodate over 50 employees. Currently the site employs about 10 people. The C2Z prohibits residential development.  One of the MILS implementation measures is to recognise that large sites such as 1-9 Moreland Road could be in more than one zone and thus be re- categorised. Upon approval of this Amendment the Panel was advised that the front of the site would be re-designated Category 1 (Core Industry and Employment Area) and the rear of the site would be re-designated Category 3 (Transition Residential Areas).

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 327

It would appear that the Panel has misunderstood the meaning of Category 2 in that it has interpreted that employment uses should be prioritised to the exclusion of other uses. However, the intention of Category 2 is that provided there is sufficient employment space to the satisfaction of Council, then residential uses may be supported. It is in Category 1 sites under MILS where employment is the exclusive use. Further, the fairness of this outcome can be questioned from the proponent’s perspective when the industrial land on the opposite side of Moreland Road had been originally placed in Category 2 but as a result of submissions through the MILS amendment was re-categorised to part Category 1 (at the Moreland Road end) and part Category 3 (at the rear). Given the Panel’s interpretation of Category 2, Council officers consider it would be appropriate to fine tune some of the MILS provisions and to avoid potential mis- interpretation in the future. This is discussed further below. Council officers consider that the Panel also failed to give weight to Amendment C159 (Neighbourhood Centres Strategy). The Panel stated that Amendment C159 was not at the stage it could be ‘seriously entertained’ and therefore could not be relied upon in justifying this Amendment. It also stated that the C159 Panel report was not available at the time of writing its report. However, it is very surprising that the C160 Panel failed to give it (Amendment C159) any weight given that C159 Panel report was actually publicly released on 24 November 2016; some six weeks prior to the C160 Panel report being submitted to Council. The C159 Panel report was available for the C160 Panel to consider and it is incorrect for the Panel to state that the C159 Panel report was not available at the time of writing its report. Although the NCS identifies the subject site as a Focus Area of Change and included the key direction that the Holmes Street, Nicholson Street and Moreland Road neighbourhood centre rezone the site to an appropriate mix of zones to guarantee employment priorities, the C159 Panel did not make any comments that questioned this direction. Council officers consider C160 is consistent with C159 because it has guaranteed employment uses with the rezoning of the front part of the site to C2Z. The MUZ at the rear also allows commercial uses though it has not been suggested that this is a key objective of the development proposal. Council officer recommendations:  The land at the rear of the site be rezoned to Mixed Use as exhibited. 3.2 Economic impacts Panel findings and recommendations The Panel considered that it had not been presented with any detailed and municipal-wide economic evidence that demonstrated the amount of commercial land proposed was sufficient to prioritise and guarantee employment opportunities in accordance with either existing or proposed policy, or that the existing Multi-use employment precinct and proposed ‘Category 2 – Employment Areas’ was not the most appropriate employment category for this land. While the Panel acknowledged that the MILS Panel found that C158 was underpinned by robust economic research that justified the categorisation of the MILS areas, it considered that there was no justifiable reason to change the SFP ‘Non-residential area’ designation. Nor did the Panel accept that the economic report that was referred to in the Planning report that was submitted with the request for the Amendment was adequate to justify the rezoning of the rear land to MUZ.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 328

Council officer comments: In the Council officer’s view, the Panel did not properly take into account MILS background report which found that the existing employment land area supply in Moreland was considerably greater than future demand requirements with changing employment land use patterns. This analysis was instrumental in MILS determining the extent of land to be included in the three different categories. While the Panel asked many questions during the Hearing about the lack of economic analysis provided with the Amendment, at no stage did the Panel advise Council or the proponent that the failure to provide an economic report would be fatal to the rezoning of the land at the rear. The usual practice of Panels is to identify the information it requires to consider an Amendment at the Directions Hearing. The Panel made no directions about requiring an economic report. As noted above, the rezoning of the land at the front to C2Z will provide 4,000 to 4,500 square metres of commercial floor space that could employ up to 50 55 people. Council officers are satisfied this outcome meets the Category 2 employment priority objective. Understandably, there was great reliance on the detailed economic analysis provided via Amendment C158 to provide overarching economic analysis to support Amendment C160. In future, however, it is recommended that Council require proponents to lodge detailed economic reports, especially in cases that involve large sites and where land may be re-categorised from Category 2 to a combination of Categories 1 and 3. Council officer recommendations  Council officers are satisfied that the rezoning of the land at the front to C2Z will provide 4,000 to 4,500 square metres of commercial floor space that could employ up to 50-55 people, which meets the Category 2 employment priority objective of MILS. 3.3 The role of the Design and Development Overlay (DDO25) Panel findings and recommendations The Panel considered that the DDO25 did not achieve the right balance in implementing the LPPF and therefore DDO25 was not strategically justified. This finding was based on the Panel’s position that the rear of the land should be retained for employment uses. The Panel stated that it would not seek to make specific recommendations about the drafting of the DDO25, as the Panel considered that further work was required to ensure it reflects the strategic policy directions and intentions for this site. Council Officer Comments Council Officers do not agree that the rear of the land should be retained for employment uses and that the Panel’s comments about the role of the DDO to guide land use is misguided. The main purpose of a DDO is:  To identify areas which are affected by specific requirements relating to the design and built form of new development. DDO25 was prepared to provide built form guidance over both the employment and residential areas of the site. There is no restriction in the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs) that states that a DDO cannot be applied to built form for different uses. Although the Panel stated it would not make specific recommendations on the DDO25 it actually made a number of comments on the DDO25 provisions. These matters are also discussed further below.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 329

Council officer recommendations  That DDO25 be retained (with modifications – see below) within the C160 Amendment package. 3.4 Built form, heights and setbacks The proposed building heights are six storeys at the western side (Campbell Reserve) and four storeys at the other interfaces (which includes Moore Street to the north, the heritage building to the south and Merri Creek to the east). After exhibition of the Amendment, Council resolved to reduce the height of the building at the Merri Creek interface from five storeys to four storeys. The proponent has indicated that they are willing to accept the revised mandatory heights. It is important to note that building heights should be measured from an agreed reference point. Both Council and the proponent agreed the reference point should be Campbell Reserve (47.2 AHD). Accordingly, the heights at the various interfaces in the DDO make reference to the relevant AHD. Panel findings and recommendations The Panel considered that the existing LPPF establishes a clear policy position that even in areas where substantial change and increased residential densities are proposed, heights should be a maximum of four storeys. The Panel therefore concluded that there was no clear strategic justification upon which heights exceeding four storeys could be considered on the site. Despite the Panel’s findings, it also stated that it should be possible to design a building in excess of four storeys which does not have a significant visual impact on the surrounding area given the large size of the site. The Panel then made comments on heights at each of the four interfaces. It reached the following conclusions: Merri Creek interface The Panel stated that five storey buildings as proposed by the Proponent would have an unacceptable visual impact on the Merri Creek corridor, which is recognised as a significant environmental, recreational and heritage corridor. The Panel referred to the photomontage that was prepared by the proponent’s planning consultants. The photomontages showed two scenarios – scenario 1 showed the heights and setbacks proposed in DDO25 (i.e. four storeys) and scenario 2 showed the heights and setbacks proposed by the proponent (i.e. five storeys), see Attachment 5. The Panel found that both scenarios: allows a built form that is highly visible from the Merri Creek corridor despite opportunities for increased landscaping and the use of natural materials and muted tones. However, the Panel concluded that it: can see no reason to vary the existing preferred four storey heights established by the current policy. Campbell Reserve interface The Panel accepted that a more robust built form could be provided along this interface and was satisfied that any development of the heights proposed is unlikely to result in unreasonable overshadowing of the open space. However, it also said that further detailed urban design analysis would be required before the Panel could justify six storeys and “that development along with interface should present as four storeys, with any higher levels recessed.”

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 330

Moore Street interface The Panel was satisfied the proposed four storey height control in this location was appropriate as it largely reflected the existing built form and was located to the south of the residential development, and therefore would not present any potential for overshadowing. South side of Moreland Road interface The Panel was satisfied that the proposed four storey height limit along this road is an appropriate response to this interface. Council officer comments In response to the Panel’s findings that there was no strategic justification for building heights exceeding four storeys on the subject site, Council officers advised the Panel that it was decided not to apply DDO25 (which restricts development to four storeys) on the subject site because of the pending planning scheme amendment request to rezone the land and that more detailed built form analysis would be appropriate for a site of this size. The Panel failed to acknowledge the relevance of this process when stating that there was no strategic justification for heights exceeding four storeys. In response to the Panel’s comments on building heights at each interface, the following comments are made: Merri Creek interface Council officers agree that a four storey building would be acceptable and will not have a significant visual impact as canopy planting should grow up to 15 metres within the 12 metres eastern setback and therefore effectively screen the buildings. The Panel noted that the reference to 50 metres from Merri Creek in Clause 21.03-6 of the MSS does not refer to building setback, but to create a continuous public open space corridor within 50 metres on each side of Merri Creek. For this 50 metres buffer to be designated public open space Council would need to either apply a Public Acquisition Overlay or purchase the part of the site. For this reason Council officers agree with the Panel finding (see p. 56 of Panel report) that the DDO25 not include a requirement that the minimum eastern boundary setback be 50 metres from the Merri Creek or 12m from the eastern boundary, whichever is greater. Council inserted this provision when considering submissions (DED73/16) to ensure a minimum 50 metres setback from Merri Creek. Including this requirement in the DDO25 would have a significant impact on the achievable building envelope. In the northern part of site this would require a setback in the order of 20m from the eastern boundary. Not surprisingly the proponent does not support the inclusion of a 50 metre setback requirement and has indicated that the impact on potential development would reduce their ability to provide additional community benefit. A 12 metre setback is considered an appropriate distance which would allow for sufficient landscaping to provide screening for buildings. Should Council resolve to require a minimum 50 metre setback from Merri Creek, the following provision would need to be reinserted into the DDO25: Development should be setback a minimum of 50 metres from the Merri Creek or 12 metres from the eastern property boundary, whichever is greater. Campbell Reserve interface Council officers consider that a maximum building height of six storeys can be supported subject to a requirement in the DDO that there be no additional overshadowing of Campbell Reserve between 11am and 3pm at the September 22 equinox. This would equate to an approximate 12 metre setback for a six storey building.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 331

Council officers disagree with the Panel’s comments that development above four storeys should be recessed. Recession of upper levels of buildings should only be required to ensure compatibility with existing streetscapes or to protect solar access. There is no existing streetscape along this interface and a 12 metre setback will ensure solar access to Campbell Reserve. The critical issue is to ensure breaks between buildings are provided to reduce bulk and to ensure articulation to provide visual interest. The DDO25 includes requirements that address both these issues. Moore Street interface Council officers agrees with the Panel that a four storey building is an acceptable outcome. It is noted that the height of the existing industrial building is equivalent to three storeys; the proposed buildings would be some distance from existing buildings on the opposite side of Moore Street; and that being at the end of the street there are no adverse neighbourhood character impacts. South side of Moreland Road interface Council officers agree that buildings at this interface should not exceed four storeys. Council officer recommendations  That the proposed building heights of six storeys at the Campbell Reserve interface and four storeys at the three other interfaces be supported. 3.5 Mandatory heights Panel findings and recommendations The Panel found that there was no justification to include mandatory controls in relation to heights and setbacks. It commented that mandatory controls may be justified along the Merri Creek given the significance of the open corridor, however considered that further detailed analysis and strategic work would need to be undertaken to support mandatory controls along this particular interface. Council officer comments Proposals for mandatory provisions must be assessed against DELWP Practice Note PPN59 - The role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes. Council Officers made comprehensive submissions against the PN59’s criteria in support of mandatory heights and the eastern setback and concluded that there was substantial compliance with the criteria, especially given the orientation of the proposed buildings to the four boundaries that have sensitive interfaces to Merri Creek, Campbell Reserve, land in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and the heritage building. The Panel did not explain exactly what further detailed analysis and strategic work would need to be undertaken to support mandatory controls and why it would be necessary for just one site. It is noted that two recent panel and advisory committees in other municipalities that have considered built form controls have accepted mandatory height controls without detailed analysis against PPN59. These reports include the advisory committee that considered the new developments on the Flemington Racecourse and the Panel that considered a site specific rezoning on land in the City of Melbourne known as West Melbourne Waterfront. The proponent has advised they are supportive of mandatory building heights being included in the DDO25 (Attachment 2). Council officer recommendations  That the proposed building heights be mandatory as set out in the DDO25.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 332

3.6 Heritage The Amendment proposes to reduce the extent of the existing Heritage Overlay (HO) from the whole of the site to the original office building plus a five metre curtilage to the east and 18 metre curtilage to the north and west of the office building. The proponent submitted that the 18 metre curtilage to the north and west should be reduced to five metres. Panel findings and recommendations The Panel found the extent of the HO should be reduced as exhibited and that the 18 metre curtilage to the north and west should be retained. The Panel noted that the statement of significance needed to be updated to reflect the reduced extent of the HO. Council officer comments Council Officers support the Panel’s recommendation to retain the 18 metre curtilage to the north and west of the heritage building. The purpose of the curtilage is to not prevent building and works within this area but enable the assessment of potential buildings and works on the heritage significance of the building. Council officer recommendations  The HO include the 5 metre curtilage to the east and the 18 metre curtilage to the north and west of the heritage building as exhibited.  The proponent be requested to revise the Statement of Significance to reflect the reduced extent of the HO. 3.7 Traffic, access and car parking A traffic report was submitted with the request for the Amendment and the proponent engaged a traffic expert to present traffic and car parking evidence to the Panel. The main point of difference between Council and the proponent was the Council’s view there should not be through vehicular access between Moore Street and Moreland Road. Panel findings and recommendations The Panel found that because the traffic report was based a residential use at the rear it did not provide adequate guidance for employment-related use. It therefore gave little weight to the traffic evidence. Notwithstanding, it made the following comments in response to submissions:  Moreland Road should be the main point of access to the site, particularly for any vehicles seeking access to the employment uses. Whether signalisation is required will be determined following further investigation of the future development proposal for the site.  The possibility of vehicular connection between Moore Street and Moreland Road requires further assessment. Its appropriateness will be largely dependent on the ultimate use/s of the land.  Opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle access through the site should be actively encouraged.  Further traffic assessment around the design and capacity treatments for Moore Street and Moreland Road intersections is required. The Panel further noted that many of the concerns raised by submitters related to specific matters that would be addressed during the planning permit stage, such as waste collection, car parking provision and access during construction; and are generally guided by other existing provisions already in the planning scheme.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 333

Council officer comments Council Officers consider that on the basis of the rear of the land being rezoned to allow a residential use, the DDO25 should retain provisions to ensure primary vehicle access to the site is from Moreland Road and that access should be limited from Moore Street to the site. The DDO25 contains a requirement for a traffic engineering report with any future application for a planning permit and it is agreed that more details on traffic management and car parking issues would be considered through that process. Council officer recommendations  Require primary vehicle access from Moreland Road.  Limit access from Moore Street to the buildings fronting Moore Street only to avoid creating through traffic between Moore Street and Moreland Road. 3.8 Landscaping The DDO requires a landscape design that should integrate with the new public spaces with the adjoining Merri Creek and Campbell reserves and that sufficient space should be provided along the Merri Creek setback to allow new canopy planting that could grow to a height of at least 15 metres. It also includes a provision that additional landscaping should be provided in Merri Creek reserve subject to any necessary approvals. A number of submissions were made that landscaping should occur on site prior to the commencement of any development. Concern was expressed by the Merri Creek Management Committee (MCMC) and Friends of Merri Creek (FoMC) that removal of the retaining wall would result in the removal of vegetation on the Merri Creek side of the boundary. Panel findings and recommendations The Panel considered that given the large size of the site that planting ahead of the approval of the Amendment was neither practical nor necessary, particularly noting that the site could be undergoing a range of redevelopment phases across an extended time period. In this scenario the Panel would expect a series of landscape plans to be developed as approvals are given to redevelop various sections of the subject land. The Panel also considered the Council could firstly consider a series of agreed principles and performance criteria for overall landscaping across the site and approve this within one holistic Landscape Plan for the subject land. The Panel noted that the requirement contained in the DDO25 Schedule would not preclude this approach being taken. This Plan could also address the appropriate timing and staging of landscape implementation and maintenance of such landscaping, linked with redevelopment phases of the land. However, the Panel did not think it was appropriate to include in the DDO25 a requirement for planting to be undertaken within the Merri Creek Reserve to buffer views because this was not part of the subject site. It stated that: Other mechanisms need to be explored to achieve this. The Panel was not convinced that the benefits to be gained from removing the retaining wall outweighed the dis-benefits, though also said: The Panel considers this is an issue that requires further investigation. The Panel did not make any specific recommendations on landscaping issues.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 334

Council officer comments Council officers consider that the DDO25 adequately addresses landscape issues. The DDO25 requires a Landscape Plan to detail the planting strategy associated with each stage of development. Landscaping treatment on the subject land adjoining the Merri Creek Parklands Reserve will need to consider the matters contained within the Reference Document ‘Understanding planning issues along the Merri Creek and Policy: Development Guidelines for the Merri Creek (2004)’. It is agreed that any requirement for landscaping in the Merri Creek reserve should be deleted from the DDO25 because it is not possible to compel planting on other land. It is also noted that any planting in the reserve is restricted by the high voltage power lines. However, there can be further discussions between the Proponent, the MCMC, FoMC and CitiPower during the planning permit process on potential planting within the reserve in the future should it be considered necessary and agreed to by the parties. Council officers agree that removal of the retaining wall would result in the loss of existing vegetation within the Merri Creek reserve, and, on balance, should be kept. Reducing the height of buildings from five storeys to four storeys will also help reduce visual impact. Council officer recommendations  The requirement in the DDO25 for planting to occur within the Merri Creek be deleted. 3.9 Approach of the Panel Given the Panel’s major concerns with the rezoning aspects of the Amendment, it would have been appropriate for the Panel to give opportunities to parties to address its concerns before finalising and submitting its report. This is not an uncommon approach adopted by Panels when they have major concerns with Amendments. In this case, one of the major concerns of the Panel was that Amendment C160 was proceeding one step ahead of two significant and relevant policy-related Amendments – i.e. Amendment C158 MILS and Amendment C159 Neighbourhood Centres. It was open to the Panel to recommend deferment of C160 until these Amendments were further advanced rather than reaching a conclusion that is now contrary to the emerging strategic framework. As noted above, both Amendments C159 and C160 have progressed since the Panel hearing – Amendment C158 was gazetted on 6 April 2017 and Amendment C159 was adopted by Council on 8 March 2017. Further, the fundamental role of a panel under section 24 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is to consider submissions, not to usurp the role of the Planning Authority. Previous panels have themselves made comments about their role. For instance, in Surf Coast C66 (PSA) [2013] PPV 130, which proposed the implementation of a number of strategic planning studies that affect the future growth and development of Torquay – Jan Juc, in commenting on its role in a major strategic planning amendment, the Panel stated that: It is tempting for a Panel on a major strategic planning amendment such as this to attempt to plan the township from first principles. The role of the Panel however, is to consider the exhibited material, submissions and evidence and provide clear recommendations to the planning authority on the merits of the Amendment.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 335

Similarly, in Wyndham C171 and C172 (PSA) [2013] PPV 143, which proposed the implementation of the Ballan Road and Westbrook Precinct Structure Plans, the Panel stated its role as follows: Consistent with other PSP Panels, this Panel has not reviewed the amendments from first principles; rather, it has reviewed the amendments with a view to resolving outstanding issues between the MPA, Council and other submitters. 3.10 Issues raised by DELWP Following the release of the Panel report, both Council Officers and the Proponent’s consultants met with Officers from DELWP to discuss a way forward, especially in relation to the rezoning of the land at the rear of the site to MUZ. DELWP advised that there are three primary issues that Council should respond to:  The strategic justification of the Amendment in the context of the existing policy framework.  The strategic justification of the Amendment in the context of the emerging policy framework.  The possibility that the rezoning of an industrial site for largely residential purposes may set an undesirable precedent for future residential rezoning requests and thus undermine the strategic intention of MILS. Council’s response on the strategic justification against both the existing and emerging policy framework is addressed in section 3.1 above. In response to precedent, Council Officers consider that there is no reasonable prospect of Amendment C160 setting an undesirable precedent given the consistency of the Amendment with both the existing (i.e. Amendment C158 MILS is gazetted) and emerging policy framework (Amendment C159 NCS). Further, it is considered C160 is consistent with Category 2 sites under MILS because the Proponent has satisfied Council in relation to providing employment space on the site and that MILS contains a specific implementation measure that envisages that large sites may be divided into more than one category (in this case it is proposed to apply Category 1 (Employment) at the front of the site and Category 3 (Residential – Transitionary) at the rear of the site. There are a number of Category 2 sites identified in MILS which are expected to be subject to rezoning requests over the next few years (for example, Dawson Street, Brunswick Road (MILS Area 66, Grantham Street (MILS Area 67) and Brunswick Road (MILS Area 59). Council will need to be satisfied that sufficient employment space is provided before Council is willing to entertain requests for rezonings. If Council is not satisfied, it will not likely agree to seek authorisation to exhibit an amendment. 3.11 Re-drafting of MILS provisions As noted above, Council Officers consider that the Panel did not appear to understand the purpose of Category 2 sites under MILS. It appeared to interpret the word prioritisation for employment in Category 2 as meaning employment should be provided to the exclusion of other uses. This is clearly not the case because this is the purpose of Category 1. In order to avoid possible misinterpretation of Category 2 in the future, Council Officers consider that some refinement to the MILS clauses in the MILS document itself and in relevant sections of the LPPF would be appropriate. In both MILS strategy document and LPPF, it is suggested the following refinement is made to Category 2 – Employment Areas (deletions in strikethrough, additions in bold):

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 336

 Re-name Category 2 from Employment Areas to Transition – Employment Areas. This change makes it clearer that Category 2 areas are transitioning areas, not sole employment areas. This is consistent with the description of Category 3 which is Transition – Residential Areas.  Under Purpose, amend as follows:  Maintain for industry and employment uses and support a transition to a broader business base and employment opportunities. Only allow residential uses in circumstances where employment outcomes are prioritised to Council’s satisfaction, by meeting either the defined employment floorspace strategy as part of a multi use development (refer to relevant Strategy under Objective 3 below) or within large sites by allocating a significant part of the site to employment uses.  Under applicable zones, amend as follows:  The Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) and Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) may be used if a mix of zones are applied across larger sites or precincts in conjunction with employment areas. In this instance, the MUZ or RGZ parts of the site should be re-categorised to a MILS Category 3 in the Industrial Employment Framework, and the employment zones re-categorised to a Category 1.  Under Objective 3 (Employment Areas – Category 2), under Strategies add:  Employment uses are considered to be prioritised if either the following are met: . Ensure employment opportunities are prioritised over residential uses in Employment Areas. Where multi-use development including a residential component is proposed, the amount of employment floorspace should be at least equivalent to the amount of all proposed ground floor and first floor building floor space (inclusive of car parking, other serves and circulation space), or . Where rezoning of a large site is proposed, the part of the site is allocated solely for employment uses to Council’s satisfaction with a zone that prohibits residential uses applied to that part of the site. The changes to the MILS strategy and the LPPF are found in Attachments 6 and 7. 3.12 Drafting of the DDO The Panel did not provide a track changes version of the DDO - which would normally be the case - because of its finding that the DDO was not an appropriate mechanism as it did not accord with the strategic objectives of the site. Notwithstanding, it did make comments on the DDO in response to issues raised by the Proponent’s expert planning witnesses (these are set out in pp 38-41 of the Panel report). Subsequent to the Panel hearing, Council officers have met with the proponent’s planning consultants and consensus was reached on most of the provisions. A revised DDO25 with is found Attachment 3. The attached version shows the changes in red that Council Officers submitted on a without prejudice basis at the end of the Panel hearing and the changes in blue have been made following further discussions with the Proponent. The changes to the DDO reflect issues discussed in this report. There are also a number of refinements to improve clarity.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 337

3.13 Financial contribution to upgrade Campbell Reserve The proponent has confirmed in writing a contribution of $200,000-$250,000 towards the upgrading of Campbell Reserve subject to the Amendment and the DDO (as recommended by Council officers) being approved. The Recreation Unit has advised that the contribution could meet approximately 40% of the full upgrade of the northern pitch. The contribution would be secured through a section 173 agreement. The agreement would be entered into before the amendment is sent to the Minister for approval and would come into effect when the amendment is gazetted. The agreement would set out the timing and exact contribution of the payments. The contribution would be additional to the Development Contribution required under the Development Contribution Overlay and the Open Space Contribution required under the schedule to Clause 52.01. It is estimated that based on projected commercial floor space and dwelling yield provided for in DDO25 that the development contribution would be in the order of $530k and the open space contributions would be in the order of $700k-$1mK. The actual amounts payable are subject to the final design of future development for the site. 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 Amendment C160 to the Moreland Planning Scheme was publicly exhibited from 3 March 2016 to 7 April 2016. A detailed summary of the Public Consultation process was reported to Council on 10 August 2016 (DED/6216). All submitters have been notified of the timing of this report. The planning controls (DDO25) have been drafted in close collaboration with Council Officers from the Urban Design, Open Space and Strategic Transport Units. Council was briefed on the Panel report and officer recommendations at its meeting 15 May 2017. 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 proponent was required to meet the Panel costs of $31,000 and will need to pay the statutory fees for both adoption by Council and approval by the Minister. 7. Implementation  Decision Gateway 1: Authorisation and Exhibition (completed).  Decision Gateway 2: Submission Review and Panel Request (completed).  Decision Gateway 3: Review Panel report and consider adoption of the Amendment (this report to Council). If Council resolves to adopt the Amendment with our without changes (Decision Gateway 3) it will be sent to the Minister for approval. If Council resolves to abandon the Amendment no further action is required other than to advise the Minister pursuant to section 28 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. No rights of appeal exist.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 338

Attachment/s 1⇩ Moreland C160 Panel Report D17/172287 2⇩ Proponent Letter of Support D17/180932 3⇩ DDO25 - Council Report Version D17/162411 4⇩ Council officer response to Urbis comments on C160 Panel report D17/55861 5⇩ Photomontage Viewpoints D17/180955 6⇩ MILS 2015-2030 - Final Version - Revised to improve clarity regarding D17/172299 Category 2 Areas 7⇩ Changes to the MSS Clause 21.03 D17/172309 8⇩ Cultural Heritage Report D17/186631

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 339

DED46/17 AMENDMENT C169 - ADVERTISING AND CLUB SIGNAGE IN OPEN SPACE RESERVES (D17/124396) Director Planning and Economic Development City Strategy and Design

Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to seek Council support to adopt a new planning framework for the consideration of signs sought by sporting clubs and community groups in Council’s public open space reserves. In 2013, a report was prepared for Council that identified that many signs in Council’s open space reserves had been erected without the necessary planning approval (DED65/13). Council responded to the report by resolving to undertake a review of its signage policies and practices. It also resolved to introduce a moratorium on the enforcement of the unlawful signage pending the outcomes of the review. The review was undertaken by ASR Research who produced a report Signage Policy for Sportsgrounds – Findings and Issues Paper (September 2015). One of the recommendations of the Findings and Issues Paper was to prepare a planning scheme amendment on advertising signs in public open space areas. Informal consultation of the report occurred with sporting clubs to seek feedback on a proposed amendment. Prior to the report being formally considered by Council, it was resolved under General Business at the April 2016 Council meeting (GB25/16) to establish a working party with sporting club representatives to draft a policy that meets the needs of amenity, safety, local environment, neighbours and clubs. Specifically, it was resolved that any amendment to the planning scheme should ensure that most signs do not require a planning permit other than signs that are visible from outside the reserve. Clause 52.05 (Advertising Signs) of the Moreland Planning Scheme is a State provision and there is little scope to change this provision to meet Council’s resolution to not require a planning permit for most signs in public open space reserves. Accordingly, Council officers recommended to the working group that Council prepare an alternative planning mechanism to control advertising signs. This alternative planning mechanism is known as an incorporated document. An incorporated document exempts the normal planning scheme requirements from applying to nominated areas of land and in effect sets out an alternative suite of planning controls and processes. Under the incorporated document, clubs and community groups will not have to apply for a planning permit but instead apply to the recreation unit for the erection and display of signs and meet the conditions regarding the size, placement and type of advertising messaging. This framework will ensure Council can consider the impacts of signs but not require clubs to go through a lengthy and costly exercise of applying for a planning permit. To insert the incorporated document into the Moreland Planning Scheme an amendment to the planning scheme is required. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council seek authorisation from the Minister to exhibit a planning scheme amendment (Amendment C169) that would insert the incorporated document advertising and club signage in open space reserves (June 2017) into the Moreland Planning Scheme. Should the Minister grant authorisation, the amendment to the planning scheme would be exhibited for a minimum of one month and allow submissions to be made. A further report will be presented to Council that responds to the issues raised in submissions. If there are unresolved submissions Council could request the appointment of a Planning Panel.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 547

Recommendation Council resolve: 1. To adopt the draft incorporated document advertising and club signage in open space reserves June 2017 for the purpose of public exhibition of a planning scheme amendment. 2. To write to the Minister for Planning requesting Authorisation to prepare an amendment to the Moreland Planning Scheme (Amendment C169). 3. That following receipt of the Minister’s Authorisation of Amendment C169, proceed to public exhibition in accordance with Section 19 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. 4. To provide the Director Planning and Economic Development delegated authority to make changes to Amendment C169 based on: a) Council’s resolution for this report. b) Any conditions imposed in the Authorisation granted by the Minister for Planning. c) Any changes to the relevant documents to correct errors and grammatical changes. 5. To receive a further report when the exhibition period closes to consider any submissions received. 6. To extend the moratorium on enforcement on club signs in open space reserves until the draft incorporated document is introduced into the Moreland Planning Scheme and that in the meantime any proposals for signs requested by clubs be referred to the recreation unit and be assessed against the guidelines in the draft incorporated document.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 548

REPORT

1. Policy Context Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.03-4 of the Moreland Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) includes an objective to ensure signage is sensitive to the style, scale and character of buildings and streetscapes. Local Planning Policy Framework Clause 22.04 Advertising Signs includes the following general policy objectives:  Encouraging the display of attractive signs that have simple, concise messages.  Ensuring signs are compatible with host buildings, nearby buildings and streetscapes.  To ensure that signs on heritage properties do not detract from the significance of the heritage place. The specific objectives with respect to signs in residential and open space areas include:  Ensuring signs are modest in scale and sensitive to the residential character and amenity of an area.  Ensure that signs are designed and located so as to minimise the impact on the surrounding area.  Ensure that signs are sympathetic to the landscape character of the area.  Discourage business identification signs. Moreland Planning Scheme - Clause 52.05 Advertising Signs Clause 52.05 Advertising Signs of the Moreland Planning Scheme details signage categories with the underlying zone stipulating which advertising sign category applies to the particular zone. Most sporting grounds are contained in land within the public park and recreation zone (PPRZ) which is in Category 4 – Sensitive Areas where maximum limitations apply. As a result the Moreland Planning scheme severely restricts most signage in the PPRZ and prohibits all promotion signs. Council Action Plan (CAP) 2016-2017 The CAP for 2016-2017 includes item 19, which is to develop an Advertising Signs in Public Reserves Policy. 2. Background In 2013, a Council report detailed concerns about the growing number of advertising and club name signs in open space, signs remaining up after events and when sporting seasons had concluded, and the potential risk and damage to community assets from improper hanging and erection of signs. The report noted that sponsor signs displayed in sportsgrounds were prohibited under the Moreland Planning Scheme. In response, Council resolved to:  Undertake a review of its signage policies and practice; and  Introduce a moratorium on the enforcement of the signage prohibitions in the Moreland Planning Scheme pending the outcomes of the review.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 549

The aim of the review was to develop a ‘Signage in Open Space Policy’ for Council to regulate the future provision of advertising and club name signage in open space areas across the municipality. The review had four objectives:  Describe the extent and nature of signage in open space in Moreland.  Provide a consistent Council approach to the display of signage in open space.  Develop a ‘Signage in Open Space Policy’ which achieves a balance between retaining community group and club revenues from signage and protecting visual amenity and community safety.  Make recommendations about existing signage that does not comply with the new ‘Signage in Open Space Policy’. A draft report and policy by ASR Research in 2016 titled ‘Signage in Open Space Policy’ found:  34 sports grounds have signs on display.  718 signs are displayed at these reserves.  Of these, 512 are sponsor signs and 195 are club name and club activity signs.  440 sponsor signs are larger than 2m2.  20 club name or activity signs are larger than 3m2. The report recommended that the planning enforcement moratorium be extended for a further 2-3 years to facilitate the phased introduction of the new policy and planning scheme amendment. The report proposed changes to the planning scheme, but these changes would not exempt sports clubs from requiring a planning permit for their signs. The report was presented at a March 2016 Sports Club Forum and feedback was received from sports clubs in the following weeks. The sports clubs had serious reservations because of the signage restrictions and additional administrative burden of submitting planning applications. A General Business item (GB25/16) was raised at the April 2016 meeting that stated: Sporting clubs make an invaluable contribution to the social fabric and sense of community in Moreland. Signage promotes the club identity, informs the community of club activity and advertising signage provides a funding stream to ensure clubs' viability. Following consideration of this General Business item, Council resolved:  That Council receives a report and Signage Policy in co-operation with sporting clubs which considers establishing a working party which includes Council Officers and sporting clubs, to draft a policy that meets the needs of amenity, safety, local environment, neighbours and clubs.  In the event that the working group is established it consider:  Amending the Moreland Planning Scheme to ensure most signs do not require a planning permit. The amendment would clarify that only permanent signs, which are visible beyond the recreational reserve, require a planning permit.  Different categories of signage - permanent signs such as club names; seasonal signs such as advertising signs; temporary seasonal such as club programs and temporary signs for club and community activities. A working party, comprising of members from the local sporting clubs and Council Officers, have worked through a number of approaches for a signage policy.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 550

The recommended approach is to adopt an Incorporated Document relating specifically to signage in sporting reserves (‘Advertising and Club Signage in Open Space Reserves’). An incorporated document exempts the normal planning scheme requirements from applying to nominated areas of land and in effect sets out an alternative suite of planning controls and processes. Under the incorporated document, clubs and community groups will not have to apply for a planning permit but instead apply to the recreation unit for the erection and display of signs and meet the conditions regarding the size, placement and type of advertising messaging. The incorporated document identifies all of the reserves it applies to. A draft of the incorporated plan is found at Attachment 1. 3. Issues The key issues detailed in this section of the report explains:  The role of incorporated documents in planning schemes.  When can an incorporated document be used.  Key features of the proposed Incorporated Document - Advertising and Club Signage in Open Space Reserves.  Existing and transitional arrangements. The role of incorporated documents in Planning Schemes Incorporated documents exempt normal planning scheme requirements to nominated areas and in effect set out their own planning requirements and processes. An incorporated document has the same weight as the planning scheme. Since it becomes part of the planning scheme, an amendment is required to insert or change an incorporated document. When can an incorporated document be used? An incorporated document can be inserted into planning schemes thorough Clause 52.03 Specific Sites and Exclusions of the Victoria Planning Provisions. The purposes of Clause 52.03 are to:  Recognise specific controls designed to achieve a particular land use and development outcome existing on the approval date.  Provide in extraordinary circumstances specific controls designed to achieve a particular land use and development outcome. The proposed schedule to Clause 52.03 of the Moreland Planning Scheme is in Attachment 2. It identifies the sites in which the incorporated document applies. The question of what is ‘extraordinary circumstances’ has been addressed by previous Planning Panels. In Amendment C62 to the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, the Panel agreed that the word ‘extraordinary’ should be interpreted as out of the ordinary, in accordance with the dictionary definitions and not be given an elevated or restricted meaning relating to the amount or scale. In Amendment C143 to the Boroondara Planning Scheme, the Panel held that Clause 52.03 is not limited to circumstances where there are no alternative mechanisms to approve applications. Council Officers consider that the proposed incorporated document Advertising and Club Signage in Open Space Reserves meets the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ under Clause 52.03 because the Advertising Signs controls in Clause 52.05 of the Victoria Planning Provisions are too restrictive and do not provide sufficient guidance for signage in public reserves. For example, no sponsor signs are currently permitted on land in the public park and recreation zone (PPRZ). Council does have the option of amending the planning scheme to allow sponsor signs in the PPRZ, however Clause 52.05 does not allow sponsor signs bigger than 2m2. This would not meet the needs of most sporting clubs as most sponsor signs are about 3m2.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 551

An incorporated plan must be explicitly identified in Clause 81.01 of the Moreland Planning Scheme, as shown in Attachment 3. Key features of the proposed incorporated document advertising signage in open space reserves? The Incorporated Document Advertising and Club Signage in Open Space Reserves exempts specific open space reserves from the signage provisions in Clause 52.05 of the planning scheme. It is intended for sporting clubs and community organisations that want to display community event, sponsor, club membership/player, club name, and club activity signs. In summary, the conditions in the draft incorporated document include:  Sponsor signs should be no bigger than 3m2 and only fixed to fences around playing fields, tennis courts or bowling greens or like facilities. Signs cannot be fixed to any other structures including pavilions, scoreboards or the perimeter fences around reserves based on safety and amenity considerations. Signs should face inwards and should not cover more than 50% of the internal circumference of the fence.  Club name signs should be no bigger than 3m2. Only one sign per club can be erected at each reserve which can be fixed to pavilions and clubhouses and on the boundaries of reserves in approved locations.  Temporary club activity signs should be no bigger than 3m2 only one club activity sign can be erected in a reserve at any one time. The signs can be displayed for 3 weeks with the possibility of an extension if approved by Council.  The production and installation controls ensure that signs are of good quality, fixed securely and safe.  Clubs are responsible for maintaining and adequately insuring the signs.  Seasonal clubs are required to get Council approval for the erection of all new signage in open space through Council’s annual and seasonal allocations. Lease clubs are required to get Council approval for the erection of all new signs in open space through the annual application process.  Clubs are responsible for the removal of signs at the end of their occupancy agreement. Temporary activity signs are to be removed within 4 weeks of being erected. Existing and transitional arrangements Council resolved to adopt a general moratorium of planning enforcement of club signs in public reserves for a 3 year period to July 2016 while the review was being undertaken (DED65/13). While the date of the moratorium has passed, no enforcement has been undertaken because the review has yet to be completed. It is recommended that the moratorium be extended until the incorporated document is introduced into the planning scheme. In the meantime, it is proposed that requests by clubs to erect signs be assessed by the recreation unit in accordance with the guidelines in section 4.2 of the incorporated document. This course of action will ensure that revenue generated to the clubs from sponsor signs are not jeopardised. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 552

4. Consultation Following Council’s resolution in April 2016, Terms of Reference were developed for the Signage in Active Reserves Working Group. An expression of interest process was then undertaken and six representatives from sporting clubs appointed. Advice was sought from officers across Council in the preparation of the Incorporated Document including Manager Youth and Leisure Services; Manager Capital Works Delivery and Open Space. An overview of the approach of the Incorporated Document Advertising and Club Signage in Open Space Reserves was given at the Winter Sports Forum in April 2017 where about 20 Club representatives were in attendance. There was general consensus that an Incorporated Document was a far more effective tool to manage and administer signs in open space reserves than the normal planning scheme requirements. Attachment 4 outlines the proposed exhibition and consultation plan. Subject to Council resolution, the amendment will be exhibited in accordance with the requirements of section 19 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This includes a one-month exhibition period, notices in the Victoria Government Gazette and the Moreland Leader newspaper, and letters to affected property owners/occupiers, nearby property owners/occupiers and prescribed Ministers. Nearby property owners/occupiers would include all properties that have a direct abuttal to the reserves listed in the attachment to the proposed incorporated document. Council officers would also be available to respond to any questions or issues raised by the clubs and general community. 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 action this resolution are budgeted for within the operating budget of the City Strategy and Design Branch. Council will be responsible for paying the statutory fees to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) at the authorisation, Panel Hearing and approval stages of the amendment. 7. Implementation If Council resolves in accordance with the Council officer recommendations, the next step will be to seek authorisation to prepare Amendment C169 from the Minister for Planning. Following receipt of authorisation, exhibition of the amendment will be undertaken. The following timeline is broken down into key ‘decision gateways’ for Council. The timeline is subject to Ministerial approval timelines and Panel report turnaround. Decision Gateway 1: Authorisation Request to Minister and Exhibition  June 2017: Finalisation of exhibition materials and authorisation sought from Minister to exhibit.  July/August 2017: Public Exhibition (4 weeks proposed).  September: Review submissions, brief Councillors on any submissions received and prepare Council report.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 553

Decision Gateway 2: Submission Review and Panel Request (if required)  October 2017: Council Report to consider submissions and seek Ministers appointment of a Panel to consider submissions (if required).  November 2017: Panel Directions Hearing, prepare Council’s case for Panel (includes preparation of expert witness statements).  December 2017: Panel Hearing (anticipated to take a minimum of 1 week, depending on the number of submissions received).  February 2018: Receive Panel Report (guidelines recommend a 6 week turn around for a 2 member Panel for an amendment of this scope). Decision Gateway 3: Panel Review and Approval Request to Minister  March 2018: Council Report to consider Panel recommendations.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Advertising and Club Signage in Open Space Reserves - Draft D17/162014 Incorporated Document 2⇩ Revised Schedule to Specific Sites and Exclusions - Clause 52.03 - D17/162274 C169 3⇩ Revised Schedule to Incorporated Documents - Clause 81.01 - C169 D17/162275 4⇩ Amendment C169 Draft Exhibition plan D17/162375

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 554

DED47/17 MORELAND HERITAGE ACTION PLAN (D17/120227) Director Planning and Economic Development City Strategy and Design

Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to present the draft Heritage Action Plan (the Plan) 2017-2032 (Attachment 1) for Council endorsement. The aim of the draft Plan is to assist Council to meet its heritage obligations as set out in various legislation in an integrated manner. The Plan provides a framework for the identification, conservation and management of the City’s heritage. The Plan was prepared by Council’s Strategy Unit. All areas of Council with a role in knowing, protecting, managing or communicating the City’s heritage participated in the preparation of the draft, which also draws from an audit of previous heritage studies, planning panel report recommendations and past Council decisions. The implementation (action) plan in the Plan sets out 46 actions to be delivered over the next 15 years with associated resource/budget requirements, delivery timeframes and measures set out for each action. It also articulates actions that are currently resourced and within Council’s Strategic Resource Plan versus actions that require new funding as detailed in the financial section of this report. The draft Plan was endorsed by Council for community consultation at the February 2017 meeting (DED9/17), which was undertaken from 21 February to 21 March 2017. Seven submissions were received from the Public Records Office of Victoria, residents and the Coburg Historical Society. Submitters generally supported the draft Plan however some issues were raised which are addressed in this report. Consequently some changes have been made to the draft Plan which are also outlined in this is report and the Plan is now recommended for adoption.

Recommendation Council resolves to: 1. Note submissions received to the draft Action Plan and write to submitters to thank them for their contribution. 2. Endorse the revised Moreland Heritage Action Plan 2017 - 2032 as shown at Attachment 1. 3. Authorise the Director of Planning and Economic Development to make any changes in accordance with Council’s resolution on the draft Plan.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 568

REPORT

1. Policy Context The key policy directly related to the draft Plan is included in the Council Plan, ‘Outcome 11 – The Historical places of the City of Moreland continue to be enhanced’. The key strategy is to: ‘Continue to identify and protect places of identified heritage through the Heritage Overlay in the Moreland Planning Scheme and the planning permit process’. Moreland’s heritage places and spaces are managed by several Federal, State and local legislative frameworks. Actions of the draft Plan are also aligned to initiatives of Moreland’s Key strategies and policies including:  Council Plan 2013 – 2017  2025 Community Vision  Structure Plans for Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy  Open Space Strategy 2012 - 2022  Human Rights Policy 2016 - 2026  Economic Development Strategy 2016 - 2021  Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2013 - 2017  Arts and Culture Strategy 2011 - 2016  Disability Access and Inclusion Plan 2016-2020  Street Landscape Study 2012 – 2022. 2. Background The Plan has been prepared using the toolkit prepared by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (formerly Department of Planning and Community Development) Municipal Heritage Strategies: A guide for Councils. The Plan sets out the parameters for the further identification, conservation and management of the City’s heritage and also identifies positive heritage measures already being undertaken. The Plan is underpinned by a heritage vision statement and the framework of principles, objectives and strategies is assembled under four key themes: Knowing, Protecting, Supporting and Communicating. Each action has been prioritised in terms of high, medium, low or on-going, in terms of implementation timeframes. Budget implications, delivery timeframes and measures have also been identified for each action. The Moreland Heritage Action Plan 2017-2032 is included at Attachment 1.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 569

3. Issues This section outlines the key issues raised through the consultation period and how they have been addressed in the revised Action Plan. A detailed summation of the key issues raised in the submissions and Council Officer response is included in Attachment 2. Submitter Key issues Officer Response 1.Resident The submitter acknowledged For reasons as outlined to follow Moreland’s ongoing efforts to planning controls manage any such meet State Government planning conflict. Currently, protection of and housing density heritage places is mandated by the requirements. Moreland Planning Scheme via the The submitter raised concerns Heritage Policy (Clause 22.06), the with potential conflict between Heritage Overlay (Clause 43.01) Neighbourhood Centres and and in some cases adjoining Heritage. An example was Daly individually significance places, Street/Burnell Street, Brunswick Schedule 1 to the Design and West where the General Development Overlay (DDO1). Residential Zone has a large Development applications for impact on the heritage of those properties included in the Moreland streets for marginal gain in Heritage Overlay within the dwelling density. designated neighbourhood centres must accord with the policy requirements of both the local planning policy and Heritage Overlay. Amendment C159 was adopted by Council on 8 March 2017. At this meeting Council resolved to request the Minister to rezone land on the west side of Burnell Street, Brunswick West from General Residential Zone to Neighbourhood Residential Zone. The amendment is currently with the Minister for Planning for approval. On 27 March 2017 the State Government implemented a response to the recommendations of the Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee by introducing revised residential zones. Action P1i of the new Council Plan 2017-2021 (currently on public consultation), relates to a review of the 2017 Reformed Residential Zones to understand their impacts on residential development outcomes, and scope any necessary changes to the Planning Scheme to improve built form outcomes within the Residential Zones. Council Officer recommendation: Given all of the above no change is required to the draft Plan.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 570

Submitter Key issues Officer Response 2. Resident The submission discouraged This matter is handled separately to larger dwellings that have no any heritage planning controls. The space for shade trees. The reformed residential zones released submitter suggested that future by the State Government on 27 development should be legislated March 2017 via VC110 introduced a to have a certain amount of new mandatory requirement for a shading proving trees as part of minimum garden area to be the proposal stage. provided when land is developed in the Neighbourhood Residential Zones and General Residential Zones. This mandatory requirement will enable development to proceed but not at the expense of our valued neighbourhood characteristics such as our heritage, trees, gardens and streetscapes. In addition, objective 12 of the MSS aims ‘to ensure development is integrated with landscape design to improve aesthetic quality and amenity for occupants and the public domain.’ Landscape Plans should be assessed using the Moreland Landscape Guidelines 2009. Council Officer recommendation: No change to the draft Plan. 3.Public The submission outlined the This submission is supported as it Records specific requirements of the clarifies Council’s obligation in the Office of Public Records Act 1973 relating Plan to ensure historic/archival Victoria to the management and records are freely available and (PROV) maintenance of public records. maintained. Council Officer recommendation: Amend Action C8 on page 31 ‘Continue to collect, preserve and archive the City’s historic documents and object’ to include PROV as a partner to this action. 4.Resident The submitter raised concerns Research is not limited to the that information researched by internet. Council is limited to the internet The Implementation Plan rather than researched in a pro- establishes a clear framework for active manner. the proactive identification of potential heritage places (Actions K1, K3, K5, K10, K14, K 15 and P10). Additionally, the Action Plan also commits Council to subsequent planning scheme amendments to introduce the identified places into the Moreland Planning Scheme so that they are afforded the appropriate protection (Actions P1, P2 and P7).

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 571

Submitter Key issues Officer Response The process to investigate and assess the cultural heritage significance of places involves a strict methodology of expert advisors, consultants, community nomination process. Council Officer recommendation: No change to the draft Plan. 5. Resident The submitter suggests adding The Right of Way Strategy, by ‘kerbs and channels’ to Action K8 nature of its title, is limited to right of that relates to the review of the ways (or laneways), and hence the Right of Way Strategy to make it inclusion of kerb and channel within more comprehensive and this document would not be consistent with Action K11 that appropriate. relates to the Bluestone Policy. Action K11 is to develop an all- encompassing document of the use of bluestone in construction, which will include kerb and channel. Council Officer recommendation: No change to the draft Plan. 6. President, The president noted that the The bluestone cottage at 82 Bell Coburg Coburg Historical Society is fully Street, Coburg is registered on the Historical in agreement with the Heritage Victorian Heritage Register and the Society Action Plan. Concerns were Moreland Heritage Overlay. As a specifically raised with the future result, the Bluestone Cottage is of the bluestone building at 82 legally protected and cannot be Bell Street, Coburg and the altered in any way without a permit relocation of the headquarters of or permit exemption from Heritage the historical society. Victoria. In 2012, as part of the Coburg Initiative Hospital Project, Council resolved to relocate the existing Coburg Historical Society museum operations from the existing bluestone cottage to the Band Room building (Corner Elm Grove and Urquhart Street); a building also of heritage significance. Council Officer recommendation: No change to the draft Plan. 7. Resident The submission suggested The submitter’s suggestions are and member several changes to refine the supported as they acknowledge the of Coburg draft Plan and acknowledge the important work of local heritage Historical work being undertaken by the groups and associations. Society Coburg Historical Society and Council Officer other heritage related groups. In recommendations: Add specific particular, Councils’ role as a reference to all groups and partner to heritage groups was associations to the achievements recommended to be section on page 12. strengthened. Refine the achievements section to clarify Council’s role as partner in regards to installing plaques on page 12.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 572

Submitter Key issues Officer Response Add local historic societies and heritage groups as supporting partners to action C3 on page 30. Add an additional section on page 12 to detail the work undertaken by our heritage groups and societies. Add an additional strategy that acknowledges the partnership role of local historic organisations to the framework on pages 9 and 27. Add local historical societies and qualified historians as partners to action S5 on page 28. Additional changes to the draft action plan  In order to align with the new Council Plan 2017-2021 (currently on public consultation) an action relating to the review of the Pentridge Masterplans has been added. H.M Prison Pentridge is included on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR H1551), any review of the masterplans would need to consider the heritage significance of the prison and its surrounds. This also relates to the existing action pertaining to the sites nomination to the National Heritage Register.  In addition to the changes listed in the table above that respond to submissions, the section relating to the State Government residential zone reforms has been modified (specifically, section 4 – Heritage Challenges and Opportunities, which originally made reference to the review of the application of the zones following release of the advisory committee report). This section has been modified as the State Government has recently implemented a response to the recommendations of the Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee Reports by introducing revised residential zones on the 27 March 2017. The related action P3 in the implementation plan has been removed as work reviewing the implications of these changes is being undertaken and will be separately reported to Council. 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 Community consultation undertaken from 21 February to 21 March 2017 resulted in seven submissions received, the public consultation process included:  Promotion via the Council webpage with an on-line response option  Promotion through the local media about the consultation  Face to face and telephone options for community members or groups  Direct notification to stakeholder groups including: Local Historic Associations, Heritage Victoria, National Trust, Registered Aboriginal Parties, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, adjoining Councils, residents groups and management committees  A drop in session was held on 7 March 2017. 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 14 June 2017 573

6. Financial and Resources Implications The Moreland Heritage Action Plan does not commit Council to additional expenditure, operating within the existing financial footprint of Council. Funding for the actions are either within the current adopted Strategic Resource Plan (and as drafted) or subject to new internal budget bids, partnerships and/or external funding applications. The implementation plan clearly articulates existing heritage services that are resourced and also what are unfunded projects. This is to ensure that when Council is making a decision to adopt the Plan it is clear which initiatives are covered by the Strategic Resource Plan and those which are not. Section 5 of the Plan outlines 46 key projects to be implemented over a 15 year period, which includes 3 Council Planning cycles. In terms of the new funding, of the total proposed 46 actions, 38 of these projects are currently funded under existing project budgets and/or existing staff time; and 8 projects require new operating funding and/or grant/partnership funds to deliver the action. In terms of existing services, of the 46 actions 16 actions have an ongoing delivery timeframe and are within existing resources (e.g. Council’s Heritage Advisor service that assists Council’s Urban Planners with heritage applications). The remaining 30 actions are not part of ongoing (existing) services and have been allocated a priority of high, medium and low as shown by the financial year(s) for delivery for each project. The approximate cost to implement all the actions identified in the implementation plan requiring new funds is $334,000 (note this figure excludes Council officer base resources/staff time and projects where a business case process is required to accurately determine/confirm costs). A significant portion of these funds ($220,000) would be required to implement a future planning scheme amendment of the public nomination process that was recently conducted, and will the subject of future budget bid requests. Business cases and/or external grants, partnerships and in kind support are required to support implementation of the 8 unfunded actions. Council officers will continue to prepare business cases and funding applications on Council’s behalf in order to support realisation of actions. Importantly, the implementation plan has been drafted so we don’t lose sight of heritage opportunities over a longer term view; by including currently unfunded actions, it factors in that we are open to delivering these actions should resources/budgeting become available down the track. The 15 year term of the Plan (i.e. 2017 – 2032) aligns with three Council Plan planning cycles. The longer term horizon enables review of progress to the end of each Council term, and also enables adjustments to be made to the implementation plan in line with Council’s planning and budgeting cycles, and partnership and grant funding opportunities.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 574

7. Implementation The implementation process for the Moreland Heritage Action Plan includes:  Upon resolution of Council, upload the endorsed version of the Action Plan onto the Moreland City Council Website;  Provide the endorsed version to key stakeholders; and  A monitoring and milestone report will be presented to Council in 2018 to ensure the actions committed to have commenced, any actions that are likely to change, actions underway or that have been completed.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Revised Moreland Heritage Action Plan D17/143644 2⇩ Submission Summary D17/131132

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 575

DED48/17 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF CAR STACKERS (D17/127470) Director Planning and Economic Development City Strategy and Design

Executive Summary At the December 2016 Council meeting, Council requested a report via a General Business Item on the potential impact of car stackers (GB58/16), which included the following items:  Consider development of a local policy and laws applicable to the use and operation of car stackers with the City of Moreland and their effect on Moreland residents, with all car stackers being totally located inside any building and below ground level.  Consider new regulations specifically for the use of car stackers in residential developments, and commercial premises where nearby residents are affected.  Clarify the appropriateness of other regulations applicable to the use, maintenance, and health and safety of car stackers pertaining to users and nearby affected residents.  Consider the benefits of a delegation to the Minister of Planning comprising of the Mayor, Helen Davidson, 2 councillors, 2 representatives of the car stacker objectors, a representative of the Brunswick Residents Network, and Council Officers, to advocate on this matter.  Review the works with nearby municipalities in the development of such local policies and laws where the impact of car stackers is occurring. Following a review of best practice options and current provisions already afoot, the purpose of this report is to provide an update on the implementation status of the items listed above and recommendations for Council’s consideration in order to further address community concern. The above Council officer recommendations are in addition to Council’s recently adopted changes to Moreland’s Local Planning Policy Framework via Amendment C159 to the Moreland Planning Scheme. Amendment C159 makes specific reference to car stackers in the Municipal Strategic Statement, to require that where car stackers are proposed, that they are designed to suitably buffer adjoining dwellings from all impacts as shown at Attachment 1 (this amendment is currently under consideration by the Minister for Planning).

Recommendation Council resolves to: 1. Add car stacker noise conditions to the Planning Permit Standard Conditions Manual (Attachment 2). 2. Upload a Car Stacker Noise Information Sheet to Council’s website (Attachment 3). 3. Continue to participate in the EPA’s Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008 review and specifically ask that car stackers be listed within the regulations in the same way as other noise generating items. 4. Note that new local policies/laws and a specific delegation to the Minister of Planning are not required on this matter as potential noise impacts associated with car stackers are addressed via the actions outlined in recommendations 1,2 and 3 above, the changes made to Amendment C159 submitted to the Minister for approval, and existing standards. 5. Note that Council officer consultation with officer representatives from nearby municipalities has confirmed that the existing standards and use of permit conditions (as outlined in recommendation 1) address the issue effectively and do not therefore require the development of additional policies/laws on this matter.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 616

REPORT

1. Policy Context Moreland’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) includes a vision to create sustainable neighbourhoods which include a mix of shops and services, community facilities, housing choices, employment choices, public transport and open spaces. Council’s vision for sustainable neighbourhoods underpins the way that Council plans for and manages population growth and associated development into the future, for the overall health and wellbeing of the community and to achieve environmentally sustainable development. In particular, strategies encourage increased density housing to be located within Activity and Neighbourhood Centres. Within these centres, increased housing densities and a change in character towards a denser urban environment are encouraged, which facilitates integrated transport and land use planning. More intensive use of land across inner Melbourne is resulting in car stackers being more commonly used within apartment and medium density housing developments as they are considered to be more efficient in terms of space utilised and cost effectiveness. They are an acceptable outcome as a viable parking solution to support achievement of Council’s MSS. 2. Background There is some community concern that car stackers, particularly those located at ground level, could have noise and other impacts on surrounding residents. In a small number of instances in Moreland, some neighbours to proposed developments have expressed concern about the potential noise impact of car stackers. This section of the report outlines background information which puts the issue in context, including:  What is a car stacker and how do they work?  The nature of car stacker noise  Existing regulations/processes to mitigate car stacker noise  Information on a pending Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) decision on a planning application which includes a car stacker. What is a car stacker and how do they work? A car stacker is a mechanical device used to stack cars one on top of another. They are sometimes used for multi-unit apartment developments where space is at a premium. They use mechanical or hydraulic lifting mechanisms. Sometimes all spaces within a stacker are allocated to the same apartment and the lower car needs to be taken out of the stacker to access the upper car. Sometimes car stacker spaces are allocated to different apartments and each car is able to be moved in and out of the stacker independently. The occupants of a vehicle are not in the car whilst the car is being parked or removed from the stacker. Car stackers are manufactured with safety features for the benefit both passers-by and those parking their vehicles.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 617

The nature of car stacker noise The noise produced by car stackers can vary, however car stackers are not particularly noisy and the noise that they do make can be readily mitigated through stacker selection and attenuation treatments. The noise is intermittent and of short duration. Noise from car stackers is no different to noise from any other mechanical equipment in residential areas e.g. car stackers make a sustained noise from the motor, this aspect of the noise is typically no noisier than an automated roller door. Car stackers can also make an impact noise due to the metal of the platform hitting the stops. In such cases sound protection features can be installed. In the Cumming Street application (detailed further below) an acoustic consultant concluded that the impact noise from the car stacker would be quieter than the noise of car doors opening and closing. Car stackers operate a small number of times each day and for short periods of time. A review of VCAT expert evidence on car stackers in residential situations indicates that given current designs of available car stackers the actual operating time of stacking varies between 30 – 60 seconds, with frequencies of 3 – 6 trips per day per dwelling for medium density developments, with lower frequency when accessible public transport alternatives are present. A distinction needs to be made between the amount of time that it takes to load or unload a vehicle from a car stacker and the amount of time that the mechanics of the car stacker are in operation. As an example, it might take two minutes to get a car in or out of a stacker but the stacker may only be operational for 30 seconds of this 120 second period. Whilst Council occasionally receives objections relating to car stackers in the planning application process, Council has never received noise complaints once car stackers are operational. Council Officers consider that State noise regulations and planning permit conditions are successful in ensuring that any potential noise is appropriately mitigated (as detailed in the issues section of this report). Further, input by an acoustic consultant when considering planning permit applications will always identify technical ways to attenuate noise from stackers so that noise levels comply with State regulations. Existing regulations/processes to mitigate car stacker noise What is the relevant noise standard? There are Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) guidelines on permissible maximum noise levels of mechanical equipment in residential areas for different times of the day and night. Section 48A of the Environmental Protection Act 1970 makes it an offence to cause unreasonable noise from any residential premises. The Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008 apply to noise from residential premises. They list specific types of equipment and their prohibited times. Noise is automatically unreasonable if certain items are audible inside a neighbouring residence during the prohibited times. Items include motor vehicles, lawn mowers, electrical power tools and equipment, domestic heating/cooling equipment, pumps, musical instruments, amplified music, radios and televisions. The regulations also cover ‘other electric equipment’. There is debate amongst technical experts as to whether car stackers constitute ‘other electric equipment’ and the EPA has provided conflicting advice in this regard.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 618

For this reason many acoustic engineers refer to the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) to establish what an acceptable noise level is and then overlay the prohibited times from the Residential Noise Regulations to establish a reasonable noise level at different times of the day and night. In relatively quiet residential neighbourhoods with little background noise the broadly accepted maximum noise levels are:  Bedrooms: 35 dBA LAeq, 1 minute (indoor noise levels with windows closed)  Living rooms: 40 dBA LAeq, 1 minute (indoor noise levels with windows closed). By way of comparison, 40 dBA is the sound of running water in a creek or the noise level in a quiet library. The reasonable acceptable noise level recommended by acoustic engineers varies upwards in mixed use or commercial environments or in environments affected by significant background noise. Processes/measures to mitigate car stacker noise Like with noise of other mechanical equipment, where there is a particular concern an acoustic report can be requested within the planning permit application process. Noise conditions which cross reference State-wide requirements can be included on a permit and more specific conditions can be drawn from an acoustic report if the circumstance warrants. Common noise reduction measures used in the design of car stackers at ground level in a residential environment, include:  Sourcing a quiet car stacker  Adding a sound protection package for the selected stacker  Fully or partially enclosing the car park  Walls adjacent to the stacker to be of solid construction  Hard surface areas inside of the car park with sound absorption properties  High solid boundary fences. Not all attenuation measures are required in all circumstances when considering planning permit applications. Selected measures are used in combination. It is not always necessary to fully enclose the car park within a garage, or operate the stacker with the garage door closed in order to minimise the noise impact on surrounding residents. Information on a pending Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) decision on a planning application which includes a car stacker Car stackers are proposed in approximately 40-50 multi-unit/mixed use applications each year (less than 10% of multi-unit applications). Of these, approximately 9 in 10 locate the stackers in a basement. Less than 1 in 10 (less than 1% of multi-unit applications) propose car stackers at ground level. Over the past 2 years Council and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) have been considering a planning application for the intensification of the multi-unit development at 13-15 Cumming Street, Brunswick West. The site is located within the Melville Road/Albion Street/Victoria Street, Neighbourhood Centre where housing growth and built form intensification is encouraged by State and Local policy up to a four storey scale. The application proposes car parking at ground level with some of the spaces within car stackers. A number of nearby residents are concerned about noise, vibration and safety of the proposed car stackers. In particular they are concerned that noise could have an effect on surrounding residents and that car stackers could become the norm.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 619

Council’s Urban Planning Committee resolved to issue a Notice of Decision (NOD) to grant a permit for this development on 25 October 2016. The NOD included numerous detailed conditions to give effect to the recommendations of an acoustic consultant. This application is the subject of an objector appeal against the Council’s decision. The matter is set down to be heard by VCAT on 3 July 2017. In addition to noise, the Cumming Street car stacker objectors also raised objections about vibration, fire safety and safety of children, summarised as follows:  Vibration: Vibration is a noise transmitted through a structure. It is a subset of noise in relevant noise regulations and is addressed by acoustic consultants in their expert noise assessments.  Fire safety: Fire safety requirements for car stackers are addressed within the Building Code of Australia and compliance with these requirements is assessed by the Building Surveyor in the building permit process, with input by the Metropolitan Fire Brigade where necessary. In Victoria the MFB has developed a suite of deemed to comply standards, outlined in its Guideline 32 – Carparks, including multi-tiered vehicle stacking devices.  Safety of children: Car stackers are manufactured with pre-installed safety features that keep cars in place and restrict operation of the stacker. Safety features vary between systems but most commonly only owners who have a dedicated remote or key are able to operate the stacker and stackers are manufactured with emergency stop mechanisms. 3. Issues Car stackers were first invented in the 1920’s. Their use in Melbourne has only occurred in more recent times being used within apartment buildings across central and inner Melbourne over the past 20 plus years, most often within basement car parks. As highlighted in the background section of this report, car stackers are not a new technology and their use within apartment buildings in Melbourne is well established. There is an emerging trend within Moreland and adjoining municipalities where car stackers are being used in low rise multi-unit developments, at ground level. To date there is no evidence to suggest that noise from car stackers is an issue when they are located within basement car parks. This issues section of the report details the following:  What do the Minister for Planning, VCAT and surrounding Councils have to say on the issue of car stackers?  Options and recommendations to address concerns.  Consideration of the benefits of a delegation to the Minister of Planning to advocate on this matter. What do the Minister for Planning, VCAT and surrounding Councils have to say on the issue of car stackers? Minister for Planning In March 2016 the Mayor of Moreland wrote to the Minister for Planning highlighting concerns of residents on the potential noise impacts associated with the use of car stackers. Council requested that the Minister review Clause 52.06 of the Victoria Planning Provisions to specify standards for car stackers. In September 2016 the Executive Director Planning Building and Heritage responded on behalf of the Minister, who advised that:  Most car stacker systems are located within an apartment building and located below ground level, dampening noise and vibration;  Council can include appropriate conditions to mitigate the effects of car stackers during the permit process and that all dwellings must comply with the Environmental Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008; and  A review of Clause 52.06 would not be undertaken.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 620

VCAT/planning applications In Ryan v Moreland CC [2017] VCAT 24 the Tribunal stated: I find that parking is provided in the form of car stackers which are an acceptable method of providing parking in accordance with Design Standard 4: Mechanical Parking of Clause 52.06. Car stackers are now common within medium density housing developments. I agree with the findings of the Tribunal in Celic v Yarra CC & Ors[1]: The use of car stackers and mechanical parking systems of the type proposed in this application, have over recent years become increasingly popular throughout metropolitan Melbourne in developments of the type proposed in this application. While the use of these systems may still be outside the experiences of most people, there is nothing that is especially complicated, sophisticated or daunting about this proposed system that would lead me to conclude that it should not be applied in the context of this site. I have considered the car stacker arrangement and find that it is acceptable subject to conditions. In Pauleana Pty Ltd v Darebin CC [2016] VCAT 1491, the Tribunal stated: We find that accommodating cars in stackers is an appropriate way to provide car parking. It is contemplated in the planning scheme in clause 52.06, it is efficient in terms of space and it is cost effective. It is regularly used in apartment buildings where space is limited. We find nothing in the planning scheme that limits their use in locations such as this. In Steg v Moreland CC [2015] VCAT 1247, the Tribunal stated: The proposed car parking provision complies with the requirements of Clause 52.06-5. There is therefore no basis upon which to require any further car parking to be provided on the land. Although a mechanical (stacker) system is utilised, this is contemplated by Clause 52.06. Planning Application 790/2013 at 76 Barkly Street, St Kilda Report to Statutory Planning Committee stated: Car stackers are a common means of car parking provision within this municipality and are accepted by the Planning Scheme as a viable parking solution. There is no evidence to suggest that future residents of the proposed development would avoid the use of this parking system in favour of on-street parking. Nevertheless, it is considered that there is insufficient information provided about the type of stacker systems that would be installed or their capacity in terms of size of vehicles that they would accommodate. This deficiency could, however, be addressed by a condition on any permit granted.’ … ‘Stacker parking systems are not a major noise source.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 621

What Officers in other Councils have advised? Officers from other Councils have recently advised the following:  Car stacker noise is not a significant concern and it would not be a priority for them to develop a policy at present (City of Melbourne).  From time to time this comes up as an issue in objections, but not often. Within Yarra most stackers are internalised within a basement (City of Yarra).  No complaints have been received related to noise from car stackers and therefore it is not considered necessary to develop local policy or law to address this issue (City of Moonee Valley).  Planners and compliance teams have advised that it’s not an issue that comes up and a permit condition suitably handles this issue (City of Port Phillip). Input was also invited from Darebin, Stonington, and Maribyrnong Councils who have not made any comment. Options and recommendations to address concerns Council seeks to ensure that car stackers do not cause a noise nuisance to residents. On this basis, this section of the report considers options and recommendations to further address this issue including:  Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) – Local Planning Policy  Standard Planning Permit Conditions  Information Sheet  Advocacy State Noise Standards Review  Local Law  Delegation to the Minister for Planning. Local Planning Policy Framework – Local Planning Policy Since the December 2016 Council meeting, where Council requested a report on the potential impact of car stackers (GB58/16), Council has adopted an amendment to the LPPF to make specific mention of car stackers in the Moreland Planning Scheme. In the adoption of Amendment C159, Council has included a change to the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) to require that where car stackers are proposed, that they are designed to suitably buffer adjoining dwellings from all impacts (Council adopted this amendment at the March 2017 meeting). The adopted amendment to the LPPF and the specific change relating to car stackers is shown at Attachment 1. This amendment is currently under consideration by the Minister for Planning having been submitted to the Minister for approval 20 April 2017. Council officer recommendation: Given that car stackers are not particularly noisy, that mechanical noise in residential areas is regulated State-wide, that car stacker noise is infrequently an issue and that Council does not receive complaints about their operation, there is insufficient justification to warrant any further changes to the LPPF beyond the policy proposed within the MSS included as part of Amendment C159.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 622

Standard Planning Permit conditions City Development has a suite of standard conditions which it utilises when drafting conditions on planning permits. A new category of standard conditions is proposed specifically relating to car stackers to further address the issue and ensure that car stackers do not cause a noise nuisance to residents. These conditions have been recently developed and based on conditions used by Moreland and other Councils where noise from car stackers was of concern. The proposed new Standard Conditions for car stackers are shown at Attachment 2. Council officer recommendation:  Add car stacker noise conditions to the Planning Permit Standard Conditions Manual. Information sheet There is an existing series of planning information sheets/advisory note on Council’s website, which provides information to prospective permit applicants and Moreland residents about particular issues. A new information sheet is proposed relating to car stackers to provide information about relevant regulations, planning scheme content as well as planning processes on this issue. These information sheets are updated from time to time as required. The proposed car stacker noise impacts information sheet is at Attachment 3. Council officer recommendation To make the new information sheet on car stackers available on Council’s website to provide helpful information to residents and planning permit applicants on relevant regulations and planning scheme content/operations (subject to the outcomes of Council’s consideration of this report). Advocacy state noise standards review Mechanical noise in residential areas is regulated by the EPA. As with equipment like air conditioners, it is the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that any mechanical equipment in use on their property complies with state noise regulations whether a planning permit is required or not. It is also the responsibility of the land owner to ensure that their mechanical equipment continues to comply with state noise regulations on an ongoing basis as it ages. For the past three years Council has been actively participating in a review by the EPA and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning of the State Environment Protection Policies for noise. The EPA has recently commenced a revision of the Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008 which are due to sunset on 14 October 2018. The regulations are used to manage noise from residential premises and residential construction activities and Council will be inputting into this review. This input will include asking that car stackers be listed within the regulations in the same way as other noise generating items. It is also open to any interested person to participate in this review via the EPA’s online Residential Noise Survey 2017. Council officer recommendation To note that Council Officers will prepare a submission to recently commenced EPA revision of the Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008, which will ask that car stackers be listed within the regulations in the same way as other noise generating items.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 623

Local Law Local Laws are used by Councils to regulate things that are not regulated within State legislation and they are subordinate to state legislation. A Local Law relating to car stackers would set up the requirement for another permit in addition to planning and building permits on an issue which is already dealt with in State noise regulations and indirectly in planning schemes, on a matter which is being satisfactorily dealt with within the planning and building regulations/processes. Noise attenuation is more technical than issues usually dealt with in a Local Law which tend to be more yes or no / black or white; rather than involve a specialist technical assessment. Council officer recommendation: Based on above reasoning, a Local Law is not recommended to address this matter. Delegation to the Minister for Planning This report outlines the research into the potential impacts of car stackers and has found that it is not an issue which warrants a delegation to the Minister for Planning. Council officer recommendation:  Council has adopted Amendment C159, which makes proposed changes to the LPPF to make specific mention of car stackers in the Moreland Planning Scheme; as this amendment is already under consideration by the Minister for Planning and for reasons detailed in this report a separate delegation to the Minister for Planning on car stackers is not recommended.  Note - the Mayor and senior officers met with a Ministerial Adviser 22 March 2017 to advocate (amongst other matters relating to mandatory heights, apartment guidelines and ESD) for the approval of Amendments C159. 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 Advice was sought from officers across Council involved in the assessment of planning applications and the handling of noise complaints. Interpretation of State noise regulations was discussed with the Environmental Protection Authority. Input has been made by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and input was also sought from Port Phillip, Yarra, Melbourne, Darebin, Moonee Valley and Maribyrnong City Councils. 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 officers have conducted consultation with a range of authorities and Councils, completed and submitted changes to Amendment C159, prepared standard permit conditions and an information sheet utilising existing resources and base budget within City Strategy and Design. As unscheduled work for the 2016- 2017 work program this has been accommodated through minor delays to other planned projects.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 624

7. Implementation Council officers will continue to ensure that car stackers do not cause a noise nuisance to residents by (and as per the recommendations to this report):  Pursuing changes to the LPPF (via Amendment C159 already adopted by Council) now making specific mention of car stackers in the Moreland Planning Scheme.  Adding Car Stacker noise conditions to the Planning Permit Standard Conditions Manual.  Uploading a Car Stacker Noise Information Sheet to Council’s website.  Participating in the EPA’s Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008 review.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Recently adopted changes to MSS D17/154727 2⇩ Car Stacker Standard Conditions D17/154728 3⇩ Car Stacker Noise Information Sheet D17/154729

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 625

DED49/17 PLAN MELBOURNE 2017-2050 - THE UPDATED METROPOLITAN MELBOURNE PLANNING STRATEGY (D17/166968) Director Planning and Economic Development City Strategy and Design

Executive Summary This report provides a summary of Plan Melbourne 2017-2050: Metropolitan Planning Strategy (Plan Melbourne 2017) and its implications for Moreland. Plan Melbourne 2017 was released by the State Government in March 2017, following a review of the Plan Melbourne 2014. Key differences between Plan Melbourne 2014 and Plan Melbourne 2017 include:  Housing affordability Increased emphasis on improving housing affordability for all Victorians via new and updated policies, which also require planning system reforms.  Regional Implementation The Plan Melbourne Implementation Plan includes actions for the metropolitan regional planning groups to prepare regional Land Use Framework Plans and Regional Housing Plans.  Environmental sustainability and climate change New policies and implementation actions are included to support Melbourne’s transition to a low-carbon city consistent with the Government’s targets for renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions.  Design excellence Actions are included to achieve and promote built form design excellence and respect heritage character e.g. via a new independent expert design review service.  Infrastructure and public transport Committed transport projects have been included. Specific transport projects shown in Moreland are level crossing removals at Moreland Road, Brunswick, Bell Street, Coburg and Glenroy Road, Glenroy; and the CityLink -Tullamarine widening. When compared to Plan Melbourne 2014, Plan Melbourne 2017 is more clearly articulated, has an improved focus on key issues effecting Melbourne, and has a more detailed implementation plan that sets out actions to address them. The financial, practical and policy implications of these actions however, is yet to be fully detailed by The State Government. Attachment 2 to this report highlights Council Officer’s initial assessment of implications for Moreland for key actions in Plan Melbourne 2017. Given the lack of details available for the implementation plan only ‘in principle’ support can be provided for most actions at this stage, with full support being subject to further detail being released and confirmation that Council will have adequate input into action implementation.

Recommendation Council resolve to: 1. Note the release of Plan Melbourne 2017-2050: Metropolitan Planning Strategy and the potential financial, policy and practical implications of the actions most relevant to Moreland in the Plan Melbourne Implementation Plan, as set out in Attachment 2.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 640

2. Note Council’s commitment to a new internal urban design review process that complements and supports Plan Melbourne's objectives to improve design excellence standards. 3. Council strongly advocates, that in fulfilling the Plan Melbourne 2017 Implementation actions, that the State Government significantly increases both its engagement and partnership with Local Government and its consultation with the community.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 641

REPORT

1. Policy Context Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 retains the vision that ‘Melbourne will be a global city of opportunity and choice’. The full strategy can be viewed online via: http://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/the-plan The vision is informed by 9 principles and supported by:  7 outcomes to drive Melbourne as a competitive, liveable and sustainable city.  32 directions setting out how these outcomes can be achieved.  90 policies outlining how each outcome will be delivered and achieved.  112 implementation actions included in the ‘implementation plan’ to deliver outcomes sought (the implementation plan can be viewed online via http://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/implementation). A summary of the key policy changes made under each outcome area includes: Outcome 1. Investment innovation and jobs.  Fisherman’s Bend is also identified as a National Employment and Innovation Cluster.  The roles played by state-significant places, such as transport gateways and health and education precincts has been clarified. Outcome 2. Housing choices close to jobs and services  The need to increase the supply of housing in established areas to accommodate growth is identified without setting a target.  Regional planning for housing growth (6 regions).  New policies to increase social and affordable housing include using surplus government land and streamlining decision-making.  A new policy to capture and share value uplift from land rezoning means communities may benefit from more social or affordable housing and open space. Outcome 3. Integrated transport connecting jobs and services  Committed transport projects like the Metro Tunnel have been included and East- West Link removed.  Infrastructure Victoria’s role in informing transport decision-making is acknowledged.  New policies support 20-minute neighbourhoods via improving local transport options. Outcome 4. A distinctive city with a quality environment  A new policy seeks to strengthen the focus on community participation in planning processes by creating diverse opportunities for public involvement, engagement and contribution. Outcome 5. Inclusive, vibrant and healthy neighbourhoods  The 20-minute neighbourhood concept has been refined, it’s about ‘living locally’ with easy access to a range of services and facilities within a 20-minute walk, cycle or local public transport trip from home.  Policies have been included that:  provide certainty about the scale of growth in the suburbs;  direct population; and  housing growth into defined change areas; and support a network of vibrant neighbourhood activity centres.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 642

Outcome 6. A sustainable and resilient city  New and modified policies seek to facilitate the uptake of renewable energy technologies and improve environmentally sustainable design outcomes.  Directions on greening the city has been updated to recognise how greening urban areas can contribute to cooling the city. Outcome 7. Regional Victoria is productive, sustainable and supports jobs  The focus in Plan Melbourne 2017–2050 has been broadened to support housing and economic growth in Victoria through investment and supportive planning. Victorian Housing Strategy The Victorian Government has also recently released its housing strategy ‘Homes for Victorians’. The housing strategy aims to increase housing affordability and includes policies such as:  Abolishing stamp duty for first time buyers on homes up to $600,000;  Allowing first home buyers to co-purchase their home with the Government; and  Establishing the Victorian Housing Growth Fund valued at $1 billion. The planning related policies included in the housing strategy have also been included in Plan Melbourne 2017, consistent with efforts to better coordinate the implementation of policies between different State Government Departments. 2. Background Plan Melbourne was first released in May 2014 and replaced previous metropolitan strategies Melbourne 2030 and Melbourne @5 million. The Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper was released in October 2015. The discussion paper identified opportunities to address some major issues that were omitted from Plan Melbourne 2014, such as housing affordability and supply, and environmental sustainability and climate change. It was also an opportunity to update the strategy to reflect the government transport priorities. Council provided a submission to the discussion paper that was considered at the December 2015 Council meeting (DED103/15). Plan Melbourne 2017 was implemented into the Moreland Planning Scheme via Amendment VC134 in March 2017. The Amendment changes the Victoria Planning Provisions and all planning schemes in Victoria by introducing the new Metropolitan Planning Strategy and making corresponding updates to the State Planning Policy Framework. It also included policy-neutral updates and administrative changes and introduced new and updated incorporated and reference documents. 3. Issues This section of the report outlines a more detailed Council Officer response to some of the more important directions/policies/implementation actions identified in Plan Melbourne 2017 (including implementation resource implications) for the following issues:  Housing;  Employment;  Environmental sustainability, climate change and the natural environment;  Design excellence; and  Infrastructure and public transport.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 643

Housing Affordability Plan Melbourne 2017 has an increased emphasis on improving housing affordability for all Victorians. The strategy includes revisions that are more specifically aimed at increasing the supply of social and affordable housing by strengthening the role of planning in helping its delivery, which includes:  Formally defining what constitutes social and affordable housing in legislation;  Overcoming the legislative and definitional barriers to the effectiveness of mechanisms like density bonuses or inclusionary housing;  Investigating a streamlined decision-making processes for social and affordable housing proposals;  Utilising government land to deliver additional social and affordable housing projects; and  Investigating ways to capture and share the value uplift from rezoning land via the Planning Scheme Amendment process. The inclusion of new policies and actions that seek to increase housing affordability are supported. Council for many years has advocated for increased provision of affordable and social housing including through the adopted Moreland Affordable Housing Strategy 2014-2018. See Attachment 2 for a summary of the financial, practical and policy implications of the actions (24, 25, and 26) related to housing affordability. There is great potential for Plan Melbourne to make significant contributions to housing affordability, however it is the detail in the implementation of key actions that will determine the extent to which significant improvements are achieved. Further briefings and/or reports to Council will be presented in terms of timing, resourcing and financial implications of Plan Melbourne actions relating to affordable housing as the State Government progresses key initiatives in this space. Supply Plan Melbourne 2017 identifies the need for 1,550,000 additional dwellings in Melbourne to accommodate growth to 2050. Within the northern region (see Attachment 1 for a map of the Northern Region Implementation Plan), the strategy identifies the need for 355,000 additional dwellings to 2050. Based on current Victoria in Future projections (assuming 65 per cent of all new dwellings will be in Melbourne’s established areas and 35 per cent in greenfield growth areas), Plan Melbourne anticipates that within the northern region the likely distribution of new dwellings will be 175,000 additional located in established areas and 180,000 additional located in greenfield growth areas. Plan Melbourne 2017 also provides an alternative aspirational scenario (assuming 70 per cent of all new dwellings are in established areas and 30 per cent in greenfield growth areas). Under this scenario within the northern region the likely distribution will be 180,000 additional dwellings located in established areas and 160,000 in greenfield growth areas. The aspirational scenario would result in a net increase of up to 5,000 additional dwellings in the established areas of the northern region which includes municipalities such as Moreland. This number is relatively small when the timeframe to 2050 is considered, along with the fact these dwellings would be distributed over a significantly large land area. Plan Melbourne 2017 includes policies to ensure that Melbourne’s established areas accommodate a greater share of Melbourne’s growth to create a city of 20 minute neighbourhoods. The purpose of these policies is to encourage a more compact and therefore sustainable city. To achieve this, the strategy encourages an increase in the amount of new housing to be built in established areas such as Moreland.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 644

Council is committed through policy in its Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) to creating sustainable neighbourhoods where people can walk to shops and services, employment, schools, public transport, parks and community services. To support this, the MSS designates areas for significant, incremental and minimal housing growth. Council does not support any implementation of Plan Melbourne that would result in additional densities of housing beyond what is identified in the MSS as appropriate for incremental or minimal housing growth areas. See Attachment 2 for a summary of the financial, practical and policy implications of the actions (19, 28) related to Housing Supply. Plan Melbourne 2014 identified the Brunswick to Batman Station corridor and Jewel Station as urban renewal opportunities. As a result, there was an increased expectation they would accommodate a significant amount of population growth. While the concept of urban renewal areas has been retained in Plan Melbourne 2017, the Brunswick to Batman Station corridor and Jewel Station are no longer specifically identified. It is hoped that removal of this designation is acknowledgement of the significant work and community consultation that Council has already undertaken in facilitating urban renewal in these areas. Employment Plan Melbourne 2017 identifies that the key focus for the Northern Region will be to continue to develop a diverse industry base linked to its key transport infrastructure and educational, technology and research capabilities. To this end, a projected increase of 111,000 jobs is forecast within the Northern Region to 2031.Central to increasing jobs and investment, Plan Melbourne 2017 identifies key employment areas for jobs and investment as:  National employment and innovation clusters;  Major urban renewal areas;  Metropolitan activity centres; and  State significant health and education precincts, transport gateways and industrial precincts. Whilst none of these are located within Moreland, they will be the State’s focus for facilitating employment growth and investment in infrastructure will be directed to these areas accordingly. Of note, Metropolitan activity centres are recognised as being supported by a network of major activity centres (such as Coburg, Brunswick and Glenroy) and neighbourhood activity centres (such as Council’s 12 identified centres). All varying in size, role and function, all are recognised as have the capacity to continue to grow and diversify the range of activities they offer. Diversification will give communities access to a range of goods and services, provide local employment and support local economics and the development of 20 minute neighbourhoods. Attachment 2 details the impacts of the actions that are most relevant to employment in Moreland, namely action 1 (Land Use Framework Plan), 29 (Contaminated Land Remediation) and 64 (Creative Industries).

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 645

Environmental sustainability, climate change and the natural environment The emphasis on environmental sustainability and responding to the challenge of climate change has been significantly increased in Plan Melbourne 2017. The strategy has been updated to include the State Government targets for greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy. See Attachment 2 for a summary of the financial, practical and policy implications of Action (91) related to a whole of government approach to greening and cooling Melbourne. Action 80, as detailed in Attachment 2, is not supported by Council Officers at this stage as there is no guarantee that Council’s existing ESD Local Planning Policy will be retained. Council Officers seek that DELWP approach any review of planning and building systems to support ESD outcomes with Local Government as an implementation partner (noting Local Government is not listed as an implementation partner in Plan Melbourne 2017). Other actions related to the natural environment, particularly waterways (63) and open space (93) are detailed at Attachment 2. Design excellence Plan Melbourne 2017 includes a new outcome that seeks a ‘distinctive and liveable city with quality environments’ (Outcome 4). Included under this outcome are directions that seek to create better public places, achieve and promote built form design excellence and respect heritage character Council, in its submission to the Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper outlined its views on how design excellence could best be achieved. Council’s preferred approach included undertaking a review of ResCode and for the introduction of state wide guidelines on apartment development based on the Moreland Apartment Design Code (MADC), rather than exploring other options such as the introduction of a ‘code assess’ approach. Plan Melbourne 2017 - 2050 refers to the implementation of the Better Apartment Design Standards, which is considered to be a positive step in improving design standards, however key aspects of the MADC have been omitted which remains a concern for Council. Actions also seek to further a design code assessment process, again a concern for Council. See Attachment 2 for further comments on the actions related to design excellence (28, 55, and 57).

Infrastructure and public transport Infrastructure Victoria’s role in informing transport decision-making has been included in Plan Melbourne 2017. Committed transport projects like the Metro Tunnel have been included, and East-West Link has been removed. Level crossing removals within the municipality have now been identified along the Upfield rail corridor at Moreland Road, Brunswick and at Bell Street, Coburg. A level crossing removal has also been identified along the Craigieburn rail corridor at Glenroy Road, Glenroy. The commitment to the removal of these level crossings is positive. Council’s submission to the Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper in 2015 outlined the urgent need in Moreland to upgrade major infrastructure, including the Upfield railway line; tram routes 1, 8, 19, 55 and 96; the Upfield Bike Path and Merri Creek. Whilst the strategy includes policies that seek to improve the public transport system, it does not specifically identify upgrades to other infrastructure within Moreland. Council will need to continue to advocate for improvements in these areas. See Attachment 2 for comments on the actions related to walking and cycling (42, 43).

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 646

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 The revised Plan Melbourne 2017 builds on the work and consultation underpinning Plan Melbourne 2014 and previous metropolitan planning strategies. The State Government did not release a draft Plan Melbourne 2017 for comment following the last consultation on the Discussion Paper in 2015. From October to December 2015, 266 participants representing 99 organisations contributed to the discussion about the Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper and 397 submissions were received. DELWP Officers have verbally advised Council Officers that the release of Plan Melbourne was delayed to ensure that it aligned with other recently released State Government strategies such as the Homes for Victorians Strategy and the delivery of Victoria’s first ever 30-year infrastructure strategy. Local Government is a key stakeholder in the delivery of Plan Melbourne. For this reason it is recommended that Council strongly advocates, that in fulfilling the Plan Melbourne 2017 Implementation actions, that the State Government significantly increases both its engagement and partnership with Local Government and its consultation with the community. 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 Councils have been identified as an implementation partner for 56 of the 112 actions in the Plan Melbourne 2017 Implementation Plan. Estimation of the financial and resource implication of the strategy on Moreland Council is difficult, given the high degree of uncertainty regarding the way in which some of the directions/policies will be implemented by DELWP. Significant budget and resources implications, including implications for Council’s annual budget and planning processes will be monitored, and reported to Council where necessary and as implementation is rolled out. Attachment 2 provides an overview of the anticipated financial and resource implications of the Plan Melbourne Implementation Plan actions most relevant to Moreland. As noted earlier in this report, Council will receive future Briefings and/or reports to consider implications of actions progressed by State Government when required. 7. Implementation Plan Melbourne Action Plan For each of the 112 actions in Plan Melbourne’s 2017 Implementation Plan, including those set out at Attachment 2, a timeframe for delivery (either 2 years, 5 years or greater than 10 years) is identified, along with the lead agencies responsible for delivery and implementation. It is understood that implementation of actions will be further scoped by DELWP in consultation with Councils. Whilst the metropolitan strategy implementation will be ongoing, the implementation plan will be reviewed every 5 years to allow new actions to be added as necessary and adjustments to be made to timeframes for delivery.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 647

Metropolitan regional planning groups The implementation plan makes multiple references to 6 ‘metropolitan regional planning groups’ undertaking various actions. Moreland would be part of the Northern Region, along with Banyule, Whittlesea, Nillumbik, Hume, Darebin and part of Mitchell (see Attachment 1 for a map of the Norther Region Implementation Plan). The format, roles, membership and outcomes of these groups is yet to be advised by DELWP, who have verbally advised that Council will be consulted in how these groups are formed, and how they will operate. Monitoring and review A monitoring and reporting framework has been developed to track the progress of the implementation of Plan Melbourne (by DELWP Officers). A set of 15 outcome indicators will measure achievement against Plan Melbourne’s outcomes. Progress reports will be prepared annually to show both the status of actions and results against the outcome indicators. This monitoring will inform five yearly reviews of both Plan Melbourne and the Implementation Plan. Council officers will review the outcome indicators identified in Plan Melbourne and identify ways these could inform monitoring being undertaken within Council of the Local Planning Policy Framework and other land use and development strategies.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Plan Melbourne 2017 - Northern Region Implementation Plan D17/118866 2⇩ Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 Actions - Financial, Practical and Policy D17/167731 Implications

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 648

DCS28/17 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORD 1 APRIL 2017 TO 30 APRIL 2017 (D17/17450) Director Corporate Services Property and Governance

Executive Summary Pursuant to Section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989, an Assembly of Councillors Record must be reported to the next practicable Council meeting and recorded in the minutes. The Assembly of Councillors Record for the period 1 April 2017 to 30 April 2017 is presented at Attachment 1.

Recommendation Council resolves to receive and note the Assembly of Councillors Record for the period, 1 April 2017 to 30 April 2017 at Attachment 1.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 657

REPORT

1. Policy Context Section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989 sets out the context in which the Assembly of Councillors Records must be reported to Council. 2. Background Amendments to the Local Government Act 1989 and Local Government (General) Regulations 2004 made it a requirement for an Assembly of Councillors Record to be reported to the next practicable Council meeting and recorded in the minutes. 3. Issues An Assembly of Councillors is a meeting of an advisory committee of the Council, if at least one Councillor is present, or a planned or scheduled meeting of at least half of the Councillors and one member of Council staff which considers matters that are intended or likely to be:  the subject of a decision of the Council; or  subject to the exercise of a function, duty or power of the Council that has been delegated to a person or committee. Assembly of Councillors does not include a meeting of the Council, a special committee of the Council, an audit committee established under section 139 of the Local Government Act 1989 a club, association, peak body, political party or other organisation. 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 for Urban Planning Briefing meetings, irrespective of the number of Councillors in attendance, also be reported to Council meetings. A list of the Assembly of Councillors Record for the period 1 April 2017 to 30 April 2017 is 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. 4. Consultation Councillors and Council staff across Council have been advised of the Assembly of Council requirements as per the Local Government Act 1989. 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 There are no financial and resources implications. 7. Implementation There are no further actions required to implement this resolution.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Assembly of Councillors Record - 1 April 2017 - 31 April 2017 D17/169946

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 658

DCS29/17 SISTER CITY REQUEST - MUNICIPALITY OF KPANDO IN GHANA (D17/145452) Director Corporate Services Property and Governance

Executive Summary A request has been received from the Municipality of Kpando in Ghana which is seeking a sister city relationship with an Australian council. Council’s Sister/Friendship City Guidelines (the Guidelines) require that such requests be referred to Council for a decision. Council currently holds memorandums of understanding with eight cities as a result of requests to enter into sister/friendship city agreements with cities that have a strong connection with Moreland. Council’s Guidelines for assessing a sister/friendship city request require, among other things, that the relationship needs to be one which promotes relevant cultural and historic ties and foster economic links, provided there is evidence the local community is prepared to actively support and participate in the relationship. This request does not meet the criteria.

Recommendation Council resolve that: 1. Ms Izabella Janocsik be advised that Council is appreciative of her request but that the application does not meet the assessment criteria in Council’s guidelines. 2. The guidelines be the subject of a subsequent Council report which includes information on the extent and effectiveness of the current eight relationships and the level of compliance with the guideline’s assessment criteria.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 662

REPORT

1. Policy Context Sister city relationships can strengthen ties between communities for the benefit of cultural exchange and economic development. The City of Moreland is committed to supporting sister and friendship relationships to the extent that they promote relevant cultural and historic ties and foster economic links, provided there is evidence the local community is prepared to actively support and participate in the relationship. 2. Background Council currently holds memorandums of understanding with eight cities as a result of requests to enter into sister/friendship city agreements with cities that have a strong connection with Moreland. 3. Issues Council’s existing eight sister/friendship city relationships are with:  District of Alieu (Timor Leste) – jointly with the City of Hume;  Canterbury (NSW), however the Canterbury Council has been the subject of a recent amalgamation process and Canterbury Bankstown Council is the successor.  Spartiaton (Greece);  Mansfield;  Xianyang (China);  Messina (Italy) and  Sofarno (Italy). Officers are currently reviewing these relationships and will report to Council with recommendations to support the existing relationships or recommend that one or more be concluded. When a new proposal for a sister/friendship city relationship is received, the Guidelines provide that:  The relationship needs to be one which promotes relevant cultural and historic ties and foster economic links, provided there is evidence the local community is prepared to actively support and participate in the relationship;  The assessment criteria are:  Demonstrated mutual interest(s) between Moreland and the applicant;  The existence of a substantial migrant population from the applicant municipality or region;  Preference will be given where a community group expresses an interest in facilitating activities between the municipalities; and  Demonstrated benefits that can be achieved for both parties. When a new proposal for a sister city relationship is received, the Guidelines require that:  There is a demonstrated link or relationship between the municipalities; and  There is a demonstrated historic, cultural or social benefit of a sister city relationship.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 663

The current request The current request has been submitted by Sister Cities Australia on behalf Izabella Janocsik, an Australian citizen who is spending 2017 as a volunteer in Ghana. Full details are shown in Attachment 1. This application does not meet the criteria for establishing a sister/friendship city relationship. Among other aspects, the predominant countries of birth for residents in Moreland (excluding Australia) are Italy, India, Greece, United Kingdom, Lebanon, China, New Zealand, Turkey, Pakistan and Nepal. The specific percentage of residents with a Ghanese background is unknown but would be very low. For these reasons, officers recommend that the request be declined. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. There are no human rights implications. 4. Consultation As the request has only recently been received no internal or external consultation was required. 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 There are no financial implications associated with this report. 7. Implementation It is proposed that Ms Izabella Janocsik be advised that:  Council is appreciative of her request but that the application does not meet the assessment criteria in Council’s Guidelines;  Council has eight existing sister city relationships;  Council’s Guidelines are about to be reviewed.  The Guidelines be the subject of a subsequent Council reports which includes information on the extent and effectiveness of the current eight relationships and the level of compliance with the Guideline’s assessment criteria and staff contact the City of Canterbury Bankstown to establish the level of interest in an ongoing relationship.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 664

DCS30/17 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT - FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 30 APRIL 2017 (D17/161967) Director Corporate Services Finance and Business Systems

Executive Summary This report presents the Financial Management Report for the financial year to date (YTD) period ending 30 April 2017. The Income Statement shows that Council is $17.8 million better than the budget. This comprises overall revenues having ended $12.6 million (8%) better than budget and overall expenditures having ended $5.2 million (4%) less than budget YTD. The revenue surplus includes income from property sales and other Capital income of $1.8 million higher than budget and other cash contributions of $11.3 million which is $4.6 million higher than forecast. The surpluses relating to property sales and public land contributions are pre-committed by legislation or Council resolution and are not available to fund general Council spending. The significant variances are explained in this report. Council has spent $23.9 million on capital expenditure which is $6.1 million less than budget YTD. It is anticipated this variance will reduce before 30 June 2017 as a proportion related to timing. This report reflects the mid-year review changes approved at the March 2017 Council meeting and therefore variances are between actual and the revised budget.

Recommendation Council resolves to receive the Financial Management Report for the year to date as of 30 April 2017 at Attachment 1 to this report.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 665

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 30 April 2017. The actual results are compared to the budget that was revised at the March 2017 Council meeting. 3. Issues Income statement Council has an YTD surplus of $38.9 million which is $17.8 million better than budget. The variance explanations below have identified whether the current YTD variances are expected to be a timing issue or permanent by 30 June 2017. A timing variance is a current difference between actual result and budget which is expected to be resolved before the end of the financial year. A permanent variance is a current difference between actual result and budget which will continue to the end of the financial year. The main items contributing to the overall variance are: Revenue  Rates and Charges are $2.4 million better than budget.  Finance & Business Systems - Supplementary rates are $2.0M ahead of the forecast and Interest on Rates is $430k better than budget. (Permanent).  Statutory Fees and Fines are $0.7 million better than budget  Roads, Fleet and Waste - $182k better than budget, with Local Laws permits $92k and other permits $56k. These are mainly higher levels of hoarding permits, due to the amount of development. (Permanent).  City Development - $424k better than budget, with planning permits $334k better than budget and Planning Permit Amendments $76k better than budget, due to an increase in planning fees. (Permanent)  Strategic Transport and Compliance - Car Parking Fees $132k below budget. (Permanent) Car parking fee collection machines at some car parks have been removed in advance of implementation of a new system being commissioned.  User Fees are $0.5 million better than budget  Aged and Community Support – $237k below budget with meals to other Councils $128k below budget with delays in creating invoices. These occur in the second week of the following month, however overall the service will be about $80k below budget. Delivered meals to Moreland resident’s $34k better than budget and Home help charges $132k below budget due to reduced demand. (Permanent)  Roads, Fleet and Waste - Recycling income is $145k ahead of budget due to the raising of invoices in July that relate to 2015-2016 (Permanent).  Grants Capital are $0.3 million better than budget.  Capital Works Delivery- received Roads to Recovery Grants of $78K ahead of budget along with Other Government grants for various projects ahead of budget by $218k. This is timing in nature and will be on target by year end.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 666

 Other revenue is $2.1 million better than budget  Open Space $257K better than anticipated result in provision of relatively new service to remove/replace trees. (Permanent)  Property $170K better than budget in receipts for Property Leases. (Permanent).  Finance and Business Systems interest earned is better than expected by $347K due to a higher than anticipated level of cash flows to invest. (Permanent). This trend is expected to continue and will result in about $400k better than budget by year end.  Contributions for next year’s projects are $4.6 million better than forecast.  Contributions to the Open Space Reserve are $4.3M higher than current forecast. Note that this income is transferred to Reserves as this income is not available for general expenditure. (Permanent)  Contributions to the Developer Contribution Plan Levy are $410K more than budgeted. Note that this income is transferred to Reserves as this income is not available for general expenditure. (Permanent)  Assets sales is $1.8 million better than budget.  Property and Governance received $1.2M profit from the sale of the Prospect street property upon settlement. Note that this income will be transferred to the Oak Park, Wheatsheaf and Saxon Reserves. This also includes $570k from the sale of a road discontinuance.(Permanent) Expenditure  Employee benefits are $2.2 million less than budget.  The variance relates primarily to roles that have been vacant for part of this year. Note that this variance is offset by $1.7M with the cost of contractors used to backfill vacant staff roles (expenditure on temporary staff is recorded under the Contracts category). (Permanent). The net underspend is $692K and this will continue to increase through to year end with a net underspend of $0.8 M.  Contracts, Materials and Services are $3.6 million less than budget.  Roads, Fleet and Waste – Cleaning and Waste Services $154K under spent due to delays in payments for tipping fees, Garbage and Recycling contract and collection. (Timing). These contract payments are budgeted year on year from July to June, however few invoices are receipted in July and consequently costings are always a month behind until year end when two months of receipts occur in June. A review of the monthly payments will be used to better profile the budget for 2017-2018.  Information Technology - $255k under spent with Computer Supplies and Services $487K less than budget but offset by Communications costs being $137k over budget. Some large payments are to be made in June, however there will be a permanent saving of $150k.  Roads, Fleet and Waste - Motor Vehicle Expenses $187K under budget, lower than anticipated fuel prices in Fuel & Oil saving $160K. (Permanent)  Governance and Property – Property Unit $498k underspent with Repairs and Maintenance $152k under spent, and Building Services $198k under spent. Savings of $320k will be Permanent. Utilities $210k under spent. Accounts for Utilities are received centrally, scrutinised and then sent for payment. The variance occurs because Electricity and Water and Sewerage bills are received and paid several months after usage however it is expected that savings of $105k will be permanent.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 667

 Transport Management – Electricity payments are $347k under spent - Street lighting change over from Mercury vapour to LED has led to savings which could mean $350k saving for the year.  Aged and Community Support - $740k below budget being underspend in unclassified contractors of $798k along with $127k in consultants. This is offset by $554k in Vacant Staff Backfill. This will result in savings of $370k.  Youth and Leisure - $440k below budget with Utilities underspent by $122k. (Timing) This will be achieved by year end. Council grants are below budget $135k with the majority to be finalised by year end.  Social Policy and Early Years - $377k below budget with Social Policy $47k, Maternal and Child Health, $61k and Children’s services $67k all underspent in contractors. These amounts will be expended by year end. Social Policy is below budget also in Council Grants payment by $89k. The majority of this amount will be needed to be handed over to the Committee of management taking control of the East Brunswick and Newlands neighbourhood houses from Council.  Open Space and Street Cleansing - $664k below budget with utilities below budget by $91k and Materials General below budget by $398k. Capital Projects - CAPEX The Capital program year to date has an actual spend of $23.9 million which is $6.1 million less than budget. This is an improvement compared to the same time last year (YTD April 2016) when the actual spend was $22.4 million which was $12.8 million less than budget. Cash At the end of April, Council had cash and short term investments of $91.6 million. This is approximately $24.3 million higher than the cash position at the beginning of the year. Increased reserve funds along with improved financial results have contributed to this improved cash position. Note that cash fluctuates frequently over the year due to a number of factors including the timing of payments and receipts. 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 The Finance and Business Systems Branch has prepared this report 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 2016-2017 budget with the best possible outcome for Council and the community and in line with the adopted budget targets. 7. Implementation This financial report is for noting.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Council Financial Report - April 2017 D17/169716

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 668

DCS31/17 2018 GENERAL VALUATION (D17/165608) Director Corporate Services Finance and Business Systems

Executive Summary In accordance with the Valuation of Land Act 1960 Council is required to return a general valuation of all rateable land within its municipal district. The return of the general valuation is undertaken every two years. The 2018 general valuation is to be based on the level of values as at 1 January 2018 and will be effective from 1 July 2018 for the purpose of assessing municipal rates. The general valuation is to be completed and returned to Council by 30 April 2018. Council, in proposing to make a general valuation, must give to the Valuer-General, and to any other rating authority interested in the valuation of land within its area, notice of its resolution to cause a general valuation to be made.

Recommendation Council resolves to: 1. Undertake the 2018 General Valuation of all properties within the municipality. 2. Authorise the Director Corporate Services to give notice to the Valuer-General and all other rating authorities interested in the valuation in accordance with Section 6(1) of the Valuation and Land Act 1960.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 678

REPORT

1. Policy Context Council is required to return a general valuation of all properties within the municipality in accordance with the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1960. 2. Background The Valuation of Land Act 1960 requires Council to cause a valuation of all rateable properties within its municipal district to be made as at 1 January in every even calendar year (every two years). The 2018 general valuation, which will be based on the level of values as at 1 January 2018 and will be effective from 1 July 2018, is to be returned to Council by 30 April 2018. 3. Issues Council in proposing to make a general valuation of all properties within the municipality is required to give notice of its resolution to other rating authorities that are interested in the valuation of land within this area. These other rating authorities include the Valuer-General, Yarra Valley Water, State Revenue Office, Brimbank City Council, Whittlesea City Council, Darebin City Council, Moonee Valley City Council, Hume City Council, Yarra City Council and Melbourne City Council. 4. Consultation This report deals with an administrative process required by the Valuation of Land Act 1960 and no consultation is required. 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 is required to provide returned valuations to other authorities for a fee in accordance with the Valuation of Land Act 1960, for the purpose of assessing rates and taxes. In providing these valuations to other authorities, Council will be reimbursed 50% of the cost of the general valuation and supplementary valuations from the State Revenue Office and will receive a fee for supplementary valuations from Yarra Valley Water in accordance with respective agreements. 7. Implementation Following adoption of the report the Director Corporate Services will give notice to the Valuer-General and other rating authorities to proceed with the 2018 General Valuation.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 679

DCS32/17 PROCUREMENT POLICY ANNUAL REVIEW (D17/179299) Director Corporate Services Finance and Business Systems

Executive Summary The Local Government Act 1989 requires Council to review the Procurement Policy each financial year. A briefing was held on 22 May with Councillors to discuss key elements of the Policy. These matters are summarised in the issues section of the report and will continue to be developed to influence further iterations of this policy. The policy has been reviewed by Officers and the Moreland Executive Group (MEG). There are only minor changes proposed. These changes have been outlined in this report under Section 3 ‘issues’. The updated version of the policy is included as Attachment 1.

Recommendation Council resolve to approve the Procurement Policy at Attachment 1.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 680

REPORT

1. Policy Context Councils are required by Section 186A (7) of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) to review their Procurement Policy (the Policy) at least once each financial year. The policy also embraces guidance provided in the Victorian Local Government Best Practice Guidelines 2013 and aligns with relevant internal policies and guidance. 2. Background Council has an existing Procurement Policy which has formed the basis of policy amendments. Amendments each year reflect changes in the environment or objectives of the Council or are made to clarify issues raised as unclear. This review has included some minor amendments to the policy to provide clarification for staff. 3. Issues At a Councillor briefing on 22 May, a number of matters were discussed, including:  For complex projects (such as land sales involving the procurement by Council of certain outcomes) it is recommended that those projects have their own specific procurement and probity plans (that may draw on matters contained in this policy).  Concern has been expressed that some tenders have not had many competing suppliers. Officers advised that work is being undertaken with the Northern Metro group of Councils to undertake more joint procurement. It is expected that these joint tenders will have a greater value than any one Council alone and will attract a larger number of competing suppliers and better, more competitive offers.  21 contracts were awarded by Council in the last 12 months (and 53 by officers under delegation). These are contracts with a value greater than the Chief Executive Officer’s delegation ($700,000). There was discussion about types of contracts that Councillors want to be involved in awarding (generally sensitive, complex, contentious contracts) and whether the Chief Executive Officer’s delegation should be increased.  The Policy tries to balance social, environmental and financial outcomes. It is understood that Council wishes to encourage change in outcomes through the supply chain by, for example, requiring suppliers to adhere to certain standards or adopt certain practices. However, Council also wants to encourage local/smaller suppliers. There has been feedback over some time that the requirements contained in tenders can create a barrier for some suppliers as they find it a burden that outweighs the potential benefit from winning the tender. Comments and recommendations on changes to the Policy were received from Council officer’s throughout the year. This feedback has been incorporated where possible or discussed with the person who raised it where it couldn’t be incorporated.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 681

Key changes incorporated include:  Minor changes to wording across various sections of the policy.  Remove section ‘3.1.8 Gifts of Appreciation or Support to Employee’ section. This section is removed as it is covered by the Gifts and Hospitality Policy. However the document still references the Gifts and Hospitality Policy.  Removal of Table 3.3.2.4 General Scoring Guidelines as it is believed that each project is unique and these elements need to be addressed accordingly rather than dictated by the Policy. In general officers are required to define the criteria prior to releasing the tender or RFQ.  Reference to ERP System (Enterprise Resource Planning) instead of JDE across the document as a project has commenced to replace the JDE finance system.  An Evaluation Team members table has been created to summarise and clarify the minimum number of Council officers required to participate in the tender/quotation evaluation process, including any meeting and site inspections.  Removal of Section ‘3.5.5 Public Transport’ as it is more relevant to the Travel Policy.  Reference to other relevant Council Policies is made after the definition section. 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 Consultation occurred over the past 12 months with managers and Council officers. Any changes have been reflected in the revised policy. The draft policy has been reviewed and endorsed by the Moreland Executive Group. Councillors were consulted at a Briefing on 22 May. 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 There are no direct financial implications or resource implications related to this policy. Proper application of the Policy will continue to improve general financial outcomes relating to purchasing and contract management. 7. Implementation Once endorsed, the policy will be uploaded to the internet as a public policy and communicated to all officers.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Moreland City Council Procurement Policy June 2017 D17/87436

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 682

DCI27/17 PUBLIC TOILET STRATEGY (D17/51053) Director City Infrastructure Capital Works Planning and Delivery

Executive Summary Council owns and manages 61 public toilets throughout the municipality. The public toilet strategy implementation program was reviewed in 2014 and adopted by Council in September 2014 (DCI169/14). At the March 2016 Council meeting (DCI10/16), Council resolved that $30,000 be referred to the 2016-2017 budget development process to undertake further research to better ascertain community views on the use of unisex toilets. This report provides details of the research undertaken to better understand community views on the use of gender neutral toilets, including automated and non-automated unisex facilities. The survey results show that 70 percent of respondents rate the cleanliness of Council’s public toilets as good, very good or excellent regardless of whether they are automated or non-automated. The survey also shows that there is no preference for gender neutral or gender specific toilets. In additional to the reporting back on the results of the further survey undertaken this report provides complete commentary on the issue of public toilets in Coburg. At the May 2017 Council meeting, it was resolved via a Notice of Motion (NOM22/17) to immediately open the Coburg Library meeting room toilets for public access, assess the other actions (reopen and refurbish the underground toilets, refurbish and extend the toilets within the main library reading room and replace the exeloo automatic toilets with a new toilet block for the Coburg Shopping Centre in the five year public toilet plan) after the report on research into the community views on the use of unisex toilet facilities and to explore with the owner’s corporation the option of opening up the toilets in Walkers Arcade. This report provides operational feedback on the resolution to immediately reopen the Coburg Library toilets and recommends that the meeting room toilets not be reopened for public access, due principally to security issues and the impact on the meeting room users. The underground toilets which were closed around 2010 could be refurbished at an estimated cost of $100,000. In doing these works there would not be a legislative requirement to make the toilets accessible. However, the previous security and safety issues which resulted in the toilets being closed would potentially return and given that the toilets would not be accessible for all of the community it is recommended that they not be re-opened. The public toilets within the main library where modified in April 2008 to the current arrangement to increase safety and address severe anti-social behaviour which was occurring. The current arrangement provides an open area which can be seen by general users of the library and library staff, and this provides a safe environment. It is strongly recommended that these toilets are not extended as that will potentially return the toilets to a position of where they were secluded and the anti-social behaviour may return and the extension will possibly take away valuable library book collection space.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 710

The number of toilets and type of toilets in the Coburg Mall has been reported on a number of times to Council. Council research into the queue lengths at the exeloos, the perceptions of public toilets survey, usage statistics, other toilets available in the area does not support additional public toilet provision. A survey undertaken by a community member into the use of the public toilets within the Coburg library does show that people have to wait occasionally to use the public toilets, however the average wait time is not considered unreasonable (2-3 minutes). The survey also shows that there are periods of no use, up to 20 minutes between users. In providing public toilets, it should not be expected that there will always be a vacant facility. It would be an unreasonable burden on Council to provide the number of facilities so that there was never a waiting period. Hence the replacement of the exeloo toilets with a new toilet block is not recommended by Council Officers.

Recommendation Council resolves: 1. To note the findings of the research undertaken into the community views on the use of public unisex toilets. 2. That the future budget development process take into account the results of the toilet survey in rolling out the public toilet program and upgrading works, and continue implementing unisex toilets. 3. That future investment in public toilets as identified in the Public Toilet Strategy be continued. 4. That the Coburg Library meeting room toilets not be opened to the general public as resolved at the May 2017 Council meeting. 5. That the Coburg Library toilets (within the main library) not be re-furbished and extended. 6. That the underground toilets near Coles not be re-opened. 7. That evidence relating to demand and to community views on unisex toilets does not support the replacement of exeloos in Coburg Mall with a new public toilet. 8. That a community program be developed to raise awareness on the use of public toilets. 9. Continue to investigate the history of the Walkers Arcade toilets and report back to Council via Councillor Connect. 10. To note that if there is still a desire for an additional public toilet facility to be placed in Coburg, that public consultation and resolution on its location be undertaken prior to finalising this decision. 11. To undertake a 6 month trial of an increased cleaning frequency (3 times per day) of the two exeloos in Coburg Mall.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 711

REPORT

1. Policy Context The Public Toilet Strategy 2012 complements a range of Council policies and strategies including the Moreland City Council Plan (2013-2017), Access and Inclusion Policy, Open Space Strategy, Neighbourhood Centres Strategy, Shopping Strip Renewal Policy and Activity Centre Structure plans. It is important to acknowledge that there is no legislative requirement for the provision of public toilets by Local Government. 2. Background At the March 2016 Council meeting (DCI10/16), Council resolved to undertake further research to better ascertain community views on the use of unisex toilets. There has been some community concern expressed over time, specifically about the avoidance of use on the basis that women do not like sharing the same facilities as men (unisex toilets). As such, a rigorous survey was undertaken by an independent consultant to better ascertain community views on the use of unisex toilets. It is important to have a thorough understanding on this, as it can have significant implications for the installation of additional toilets in many locations where unisex toilets have been or are proposed to be installed across the municipality. Further at the May 2017 Council meeting it was resolved to:  Immediately open Coburg library meeting room toilets to public access during library open hours, with access via the main library and not via the door straight off the mall.  Assess other actions after the report on research undertaken into the community views on the use of unisex toilet facilities is considered by Council at the June 2017 Council meeting.  Reopen and refurbish the underground public toilets at the back of Coles.  Refurbish and extend the toilets within the main Coburg library reading room.  Replace the exeloo automatic toilets with a new public toilet block for the Coburg Shopping Centre in the five year public toilet plan.  Explore with the Owner’s corporation the option of opening up the toilets in Walker’s Arcade. 3. Issues There has been considerable discussion over the last 10 years or so regarding the provision of public toilets in Coburg. This report provides the history to the current public toilets and addresses all outstanding Council resolutions in regard to public toilets in Coburg. Former underground toilets The underground toilets were closed around 2010 following a number of issues with poor behaviour, safety concerns and the misuse of the facilities. Within the toilets there is a small substation which provides power to a number of shops within the area, and hence when the toilets were closed they were only locked via a gate, rather than filled with concrete or similar and permanently decommissioned.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 712

If it is being considered that these toilets should be re-opened, then considerable work would be required to bring the facilities up to standard. Advice has been sought from the Building Services area on whether a building permit would be required, which would trigger the need to make the toilets conform to the current building code (mandatory requirement to meet disability access requirements). The advice received was that unless structural work is being undertaken then a building permit is not required. It is not expected that structural work would be required to reopen the toilets, hence there would be no mandatory requirement for these toilets to be accessible. Council’s Disability Access and Inclusion Plan includes as an Objective to ‘Systematically improve the accessibility of Council buildings and infrastructure’. Therefore, the reopening of these underground toilets without making them accessible would not be meeting a key stated objective of the Disability Access and Inclusion Plan. Given the location of these toilets, it is not considered practical or cost effective to make them accessible. To make them accessible would require some form of lift arrangement at an unknown but significant cost. It is estimated that up to $100,000 is required to carry out the refurbishment works required to re-open the toilets, these works would not make the toilets accessible. Given the previous issues with the way the toilets were being used, the safety concerns, the lack of passive surveillance, that the toilets would not be accessible, the usage levels of the existing exeloos and the cost of the works it is not recommended that they be reopened. Walkers Arcade toilets The public toilets which were previously available for the use of the public in Walkers Arcade were closed a number of years ago. Research is still being undertaken to determine whether these toilets were required as part of the planning permit. Due to the age of the permit, historical files are being sought from storage and having to be manually reviewed. At the time of writing this report, this research was still underway. Coburg library – public toilets At the May 2017 Council meeting Council resolved via a Notice of Motion (NOM22/17) in part to: Immediately open Coburg library meeting room toilets to public access during library open hours, with access via the main library and not via the door straight off the mall. The following history is provided in order to provide a complete picture of the issue of the provision of public toilets in the Victoria Mall/Coburg library area. The Coburg library was original opened in 1983 having been converted from a supermarket. The public toilets inside the main part of the Coburg library were retrofitted into the library, in what was the previous reference collection and greenhouse garden area, in around 1998. To access these toilets, library patrons had to pass through a single door from the library general area into a waiting area outside the toilet doors. There were separate male and female single access toilets that opened from the waiting area and when occupied required the patrons to queue in the enclosed waiting area, out of sight of library users. Following the installation of the public toilets within the main part of the library it quickly became apparent that this had a very negative effect on the operation of the library service and on the safety and wellbeing of library users and library staff, in that the toilets attracted people such as sexual predators, drug users and drug dealers to a facility which was intended to provide a safe and family friendly environment.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 713

Among the many problems encountered was ongoing drug use, drug deals and exchanges, sexually predatory behaviour including approaches to children and to young people, recurring vandalism of the facility, theft of fittings such as doorknobs and taps, physical violence between users of the toilet facilities, and excessive soiling, which resulted in ongoing complaints and frequent temporary closure of the toilets. Despite a significant increase in the cleaning regime the staff continued to receive ongoing complaints about the state of the toilets. The burden in staff time and cost of cleaning and the risk to public safety became so problematic that it was no longer appropriate to continue to provide public toilet facilities within the library. Consequently the public toilets in the main part of the Coburg Library were closed when an automated toilet was opened in the Coburg Mall (in the external wall of the library) in September 2007. Following the closure of the public toilets within the main part of the library and the installation of the automated toilet, at the February 2008 Council meeting, there was a question from the public about the closure of the toilets within the library. This question resulted in a report to the March 2008 Council meeting. The March 2008 report recommended that the foyer area outside the library public toilets be removed to open the area up to improve safety. This report also recommended the installation of an additional automated toilet within Victoria Mall in the following financial year. This resulted in the installation of the automated toilet on the north-west corner of Waterfield and Victoria Streets. Information has been presented to Council by a resident on two occasions who has conducted their own survey into the use of the public toilets within the Coburg library. The survey does show that people have to wait occasionally to use the public toilets. The survey also shows that the average time people use the toilets is short (one to five minutes) with the majority on the two to three minute period therefore, any wait time is not considered unreasonable. The survey also shows that there are periods of no use, up to 20 minutes between users. In providing public toilets, it should not be expected that there will always be a vacant facility. It would be an unreasonable burden on Council to provide the number of facilities so that there was never a waiting period. A further part of the May 2017 resolution (NOM22/17) was to: Refurbish and extend the toilets within the main Coburg Library reading room As has been detailed above the public access toilets within the library were modified to improve safety approximately nine years ago. Since that time the issues of misuse of these toilets and the anti-social behaviour has disappeared. The estimated cost to extend the toilets is up to $100,000. As noted though the configuration of any arrangement of the toilets would need to be carefully considered to ensure that the past behaviours did not return. As detailed within this report the demand for more public toilets within the library is not supported by any data, library staff or requests from the public. If any additional public toilets within central Coburg are being considered they should not be within the library, but more generally available and visible to the general public. The extension of the public toilets within the main library is not recommended by Council officers.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 714

Coburg library meeting room toilets The May 2017 resolution to ‘immediately open Coburg library meeting room toilets to public access during library open hours, with access via the main library and not via the door straight off the mall’ has not been enacted as yet. This is due to there being a number of operational issues that need to be addressed. Currently, the Coburg Library meeting rooms are community facilities booked via the Facilities Team and the meeting room is used by a wide section of the community. The meeting rooms are not managed by the Library. The meeting room is available for booking daily between 9 am and 11 pm. Currently, access to the meeting room is via the collection of a key for the doors which provide access directly from Victoria Mall. Access is provided this way as the hours the meeting room is available for booking exceeds the hours that the library is open. In reviewing the bookings in 2016 and 2017 (including those booked for the remainder of 2017) the following is highlighted: Year Number Meeting started Meeting ended Combined of prior library after library bookings opening closed 2016 892 275 (31%) 347 (39%) 610 (68%) 2017 681 158 (23%) 281 (41%) 429 (63%) The combined result has taken account of the individual meetings which both started and finished outside of the library opening hours. As can be seen from these figures approximately two thirds of the meetings start or end beyond the library opening hours. From an operational perspective this is problematic, as doors (door between the library and the foyer outside the meeting room and the doors off Victoria Mall) would need to be opened/locked in a coordinated way, directional signage would need to be in place, which would need to change depending on the time of the day you are attending or leaving the meeting etc. Users of the Coburg library meeting rooms also get access to a kitchen facility and the toilets. Some groups who book the meeting rooms pay for the hire of the facilities. In paying a fee for the use of the meeting room, it would be commonly accepted that you get unhindered access to the facilities. If the Coburg library meeting room toilets are opened to the public, the users of the meeting rooms will be impacted. They will have to manage how they use the meeting room, the kitchen facility (potentially keeping the door locked) as this is accessed from an area the public will now access, and they will have to share the facility with the public and potentially be exposed to less clean and available toilets than if they were only being used by the meeting participants. Public access into the foyer area outside the meeting rooms, could also impact the use of the meeting room space with increased noise and interruptions. If access is to be considered as per the May 2017 resolution, a reduction in the availability of the highly used community space would need to be made, if no other works are undertaken. This reduction in hours the meeting rooms are available would be required, so that it aligned with the hours that the library is open as meeting room users would have to access the Coburg library meeting rooms via the main library door. Meeting room users would not be able to gain access via the Victoria Mall door as the door between the library and the meeting room would be open (to allow the public access to the toilets via the main library door) as this could result in security issues with the valuable library collection as these two doors are not protected via RFID security system.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 715

A RFID security system could be fitted to the door between the library and the meeting rooms at an estimated costs of $20,000 (gates and cabling). The installation of RFID security gates at this location would also impact the library. The RFID gates at this location would block an existing aisle around the shelving, which would mean the current shelving would need to be moved to allow space for the RFID gates and also circulation. The door between the library and the meeting room is currently immediately adjacent to the children’s section of the library. This area is one of the most popular sections of the library, story time etc, and the opening of this door would potentially allow children to very quickly wander into the meeting room foyer and be unsupervised and out of sight of their parents. Whereas the existing arrangement is in a corner of the library and limits the ability for children to wander and not be able to quickly get out of sight of their parents. Given the operational issues, changes to the hours of operation of the meeting rooms, impact on the meeting room participants and potentially making an unsafe area in the immediate vicinity of the children’s section of the library, it is strongly recommended that the Coburg meeting room toilets are not opened to the general public. Alternatively the doors off Victoria Mall could be opened to allow public access to the meeting room toilets. This would create an area which is unsupervised and potentially lead to anti-social behaviour and an unsafe environment. Allowing access via these doors would impact the meeting room participants as described above e.g. noise, locking of the kitchen, interruptions, loss of exclusive use of the toilets. Due to the impact on the meeting rooms it is strongly recommended that these doors also not be opened allowing the public to access the meeting room toilets. Customer service requests The current customer request system Council uses commenced in mid-2008. All requests under the public toilet category were retrieved from the system. In total there have been 1,154 requests across the 61 public toilets in the nearly nine years since the customer request system has been in place. Of the 1,154 requests there are 53 requests relating to the toilets in Coburg central. In summary these 53 requests can be categorised as: Toilets not clean 22 requests Toilets require maintenance 25 requests Request for more toilets 3 requests Other 3 requests The requests categorised as ‘toilets require maintenance’ include doors not working, toilets blocked and toilets vandalised. The ‘other’ all related to rubbish in the stairs of the closed underground toilets. On average there have been just under six request per year for the public toilets in Coburg. In looking across the requests at other locations (excluding the Brunswick Town Hall, Coburg Civic Centre) there are three toilet locations which have more requests than Coburg, these are: Belair Avenue, Glenroy 114 requests Glenroy Road, Glenroy 95 requests Gaffney Street, Coburg 89 requests

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 716

A review of Council’s electronic records system for petitions shows that there have been 5 petitions relating to toilets in Coburg. These petitions were received in:  May 2017 (55 signatures, same format petition as December 2015 petition)  February 2016 (54 signatures, same format petition as December 2015 petition)  December 2015 (88 signatures)  October 2015 (62 signatures)  August 2008 (712 signatures) It is acknowledged that not every instance of unclean toilets, people who think there should be more toilets etc. is reported to Council via the customer request system however, that is the current data that we can analyse. Overall the number of customer requests is not high. The petitions received when all reviewed, show that the last three petitions are exactly the same petition (format and wording). Different people have signed them on each occasion. Cleaning of public toilets As shown in the attached survey (Attachment 1), the cleanliness of public toilets is the key criteria whether people will use the toilet. Currently, the cleaning regime of the Coburg public toilets is:  Coburg Library exeloo – 2 manual cleans per day  Waterfield Street exeloo – 1 manual clean per day In addition to these manual cleans the exeloo self-cleans every two hours or every 30 uses whichever comes first. The cleanliness of public toilets is a continuous issue. The way in which the toilets are used means that they can be unclean very soon after they were last cleaned. The two exeloos within the Victoria Mall area are currently cleaned more than any other Council owned public toilet facility within the city. Other exeloos for example are only manually cleaned every second day in addition to the self-cleaning noted above. Additional cleaning of the exeloos could be undertaken but there is additional cost and it potentially does not provide a better level of service to the public, as the very next user could make the toilet unclean. The exeloo provides data on a monthly basis regarding the use of the facility. A review of the data from the Victoria Mall and Waterfield Street exeloos show that they are used on average 156 and 148 times per day respectively. Compared to the other exeloos across the city, the next busiest is Glenroy Road, Glenroy with on average 70 uses per day. Although the use of the exeloos in Coburg is just over double the next busiest toilet, the self-cleansing function and the manual cleaning reflect the additional use these toilets get. The results of the telephone survey noted below show that the findings confirm the community’s current general satisfaction with the cleanliness if these facilities. Survey findings – March 2016 At the March 2016 Council meeting (DCI10/16) a report was presented addressing a number of issues concerning public toilets and specifically included an assessment of the demand for additional toilets near Coburg Mall. The demand for additional public toilets near Coburg was assessed through a manual count of demand and use at both of the exeloos. The investigation involved the undertaking of manual counts over a one week period of the usage of the two existing exeloos in the Coburg Mall and Waterfield Street. The number of people waiting to use a toilet (because it was already occupied) was also recorded.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 717

The results of the manual counts are presented in table form in Attachment 3. In 15 minute increments, the following is identified:  Number of people that used the facility; and  Number of people that waited to use the facility. The data for each toilet is presented separately, with a third table combining the data of the two toilets together. The data has been shaded to assist in identifying the periods of higher use and queuing, and can be summarised as follows:  The amount of use of each of the two facilities is similar overall.  There is no distinct period of peak usage (ie. at lunchtime), with usage generally even throughout the day.  The maximum use of a facility within a 15 minute period was five people.  The maximum number of people that had to wait to use a facility within a 15 minute period was three (note, this is not three people queuing at the same time rather three instances of one person having to wait) .  There is no pattern of people waiting continuously across multiple 15 minute time increments.  Combining the two results (Table 3 of Attachment 3) does not show a significant increase in the number of people having to wait to use the facilities, with the maximum in a 15 minute period increasing from three to four. The above analysis indicates that whilst the two existing exeloo toilets in the vicinity of the Coburg Mall may be highly used there is no indication that, at any period of the day, the usage increases to a level where the community have to wait for an extended period of time to use either of the two facilities. This count did not take into consideration whether members of the public are avoiding the use of these toilets because they are uncomfortable with unisex toilets. While the manual count suggested there is not demand for additional toilets, a more rigorous survey was proposed to determine whether people are avoiding the use of the exeloos due to concerns over their unisex nature. There have been mixed community views expressed at previous times and this specific question has not been rigorously tested. At the March 2016 Council meeting it was resolved, in part: That Council conduct a survey of the public who visit the Coburg Mall and library area about the use of exeloos to ascertain if people that are not using them because they are not freestanding/ordinary toilet facilities. Survey findings – May 2017 In developing the Public Toilet Strategy 2012, Council commissioned community research to inform the strategy. The research at that time indicated:  Mixed community views on whether automated toilets were better than traditional toilets;  That vandalism and antisocial behaviour should be addressed; and  Cleanliness and maintenance were seen as the most important aspect from a user point of view, but was rated poorly in relation to automated exeloos. While previous research included consultation on the automated exeloo toilet design (which are typically unisex), specific research on unisex toilets was not undertaken. Moreland currently has exeloo toilets at over 10 locations, and a number of other unisex toilets across the municipality, thus changes to current design principles would be widespread. The survey results provide more conclusive data on the issue, given that previous research indicated mixed views on the automated toilets.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 718

A telephone survey reflecting Moreland's demographic population was conducted, as well as an intercept survey at Coburg Mall and Bush Reserve. The Coburg Mall location was a resolution of Council, supported due to the high volume of public it attracts and also having two automated exeloos. Bush Reserve was chosen in addition to the Council resolution as a second intercept site due it being a highly utilised non-automated unisex accessible toilet located within a popular park area and sporting precinct. The telephone survey required respondents to answer questions, with respondents asked to recall the last time they accessed a public toilet in Moreland whereas those in the intercept survey were in-situ and were faced with the real-life choices one makes when accessing public toilets. The telephone survey received 351 respondents of which 52% were female and 48% were male, 43% of respondents were aged 35-64 years and 18% were aged 65 years or older. The intercept surveys were conducted over two days at each location (one weekday, one weekend), receiving 88 responses, 48 at Bush Reserve and 40 at the Coburg Mall. Of these respondents, 49% were female and 51% were male, with 62% aged between 35-64 years and 9% aged 65 years or older. Of the telephone respondents, 33% reported speaking a language other than English at home, and 65% only speak English at home. 45% of intercept respondents speak a language other than English at home and 53% only speak English at home. 2% of respondents in both telephone and intercept surveys declined to answer.

This data is reflective of the ABS statistics (2011) for Moreland.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 719

The survey findings informed that:  Cleanliness was of utmost importance to all toilet users (78% of telephone respondents and 83% of intercept respondents), with respondents from each survey methodology choosing the same factors differing in order of importance. The common factors were cleanliness, provision of essential items, and security. Refer to Attachment 1 – Graph 1.  The majority of respondents in both the telephone and intercept surveys (65% and 77% respectively) indicated that lack of cleanliness would stop them using a public toilet. Refer to Attachment 1 – Graph 3.  When directly asked if they would avoid using gender neutral public toilets, the majority of respondents stated that they would not avoid using gender neutral public toilets (75% of telephone respondents and 89% of intercept respondents). The percentage of respondents stating that they would avoid gender neutral public toilets was extremely low. Refer to Attachment 1 – Graph 5.  When female respondents were asked a direct question about avoiding gender neutral public toilets, the majority of the sample in both survey types indicated that they would not avoid them (86% and 59%). Refer to Attachment 1 – Graph 6. However, when unprompted (i.e. the question was open-ended) only 1.4% of the female telephone survey respondents stated that the toilet being a gender neutral/unisex toilet would stop then from using a public toilet in a park or shopping strip. Once again, cleanliness was of the utmost importance to this group. This clearly demonstrates that gender neutral toilets are not the main deciding factor when choosing whether or not to use a public toilet in a park or shopping strip. Refer to Attachment 1 - Graph 6a.  When analysing these results to determine if a difference existed between those who spoke a language other than English at home and those who only speak English at home, it was found that there was no significant difference – 71% and 77% of telephone respondents and 88% and 89% of intercept respondents – would not avoid using gender neutral toilets. Refer to Attachment 1 – Graph 7.  Intercept survey respondents were largely satisfied with the cleanliness of Council’s facilities, those giving a rating of excellent, very good or good for cleanliness accounted for 70% of the sample.  There were conflicting preferences for non-automated and automated toilets between the telephone survey and the intercept survey. 47% of the telephone survey respondents preferred non-automated toilets and 38% preferred automated toilets. Similarly, 33% of intercept respondents preferred non- automated toilets and 36% preferred automated. A combined 45% of telephone and intercept respondents had no preference for automated or non-automated toilets. Refer to Attachment 1 – Graph 8.  Female respondents’ preference was for non-automated toilets (62% of telephone respondents and 36% of intercept respondents) and male respondents’ preferencing automated toilets (52% of telephone respondents and 42% of intercept respondents). Refer to Attachment 1 – Graph 9. The detailed survey findings are provided in Attachment 1. Summary of key findings Respondents are satisfied with the cleanliness of Council’s public toilets regardless of whether they are automated or non-automated. Gender specific toilets were not identified as a priority. Individuals would largely not avoid using gender neutral public toilets regardless of gender or language. The marginal preference for non-automated toilets supports the current Public Toilet Strategy of automated only being installed in Activity Centres.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 720

Legislative requirements The provision of public toilets is not a legislative requirement on local government or any government agency. Public toilets are generally provided by local government or appropriate land managers, eg Parks Victoria in the case of National Parks etc. The only legislative requirement is for private building works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA). The provision of toilets under the BCA is generally based on the number of seats within the facility. It has been suggested by residents that the number of car parking bays within an activity centre is a measure to how many public toilets should be provided. As outlined in background of the Notice of Motion (NOM22/17) put forward by Cr Bolton at the May 2017 Council meeting is was stated that: One indicator of the number of visitors to each shopping centre is the number of car park spaces. A comparison of car park spaces to public toilet cubicles/urinals at Moreland shopping centres indicates that Coburg shopping centre has the worst access to public toilets with only one public toilet cubicle/urinal for every 500 car park spaces. The next worst served shopping centre is Glenroy with one cubicle/urinal for every 100 car park spaces. In contrast, Barkly Square shopping centre has one cubicle/urinal for every 21 car park spaces, the Lincoln Mill shopping centre has one for every 22 car park spaces. A comparison of car parks to public toilets is not a known reliable indicator for the need for public toilets, given the variabilities possible between different activity centres (e.g. types of businesses, provision of private facilities for customers etc). Consistency between centres in the comparison rates stated above is also unclear, for example, it does not appear the Coburg Library or train station public toilets (or other private toilet facilities) are included in the above, where Council has no public toilet facilities at the Lincoln Mill centre, with private toilet facilities appearing to be included. In linking the number of car parks to the number of toilets required does not objectively take into account the reason the vehicles are there (eg is the driver/passenger in the area or have they parked and caught the train etc), the number of people per vehicle etc. The reverse opinion could be argued that Coburg is over supplied with car parking rather than under supplied with public toilets. The BCA is the closet measure which has a formal basis. One of the measures the BCA uses is the number of seats in a food premises to determine the minimum number of toilets that must be provided. For example, a food premise with less than 20 seats, does not need to provide toilets and then it scales up from there, with a food premises with 100 seats needing to provide three toilets and one urinal. As can be seen this ratio is far less than the comparison to car park spaces. Existing non public toilet facilities in Coburg In considering the issue of public toilets within Coburg, the wider availability of toilets for people visiting and using the centre has been considered. There are 28 total locations within the Coburg shopping precinct with operational toilets that are accessible as a patron of the respective business (including restaurant/café’s, medical clinics, halls, etc). The map in Attachment 2 highlights the title which the toilet is within, some locations have more than one business in operation on title however, none of the titles resulted in a count of more than one for each respective location.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 721

Noting the count includes the church at 21 Victoria Street, Coburg and the Coburg Library. It does not include:  Coburg Library Exeloo.  Waterfield Street Exeloo.  The non-operational toilets next to Coles/Liquor Land at 54 Waterfield Street, Coburg.  The closed toilets within Walkers Arcade at 471-475 Sydney Road.  Coburg railway station toilets, opening hours 8.30 am-12 am, Monday-Saturday 5.30 am-12 am. As noted above, the toilets shown in Attachment 2 are only available for patrons of the venue in which the toilet is located. However the provision of public toilets should take into the wider availability of toilets across central Coburg. National public toilet map The national public toilet map is a website and App for mobile devices which is maintained by the Federal Department of Health. The national public toilet map shows over 16,000 public toilets across Australia, and was developed as part of the National Continence Program. The information within the map is provided by registered users, of which Moreland Council is one. The map provides the location, type of facility and hours of operation. Within Coburg central the National Public Toilet Map shows three public toilets, the two exeloos and the toilets at the Coburg Railway Station. It is noted upon detailed review that the location of the two exeloos is not precise, and this will be corrected within the map. Coburg Traders Association In order to provide a complete picture of the issues, Council’s Economic Development area informally sought comment from the Coburg Traders Association. The President, commented that the issue of public toilets had been a matter of constant demand. There is huge demand for it at both trader and public level. Community program In reviewing all the material around the public toilets in central Coburg, all of the factual data demonstrates that the number of public toilets and the type of facility (unisex and automated) are not an issue. The main issue is how these facilities are used by the public which then impacts the next users of the facility. There have been recent Facebook posts showing how some members of the community are leaving the public toilets in. Therefore, it is considered that a community program to raise awareness of the impact this misuse is having and asking the community to respectfully use these community facilities is worth investigating. Therefore, it is recommended that a community program, consisting of signage within the public toilets, social media and information on other platforms be developed. Proposed location of any new facility If having considered all of the above Council still believes that additional public toilets are required in central Coburg, consideration needs to be given to the location. In considering the complete Coburg central area consideration should be given to placing a public toilet on the east side of Sydney Road, possibly in the Russell Street car park to achieve better coverage of the shopping precinct. Depending on the location and type of facility and any modifications resolved to the existing exeloos, the estimated cost for a new facility is $300,000. This cost would need to be further refined following any final decision on location and scope of works.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 722

Before resolving that this option be investigated and a budget allocation being made, it is strongly recommended that further consultation be undertaken on the location. This consultation is required as the location of public toilets is often a very sensitive issue and can take time to resolve, and a location should be agreed on before a budget allocation is made. Progress against existing Public Toilet Strategy Since endorsement of the Public Toilet Strategy in 2012, the following projects have been completed as part of Council’s Capital Works Program:  Brearley Reserve – replacement of existing facility.  Coburg Lake West – refurbishment of existing facility.  Coburg Lake North – replacement of existing facility.  Coburg Lake South – refurbishment of existing facility.  West Street Shopping Strip – new facility installed.  Campbell Reserve – replacement of existing facility.  Bush Reserve – new facility.  Jones Park – new facility.  Gavin Park – replacement of existing facility (and consolidation with Austin Crescent Reserve).  Methven Park – replacement facility (on hold pending further consultation).  CB Smith Reserve/Fawkner Library – new facility. Public toilet projects currently underway as part of the 2016-2017 Capital Works Program are:  Fawkner Library (CB Smith Reserve) – new facility.  Fleming Park - replacement of existing facility (brought forward to align with Open Space project).  Methven Park - replacement of existing facility (subject to further consultation). The current draft 5 year Capital Works Program includes the following projects:

2017/2018  Charles Mutton Reserve – replacement of existing facility.  Gowanbrae River Walk – new facility.  Robinson Reserve - replacement of existing facility

2018/2019  ATC Cook Reserve - replacement of existing facility  Belair St-Public Toilets - refurbishment of existing facility

2019/2020  Moomba Park - new facility  Morris Reserve - refurbishment of existing facility  Parker Reserve - replacement of existing facility

2020/2021  McDonald Reserve - refurbishment of existing facility  Raeburn Reserve - replacement of existing facility  Wylie Reserve - refurbishment of existing facility

2021/2022  Hallam Reserve - replacement of existing facility  Melville Rd (Moreland Rd/Albion St) - new facility  Temple Park - replacement of existing facility

Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 723

4. Consultation The telephone survey was a representative sample of Moreland’s population to provide results that are indicative of the views of our residents and generalised throughout the municipality. Attachment 1 outlines the survey results. Internal consultation has been undertaken between Council officers across the organisation, including Council Facilities, Urban Design, Open Space Design and Development, Open Space Maintenance, Building Projects, Building Maintenance, Cultural Development, Libraries and Council Planning and Performance branches. 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 Previous Council resolutions (DCI69/14), have resolved to implement one new public toilet project and two public toilet renewal projects per financial year, which is reflected within the current five year capital works program. 7. Implementation The community research data supports Council’s current public toilet design approach.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Perception of public toilets survey finding D17/89086 2⇩ Toilet count - Coburg shopping precinct - May 2017 D17/177520 3⇩ People count D16/23485

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 724

DCI28/17 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT UPDATE (D17/163547) Director City Infrastructure Strategic Transport and Compliance

Executive Summary At the April 2016 Council Meeting, Council (DED 24/16) resolved to note the 2016-2017 budget proposal to undertake a thorough independent study into current performance and practices including analysis of other Council’s construction management practices and recommended areas for improvement. Council’s current processes for the management of building construction sites have been reviewed internally and assessed against those Yarra City Council, Melbourne City Council, Port Phillip City Council, Kingston City Council, Whitehorse City Council and Moonee Valley City Council. This report outlines the findings of this review and identifies areas for improvement. It was noted that other Council’s benchmarked as part of this review, require Construction Management Plans (CMPs) for large, complex or poorly managed sites. The requirement to produce a CMP can be assigned by certain triggers, or can be on a case by case basis. Council’s proposal is to implement an improved multi team approach to CMP assessments, inspections and enforcement. The benefits of this approach will see clear requirements for CMP’s, improved compliance on site by construction companies, increased inspections of construction sites, efficiency improvements for staff and better enforcement. These improvements will be gained via changes to internal practices and amendments to the General Local Law. To successfully incorporate CMPs into Council’s construction management practices, it is necessary to set process triggers in place for when a CMP will be required. The number of CMPs triggered must be balanced against the number of staff required to coordinate their assessment; the internal referral officer hours for assessment and the number of staff required to achieve appropriate inspection levels. It is critical that a construction management team be integrated with Council’s Asset Protection branch who currently work most directly with construction sites.

Recommendation Council resolves to: 1. Note the findings of the review into the management of construction activity in Moreland and analysis of other Council’s construction management practices. 2. Proceed with amendments to the Local Laws to enable a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to be required as is the case for other Council’s. 3. Develop a proposed model and performance measures for the requirement of Construction Management Plans and the necessary staffing and equipment for the coordination of their assessment, proactive inspections and enforcement.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 740

REPORT

1. Policy Context Construction Management straddles the following State and Local Legislation: State legislation  Environmental Protection Act 1970  Environmental Protection Regulations 2009  Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008  Road Management Act 2004  Planning and Environment Act 1987. Local legislation  General Local Law 2007  Environmental and Civic Assets Local Law 2014  Moreland Planning Scheme/Planning Permits. In Moreland, Construction Management Plans are occasionally required as a planning permit condition, usually imposed by VCAT, not Council. Non-compliance with these plans is enforceable under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in these cases. 2. Background Moreland is facing a large increase in residential dwelling construction between 2011 and 2036 according to current and forecast figures carried out by id consulting. The majority of construction will be undertaken over the next five years. An analysis carried out by council’s Strategic Planning Unit showed that the north and south of the municipality are going to experience dwelling growth in very different ways. The analysis, based on planning permits approved for medium density housing between 2013 and 2015, indicates that the south is going to primarily experience a number of sites where the construction will be of dense apartment blocks along with some one to two storey townhouses. Whereas in the north the vast majority of construction will be of one to two storey townhouses. These will consist of smaller infill sites such as a site that formerly contained a single dwelling being converted into three to seven townhouses of one to two storeys. At the April 2016 Council Meeting, Council resolved (DED24/16) to note the 2016-2017 budget proposal to undertake a thorough independent study into current performance and practices including analysis of other Council’s construction management practices and recommended areas for improvement. This report outlines the finding of this review. The full investigative report is attached to this report (Attachment 1). 3. Issues Environmental implications Poorly managed construction sites can result in noise, air, litter, sediment, parking issues, traffic issues and water pollution. Street trees and abutting open space areas can also be at risk of poorly managed site access. Introducing the requirement for a Construction Management Plan that is thoroughly assessed by expert areas, combined with regular inspections and enforcement activity, could significantly limit the incidence and/or severity of environmental and social impacts to the areas surrounding a construction site.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 741

Social implications Failure to adequately manage building worksites can lead to large numbers of complaints from the community, damage to public assets and reduced amenity. Failure to address or avoid poorly managed construction sites can lead to increased non-compliance at other sites. Economic implications An initial CMP model Council officers are investigating includes new coordinating and enforcement staff which replicate benchmarked Council team structures capable of managing and enforcing CMPs. The number of building sites required to produce a construction management plan and be proactively inspected will be limited by the number of staff provided. From the benchmarking, it is evident that one officer can achieve a case load of 30 to 40 CMP sites at any one time. New IT software and hardware is required to improve existing and future field inspections. The costs of new staff members and equipment is expected to be at least in part offset by increased revenue from enforcement (including new infringement types for operating without or not complying with a construction management plan). Further assessment of this model is required internally to confirm triggers, workload, impact and value. Regional/Strategic implications Introducing Construction Management Plans as a formal component of Council’s building approvals process must consider the reasonableness for the scope of the works. The number of construction management plans requested must also be balanced against the number of staff required to coordinate their assessment, the internal referral officer hours for assessment and the number of staff required to achieve appropriate inspection levels. There is an existing inefficiency with the number of separate visits required by different Council departments. It is critical that a construction management team be integrated with Council’s Asset Protection branch who currently work most directly with construction sites. 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 To understand the current situation key internal stakeholders were interviewed to find out what they do in relation to residential planning permits and/or construction, job design and whether they supported the introduction of Construction Management Plans (CMPs). Benchmarking with other councils was then carried out. One of the main findings of this exercise was that there is no shared understanding across Council about which areas should be responsible for assessing CMPs. This results in some areas not being approached (e.g. Open Space Maintenance) and some assessment requests being passed around a number of areas as they are governed by different Acts, neither of which are designed to cater for the effects of construction upon amenity. The exercise also highlighted that some areas of Council:  Are able to enforce, but do not have the knowledge/skill to inspect sites  Have the knowledge/skill to inspect sites, but do not have the authority to enforce  Have both the knowledge/skill to inspect sites and the authority to enforce (i.e. The desired situation)  Have the expertise to assess a CMP.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 742

This assessment did not include ascertaining the ability of each area to absorb the extra workload if either CMP assessments or additional proactive construction site inspections were to be introduced. Officer time is a factor affecting all departments and limits both proactive and reactive inspections levels. At the June 2016 Council meeting, Council resolved (DED33/16) that the Moreland website be updated to provide information that outlines Council’s current enforcement activity and how to report issues to Council. The Moreland website home page has a direct link in a prominent location labelled “Report an Issue”. This can be used to report any type of issue to Council. Council’s phone number is also provided on the homepage and this number can also be used to report after hours emergency issues. In undertaking a review of Council’s construction management processes, inefficiencies in enforcement activity and gaps in the Local Laws have been identified. The findings of this review are being used to inform the new General Local Law which is proposed to be presented, in draft, to the July 2017 meeting of Council. The Moreland webpage content relating to construction sites will be updated and streamlined as part of the implementation of the revised Local Laws and the proposed CMP process which will be put to Council in October 2017. Work was undertaken to find out how simple it was for builders/developers to know what permits were required for residential building sites and to know what Council’s expectations are in terms of mitigating effects of the build on public amenity, public safety and Council assets. Information about building in Moreland was categorised as both proactive and reactive. Any information that was available to a builder/developer to acquaint themselves with Council’s expectations before sending in their building permit was deemed to be proactive as they could search this information out for themselves at any time in the planning process (or even before the process started). Any information that was received after sending in their building permit was deemed to be reactive as it was only when they received information from council that our expectations were made clear. An assessment of Council’s website showed that there is step-by-step information about the process when wanting to apply for a planning permit. However, there is no such information once the build begins. Additionally, the permits that may be needed are all on separate web pages and people cannot get a single overview about what may be required. Analysis of the reactive information revealed that new permits and expectations are outlined at each stage of the process. When an asset protection permit, vehicle crossing permit and hoarding permit are required, the owner/builder is given additional information that was not easily available to them prior to receiving communication from council. This places the owner/builder in the position of reacting to information which they had not previously known, nor could it be easily accessed via our website. Benchmarking visits were undertaken with the Yarra City Council, Port Phillip City Council, Melbourne City Council, Kingston City Council, City of Whitehorse and Moonee Valley City Council. These councils were chosen as they are known to have the requirement for CMPs and be good at ensuring residential construction sites obey their CMPs, or were similar to Moreland, or were suggested during the benchmarking interviews. One thing all of the councils had in common is that officers had a caseload of 30 to 40 CMP sites at any one time (with the exception of Kingston which is at the early stages of the residential building expansion and Whitehorse who do not have a co-ordinated approach). A number of different models were seen all of which had pros and cons.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 743

The models included those which were very similar to Moreland’s current approach as well as having a dedicated CMP unit. The other common model was to have a CMP Coordinator who was aware of, and monitored, 30-40 major residential building sites. In all benchmarked Council’s, CMPs were only required for a proportion of building sites, with each Council having its own set of criteria for requiring a CMP. This streamlines the assessment of a site during inspections and ensures that complex or problematic sites receive targeted inspections. This achieves the greatest benefit for the limited staff time available for inspection activity. The review of complaints associated with current Moreland construction sites showed that they were more likely to occur at larger sites (>10 dwellings), but also that there are a small number of 3-10 dwelling construction sites that are receiving a disproportionate number of complaints. It is expected that requiring a CMP at certain sites could be an appropriate tool to reduce the number of complaints received and officer response times. The types of complaints highlight issues that are not the focus of Asset Protection Officers, and are shared between multiple other departments. These include noise, parking and road obstruction complaints. The benchmarking highlighted that proactive inspections of CMP sites can address some of these issues and complaint types. 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 To enable the requirement, review, inspection and enforcement of construction management plans in a manner similar to Councils that were benchmarked, new staff, equipment and IT systems may be required. It is expected that the implementation of the improvements in the way construction sites are managed will be at least cost neutral. 7. Implementation Introducing Construction Management Plans as a consistent component of Council’s building approvals process requires its inclusion in Council’s revised Local Laws. It is neither practical nor recommended that all building sites be required to submit a construction management plan for approval. A clear process chart needs to be developed including triggers for requiring a CMP, with a sliding scale of detail required for small, medium and large sites. A process chart indicating triggers for construction management plan sites that is appropriate for the amount of development activity forecast in Moreland needs to be developed. The burden of preparing and complying with a construction management plan must be reasonable for the scope of the works. The number of construction management plans triggered must be balanced against the number of staff required to coordinate their assessment, the internal referral officer hours for assessment and the number of staff required to achieve appropriate inspection levels. There is an existing inefficiency with the number of separate visits required by different Council departments. It is critical that a construction management team be integrated with Council’s Asset Protection branch who currently work most directly with construction sites. Attachment/s 1⇩ Construction management review report D17/26988

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 744

DCI29/17 REVIEW OF ROAD MANAGEMENT PLAN 2013 (D17/166348) Director City Infrastructure Capital Works Planning and Delivery

Executive Summary The Road Management Act 2004 (Act) requires each municipal Council to review its Road Management Plan (RMP) within six months after a general election or by the next 30 June, whichever is later, unless the Minister administering that Act extends the period under section 125(4) of that Act. The Moreland City Council RMP 2013 was reviewed after an extensive internal consultation process, pursuant to section 54 (5) of the Road Management Act 2004, section 8 (3) of the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016, and section 125 (1) of the Local Government Act 1989. In accordance with the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016, a summary report on the findings as well as the proposed amendments to the RMP has been prepared (Attachment 1) for public notice, and is provided for Council consideration. The key changes that are proposed to be made include:  Reclassifying off-street carparks as non-road areas in accordance with the Road Management Act definition;  Refinement of maintenance and inspection standards with due consideration of asset condition, safety, available resources and legal liability;  Aligning response times across Council systems and ensuring the response times are consistent with the risk to the community; and  Refinement of intervention levels and inspection frequencies in accordance with benchmarking results and changes to the management of the inspection areas. Following Council endorsement to amend the RMP, notice will be given in the Victoria Government Gazette and in the daily newspaper in accordance with the above Regulations.

Recommendation Council resolve: 1. To support the proposed amendments to the Road Management Plan as outlined in Attachment 1, in a manner contemplated by Section 41 of the Road Management Act 2004. 2. To publish a notice of the proposed amendments to the Road Management Plan in the Victoria Government Gazette and a local daily newspaper in accordance with Section 10 of the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016, stating: a) The purpose and general purport of the proposed amendments to the Road Management Plan. b) What road infrastructure or road related infrastructure or classes of roads or pathways will be affected by the proposed amendments. c) Where the written report summarising the findings and conclusions of the review, and proposed amendments, can be obtained or inspected. d) That any person can make a submission in respect of the proposed amendments within 28 days of the public notice being published.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 770

REPORT

1. Policy Context Road Management Plan (Adopted) 2013 Where a Council has a Road Management Plan (RMP), the Road Management Act 2004 (Act) requires each municipal Council to review its RMP within six months after a general election or by the next 30 June, whichever is later, unless the Minister administering that Act extends the period under section 125(4) of that Act. A review of Moreland City Council’s Road Management Plan (Adopted) 2013 is required by 30 June 2017, pursuant to section 54 (5) of the Road Management Act 2004, section 8 (3) of the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016, and section 125 (1) of the Local Government Act 1989. Council is required to undertake a review of the RMP in consideration of section 9 (1) of the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016. The Regulations require that the review only be completed by 30 June. The review is then advertised for consultation. Following the consultation process and receipt of any submissions, a revised draft of the RMP is to be presented to Council in September 2017 for final endorsement. 2. Background The purpose of the RMP is to demonstrate that Council, as the road authority, is responsibly managing all the road assets under its control. The plan must specify the standards and inspection regimes required to manage civil liability, which are reasonable and achievable. In consideration of section 9 (1) of the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016, Council undertook a review of the RMP to: ensure that the standards in relation to, and the priorities to be given to, the inspection, maintenance and repair of roads and classes of road to which the plan applies are appropriate; The internal review was undertaken by members of Council’s asset, road maintenance, transport and risk management staff where responsibility for the plan applies. In reviewing the RMP, the following were considered:  Current activities and performance in relation to meeting the requirements of the RMP.  Management systems, operational objectives and maintenance standards.  Advice received from Council’s Risk Management/Insurance branch on any necessary improvements/enhancements to Council’s current RMP, including results of a previous MAV audit report (2013).  Benchmarking of other Council’s RMP’s, specifically intervention levels and inspection frequencies. Legal advice was also sought on the requirements of the review, with particular regard to the revised 2016 Regulations, and Moreland’s delegated authorities to ‘undertake the review’.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 771

3. Issues Following a review of the appropriateness of the current RMP as outlined above, some amendments to the RMP are proposed. A report summarising the findings and conclusion of the review, including the proposed amendments is provided in Attachment 1. Where a decision is made to amend the RMP, Council is to give notice in the Government Gazette and in a daily newspaper in accordance with Section 10 of the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016. The notice is to include:  The purpose and general purport of the proposed amendments to the Road Management Plan.  What road infrastructure or road related infrastructure or classes of roads or pathways will be affected by the proposed amendments.  Where the written report summarising the findings and conclusions of the review, and proposed amendments, can be obtained or inspected.  That any person can make a submission in respect of the proposed amendments within 28 days of the public notice being published. 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 Extensive consultation on Council’s RMP was undertaken during 2016 and 2017 between Council’s asset, road maintenance, transport and risk management staff. Neighbouring Councils were also consulted to enable reasonable service levels to be recognised. Legal advice was sought on the requirements of the review, with particular regard to the revised 2016 Regulations, and Moreland’s delegated authorities to ‘undertake the review’. This advice was considered in the changes proposed to the RMP. The proposed changes to the RMP were presented to Councillors at the Council Briefing held on 8 May 2017. 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 amendments to the RMP are proposed to achieve compliance to the plan whilst maintaining current road maintenance resourcing, both financial and workforce. Whilst additional capital expenditure is proposed on roads and footpaths in coming years, it is expected that it will be some years before this has a positive impact on maintenance requirements, and will be further considered in the next review of the RMP.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 772

7. Implementation Should Council determine to amend the RMP, Council is to give notice in accordance with the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016 prior to adopting a revised RMP. The following key dates are proposed: 19 June 2017 Public notice of decision to amend RMP (Newspaper)

22 June 2017 Public notice of decision to amend the RMP (Gazettal) 22 June – 20 July 2017 Public notice period (minimum 28 days) 13 September 2017 Council meeting – Adopt amended RMP

Attachment/s 1 RMP Review Report - Findings and Conclusions D17/96937

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 773

DCI30/17 FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTING 40KM/H SPEED LIMIT IN AREA BORDERED BY MORELAND ROAD, TULLAMARINE FREEWAY, REYNARD STREET AND MOONEE PONDS CREEK (D17/162342) Director City Infrastructure Strategic Transport and Compliance

Executive Summary At the Council meeting in May 2017, Council resolved via a General Business Item (GB18/17) to receive a report that highlights the feasibility and steps required to reduce the speed limit to 40km/h in the entire estate between Reynard Street and Moreland Road and the Moonee Ponds Creek and the freeway. The motion resolved that the report should also highlight feasibility for 40 km/h signage to be displayed at all entrances to the area. In addressing the motion specifically it is feasible to reduce the speed limit to 40km/hr in the area between Reynard Street, Moreland Road, the Moonee Ponds Creek and the freeway. Council officers have progressively been installing 40km/h speed limits on Council’s local roads for a number of years and will prioritise installation of 40km/h speed limit in the area bordered by Moreland Road, Tullamarine Freeway, Reynard Street and Moonee Ponds Creek during the 2017-2018 Financial Year.

Recommendation Council resolves to: 1. Note the progress that has already been made in implementing 40km/h speed limits on local roads within the municipality. 2. Prioritise the implementation of a 40km/h Area Speed Limit in the area bordered by Moreland Road, Tullamarine Freeway, Reynard Street and Moonee Ponds Creek during the 2017-2018 Financial Year.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 783

REPORT

1. Policy Context As part of the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS) 2010-2019, Council’s Strategic Transport Team has been progressively reducing the speed limit on local roads in areas of Moreland from 50km/h to 40km/h, since 2012. MITS states that Moreland would like to see a reduction in speed limits to 40km/h on all local roads and in areas of high pedestrian activity. The map below shows those areas where 40km/h speed limits have been implemented. All area speed limit changes include 40km/h area speed limit signs at all entrances to the area.

Local roads shown in Proposed light green circled with 40km/h speed a solid line have a limit area 40km/h speed limit

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 784

2. Background Council resolved to receive a report via a General Business Item (GB18/17) that highlights the feasibility and steps required to reduce the speed limit to 40km/h in the entire estate between Reynard Street and Moreland Road and the Moonee Ponds Creek and the freeway. The report was requested to also highlight feasibility for 40 km/h signage to be displayed at all entrances to the area. Residents of Henley Street, Brentwood Avenue, Parkstone Avenue and streets surrounding Morris reserve in Pascoe Vale South have witnessed increasing instances of speeding in the area and surrounding streets as it is increasingly used as a thoroughfare to avoid traffic issues elsewhere in the municipality. This is not only dangerous for residents but also for parents and children using the kindergarten on Brentwood Avenue. Council needs to take proactive steps to ensure the safety of residents and pedestrians visiting the area. 3. Issues Investigation of available traffic speed and volume data for the area has revealed the following: Street Section Date of Daily Average 85th Name count traffic speed percentile volume (km/h) speed (km/h) Turnbull Mid-block between November 1,143 36.0 40.3 Grove The Boulevard and 2016 Reynard Street Henley Mid-block between June 2016 505 31.5 39.5 Street Moreland Road and Moama Crescent Jhonson Mid-block between October 49 42.3 51.7 Street Moreland Road and 2013 Brentwood Avenue The measured traffic volumes shown above are acceptable, given that daily traffic volumes of up to 3,000 are considered acceptable in Moreland local roads. The traffic speeds in Jhonson Street however, are higher than acceptable for a local road. Traffic management may be required in Jhonson Street subsequent to the installation of the reduced speed limit. Council officers will assess the speed profile within 12 months of the change in speed limit to determine if traffic management is required. Environmental implications Lowering speed limits in local roads provides benefits the community including improved amenity for pedestrians and cyclists, a reduction in through traffic volumes and a significant reduction in the risk of road crash trauma with only minimal impact on travel times. Economic implications The purchase and installation of the signage will be funded from the ongoing Traffic Management Capital Budget. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 785

4. Consultation Because speed limit signs are classified as ‘major traffic control items’ it is necessary that any speed limit changes be authorised by VicRoads. VicRoads has supported applications for 40km/h area speed limits on local roads in recent years and currently does not require that measured traffic speeds for such areas are 40km/h or less before approving such changes. When speed limit changes such as this are to be implemented, recent practice has been that Council sends a letter to owners and occupiers of each property within the affected area, advising of the proposed changes. 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 Procurement and installation of signage will cost up to $5,000. 7. Implementation Council’s Strategic Transport Team will undertake the preparation and forwarding of information to VicRoads in order to obtain authorisation to implement the speed limit change. Strategic Transport will also ensure that the area is advised of the changes, prior to commencement of sign installation. Assuming that Council receives VicRoads’ support, the signage will be installed by December 2017.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 786

DCI31/17 PROPOSED PARKING RESTRICTIONS - SAGES ROAD, GLENROY (D17/168310) Director City Infrastructure Strategic Transport and Compliance

Executive Summary Council has received a request from Public Transport Victoria [this is due to on-going safety and operational concerns raised by both Ventura (Route 527) and Dyson Group (Route (536)] to install no parking restrictions in Sages Road, Glenroy adjacent to the south bound bus zone outside Gowrie Station. Sages Road, Glenroy has an approximate road width of 7.2 metres and cannot accommodate a clear 3 metre traffic lane when a bus and a vehicle are parked opposite each other. There are currently no parking restrictions in Sages Road opposite the bus zone outside Gowrie Station. As the two buses coordinate their service with the Upfield Railway Line, the buses may be waiting up to five minutes in the bus zone. If there is a vehicle already parked opposite this bus zone, all traffic, including buses cannot continue through Sages Road until the bus has departed. As a result, the north bound bus service can be delayed, which provides a connection to Upfield train services. Consultation was undertaken with affected owners and occupiers earlier this year with a response rate of 40%, with these properties not supporting the proposal for no parking restrictions. Given that there was insufficient support to implement the change under delegation and that Council officers believe that the proposed no parking restrictions are warranted to improve traffic safety, Public Transport connectivity and accessibility for all road users, we seek Council’s approval to endorse the proposed parking restrictions.

Recommendation Council resolves to: 1. Install ‘No Parking’ restriction signage outside 41-47 Sages Road, Glenroy to assist with traffic flow, particularly when buses are awaiting a train connection on this road. 2. Inform the affected properties of the decision.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 787

REPORT

1. Policy Context The content contained within the report is in line with the strategies and goals set out in the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy and the Moreland Parking Management Policy. Within the Parking Management Policy, the User Priority Guidelines provide clear direction in allocating parking resources in a safe, equitable and sustainable manner. The User Priority Guidelines prescribe different levels of priority for residential areas and business activity centres, with a common purpose of providing safe and convenient access to the broadest number of users. 2. Background Sages Road, Glenroy is classified as a local road and has an approximate road width of 7.2 metres wide. Gowrie Station is situated towards the northern end of Sages Road and the area is predominately industrial businesses. Railway commuter parking is available alongside the railway reservation. 3. Issues Council has received a request from Public Transport Victoria (PTV) in consultation with bus service providers (Ventura and Dyson Group) to install no parking restrictions on the east side of Sages Road, Glenroy between property numbers 41- 47. The restrictions were requested due to the insufficient remaining road width to allow vehicles and buses to travel through Sages Road when a bus is parked within the Gowrie Station bus zone (east side) and when a vehicle is parked on-street opposite the bus zone as shown in the photo below.

Source: Google Maps The no parking restriction would allow for vehicles to stop for two minutes to pick up or drop off passengers or goods. It has been determined that five all day on-street parallel parking spaces, situated on the west side of Sages Road between 41-47 Sages Road would be required to have no parking restrictions installed. These parking bays are opposite the Gowrie Station Bus Zone, where buses park to pick-up and drop-off commuters and at times sit idle waiting for a train to arrive for interconnecting Public Transport services. It has been noted that properties 41, 43, 45 and 47 Sages Road all have off-street parking facilities available. It may be likely that commuters utilise these unrestricted on-street car parking bays and are parking for extended periods of time.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 788

This parking arrangement causes traffic congestion by blocking access to travel along Sages Road when vehicles are parked outside 41-47 Sages Road and the bus is parked in the Gowrie Station bus zone. This causes significant issues for the community if they wish to access Gowrie Station or the properties in Sages Road and can also cause delays for any of the two bus services. The proposed parking restrictions would improve the traffic flow and congestion issues in the street and improve bus services. The proposal is shown in 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. 4. Consultation The Moreland Parking Management Policy indicates that the installation of no parking restrictions require written support from at least a quarter of the affected properties with 60% support for delegated Council officer approval. Consultation was undertaken with nearby owners and occupiers residing between 35-47 Sages Road to seek comments in relation to the proposal to install no parking restrictions outside 41-47 Sages Road, Glenroy. Council’s Parking Management Policy states that the installation of no parking restrictions requires a written response from at least 25% of the affected properties, with 60% support. Upon completion of the consultation, Council officers collated and reviewed the responses. Although the minimum response rate was achieved (two out of five properties), there was a lack of support. Given this support rate, there is insufficient support to implement the change under delegation[in Council’s Parking Management Policy 2011 (Appendix 2)]. However, Council officers believe that the proposed no parking restrictions are warranted to improve traffic safety, Public Transport connectivity and accessibility for all road users. This proposal seeks Council’s approval to endorse the proposed parking restrictions as it sits outside the officer delegation. 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 expenditure required to action this resolution is budgeted for within the Transport Unit budget. 7. Implementation The parking restrictions will be implemented and the affected owner/occupiers will be notified of Council’s decision.

Attachment/s 1⇩ Proposed Parking Restrictions Plan - No Parking Zone - Sages Road, D17/163505 Glenroy - May 2017

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 789

NOM26/17 COUNCILLOR ATTENDANCE STATISTICS AT BRIEFINGS AND MEETINGS (D17/192421) Cr Dale Martin

1. Background Cr Martin’s background: Council officers invest significant time and resources in providing briefings to Councillors. As a measure of good governance, transparency and integrity, attendance information should be available online without having to trawl through agendas and minutes of past Council meetings to look for the 'Assembly of Councillors' records. 2. Policy Context Officer’s comments: Assembly of Councillors are reported to Council meetings as required by section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act). Posting this information on our website is not required by legislation, but is achievable. Note that this Notice of Motion does not propose to allow for any apologies or leave of absences to be noted nor recorded in the tally. 3. Financial Implications Officer’s comments: There are no financial implications to this Notice of Motion. 4. Resources Implications Officer’s comments: The resources required to implement this Notice of Motion can be managed within existing resources. Officer time from the Communications and Governance teams will be required to set this site up. Thereafter, every month officer time will be required to update the webpage and approve it for distribution. This work is not in the current activities undertaken and may result in other minor governance activities not occurring. Motion Council resolves to update the Councillor section of the website with a table highlighting each Councillors total number of attended briefings and meetings for both regular Council and the Urban Planning Committee. The number must only indicate attended briefings/meetings from the total briefings/meetings, be updated once monthly and be calculated as a running total since the beginning of the Council term.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 791

NOM27/17 MAXIMISING COMMUNITY BENEFIT FROM LEVEL CROSSING REMOVALS ON THE UPFIELD LINE (D17/192909) Cr Lambros Tapinos

1. Background Cr Tapinos’s background: The State Government has committed to removing two level crossings on the Upfield line – at Bell Street and Moreland Road, to be removed by the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA). The timing of the LXRA’s development of design options for these two crossings is not yet known but delivery is expected by 2022. Council wishes to maximise the community benefit from this once in a generation investment in transport infrastructure by leveraging additional level crossing removals through Brunswick and Coburg. The Upfield rail line runs through the heart of the Brunswick and Coburg Activity Centres which are planned to become Moreland’s most densely populated areas and focus locations for increased numbers of dwellings and jobs, as well as thriving retail and commercial precincts, attracting significant numbers of visitors throughout the day and evening. Brunswick is already well on the way to becoming one of Melbourne’s most densely populated areas and attracts visitors from across Melbourne, Victoria and beyond. It is understood two possible design options are most likely – either elevated rail or a trench (with sections of the trench covered for road crossings) and Council wishes to be on the front foot in understanding the maximum community benefit that may be possible from the various technical design solutions. Providing a strong advocacy position, supported by robust analysis which describes potential options in terms of project costs and benefits, will assist Council in seeking support from State Government to maximise community benefit from these once-in-a-lifetime investments. Council sees the optimal benefits for the community as maximising the number of level crossings to be removed through the Brunswick and Coburg Activity Centres, increased open space and recreational opportunities, place making, physical connections across the rail line, improved capacity and amenity of the Upfield bike corridor, urban renewal and value uplift for Council, State and privately owned land. These matters should all be explored in a technical feasibility assessment of the various design solutions to remove level crossings through the Brunswick and Coburg Activity Centres so that Council can inform itself of the best possible technical design solution with the most community benefit. Based on this work, Council can then work with the State Minister for Transport to achieve the recommended solution. 2. Policy Context Officer’s comments: The Moreland Planning Scheme identifies Brunswick and Coburg as Activity Centres planned to accommodate the most significant change and increased population and density in Moreland. Integrated land use planning and sustainable transport is a key principle underpinning the activity centre concept in the Municipal Strategic Statement and the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy. In January 2017 Council (DED11/17) endorsed a set of high level principles and place specific outcomes for the three committed level crossing removals in Moreland, and this included advocating for a ‘whole of line’ solution for the Upfield corridor.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 792

The proposed Council Plan 2017-2021 includes the following commitments in the four year implementation plan:  P2d) Continue to advocate for level crossing removal in Moreland: Work with the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) to maximise community benefit from crossing removals in Moreland.  Year 1 2017-2018 Action: Advance investigative and advocacy work for Upfield Line should a whole of line solution became viable Continue communication and advocacy with LXRA. Explore feasibility of options to increase the number of level crossing removals through Brunswick and Coburg Activity Centres. 3. Financial Implications Officer’s comments: The estimated cost to prepare a preliminary technical feasibility assessment of the options of elevated rail and lowered rail through Brunswick and Coburg (stage 1) is in the order of $27,500 (including GST) and is being met within the existing 2016-2017 OPEX budget of the Places Branch. Consultants have recently been contracted to undertake this assessment and it is proposed to brief Council on the findings in July or August 2017. Depending on the outcomes of the feasibility assessment, the next step (stage 2) would be to detail up the recommended technical solution in the form of an urban design masterplan to integrate the public realm and built form outcomes with the recommended rail design in order to maximise community benefit. This would include visual representation of what the recommended design could look like from public areas and sensitive interfaces. Further to this, development envelopes could be detailed and a property market assessment of the value uplift for Council, State and privately owned land resulting from the recommended design solution. This will assist to comprehensively support the justification for the preferred solution with social, environment and economic evidence. This additional more detailed work is estimated to cost $130,000 (including GST). The need for this further work won’t be known until the stage 1 work, currently underway, is completed and a viable whole of line solution has been identified. 4. Resources Implications Officer’s comments: The project management resource to oversee the preliminary technical feasibility assessment delivered by a consultant can be met within the existing staff resources of the Places Branch, with input from the Transport and Urban Design Units on an as needs basis. Depending on the scope of further work that may be required following the preliminary feasibility assessment, an additional project management staff resource would likely be required to deliver the work in addition to the current Places Branch work program. Motion Council resolves to: 1. Seek an independent technical feasibility assessment of the options of elevated rail and lowered rail along the Upfield rail line through the Brunswick and Coburg Activity Centres, addressing opportunities to maximise the number of level crossing removals and associated community benefit, including increased open space and increased capacity and amenity of the Upfield bike path. 2. Refer the stage 2 works (estimated as $130,000) to the 2017-2018 mid-year budget review process should the findings of the stage 1 work identify a viable whole of line solution.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 793

NOM28/17 INSTALLATION OF DISABLED PARKING BAYS FOR THE SOLE USE OF THE MOIRA KELLY CREATING HOPE FOUNDATION LOCATED ON BARKLEY STREET, BRUNSWICK (D17/192432) Cr Helen Davidson

1. Background Cr Davidson’s background: The Moira Kelly Creating Hope Foundation is located in Barkly Street, Brunswick and Nicholson Street, Brunswick East. The foundation cares for seriously ill children who have a disability, physically or mentally. The foundation also houses a number of homeless women with children. The foundation has been caring for those most in need for approximately 20 years. There can be up to eight people in the Barkly Street home that are cared for by the foundation. There is a bus that is used by the foundation and a car to transport the children and adults to hospital and their various appointments. Moira has described having great difficulty accessing the disabled parking at the front of the homes, as often there are other cars there that sometime will use the parking bay to take access the tram in the morning to go to work or park there for long periods during the day and on the weekend. Moira has contacted Moreland Council and it has been suggested that a two hour parking limit be issued for the parking bay. This however, would restrict the foundation even more. 2. Policy Context The Parking Management Policy supports the installation of disabled parking bays in residential streets but notes that they are not for the exclusive use by a single resident. Parking bays provided on street are available for the whole community and in the case of disabled bays are available for any vehicle with a disabled parking permit. The Parking Policy does not allow for the privatisation of public parking bays. Therefore, the request to make these disabled parking bays solely for the use of the Moira Kelly Creating Hope Foundation is not consistent with Council’s existing policy. Council manages the parking on Nicholson Street outside of clearway periods so VicRoads does not need to be consulted regarding any parking proposals which do not affect clearways. If consideration is being given to creating on-street parking bays for the sole use of the Moira Kelly Creating Hope Foundation, then a separate permit system would need to be created and implemented which allows only vehicles associated with this organisation to park within the nominated parking bays. If this separate parking permit system is implemented it will potentially result in other organisations seeking similar outcomes. As there is no policy position on this matter, all similar requests would be reported to Council for a decision. 3. Financial Implications The costs of any signage modifications can be accommodated with existing operating budgets. 4. Resources Implications Any proposed modifications can be implemented within existing resources.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 794

Motion Council resolves to provide two parking bays in Barkly Street and two parking bays in Nicholson Street, Brunswick East for the sole use of the Moira Kelly Creating Hope, via the creation of a separate permit system.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 795

NOM29/17 ENCLOSED OFF LEASH DOG PARK (D17/192441) Cr Helen Davidson

1. Background Cr Davidson’s background: In June 2016 a motion was passed by Council to create an enclosed off leash dog park with the possibility of later creating an agility park (GB13/16). Residents continue to ask about an enclosed off leash park and with the issues faced by many sporting clubs with dogs running on the field while sport is being played, Moreland is in desperate need of one. Practicing recall with your dog is vital to keep your dog under control when he or she is walking with you. There is no point having off leash dog parks if you cannot properly recall your dog. An enclosed off leash dog park will allow owners to practice this training with their dog as well as socialising their dog. 2. Policy Context Officer’s comments: At the June 2016 Council meeting it was resolved that Council officers prepare a report for Council on the timing and resources required to prepare a proposal for the development of a dog only agility park. Since that time, work has been undertaken to assess existing open space areas to determine which parks this facility could be constructed in. A full report is planned to be submitted to the July 2017 Council meeting providing information on the sites, costs and next steps. There is also a risk for Council associated with resolving the location of the site without public consultation which should be considered. 3. Financial Implications Officer’s comments: Within the current draft 2017-2018 budget there is no funding allocated for the creation of a dog agility park. Therefore, if the motion below is resolved funding will need to either be referred to the current draft budget, or considered as part of the 2017-2018 mid-year budget review process. The July report would consider costs and the potential to fund the agility park in the forward program. 4. Resources Implications Officer’s comments: The report planned to be reported to the July 2017 meeting will detail the type of facility proposed. Detailed design has not been undertaken on the facility therefore, if the motion below is resolved, staff resources will need to be diverted to this project to complete the design and undertake construction which will impact on the delivery of other currently planned projects in the budget and Council Plan. Motion Council resolves to create an enclosed off leash dog park at Mitchell Reserve off Reynard Street, Pascoe Vale prior to the end of the year.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 796

NOM30/17 MORELAND CITY COUNCIL'S ONGOING SUPPORT FOR THE LGBTIQ+ COMMUNITY (D17/192501) Cr Dale Martin

1. Background Cr Martin’s background: A person’s gender or sexuality should not affect their ability to marry another or leave them subject to bullying, harassment or abuse. It has been almost three years since Moreland City Council first passed a motion in support of marriage equality. Since then we have seen the issue debated federally with little action. It is clear that the easiest, least costly and least harmful way of ensuring equality in marriage is through a vote in the parliament. This can happen tomorrow should our federal politicians wish to show leadership and take much needed action on the issue. We implore all politicians to work together and demand a free vote in Parliament to end this discrimination and unjust prejudice of those in our LGBTIQ+ community. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: The Human Rights Policy 2016 – 2026 the LGBTIQ+ community as it is one of the priority groups. Marriage equality and Safe Schools are key issues and programs that address discrimination and support work towards a more equitable and inclusive community. Following the defunding of the Safe Schools Program by the Federal Government, the Victorian State Government has confirmed funding for all schools in Victoria. The State Government has committed to expand the program to all government secondary schools by the end of 2018. Primary schools and non-government schools can also access support from the Safe Schools program. Protocols for flying of the Australian Flag with State and/or other flags are prescribed by the Australian National Flag Protocol developed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Moreland’s Flag Protocol Policy. There is an order of precedence of flag, as follows:  State flag; Australian Aboriginal Flag; and  Torres Strait Islander Flag.  local government, Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies and non-government organisations.  Council supported causes such as White Ribbon day. The Coburg Civic Centre has four flag poles carrying the Australian National Flag, Australian Aboriginal Flag, Torres Strait Islander Flag and the Moreland City Council Flag. The Brunswick Town Hall has two flag poles carrying the Australian National Flag and the Australian Aboriginal Flag. The Rainbow Flag represents a Council supported cause. If the resolution to fly the Rainbow Flag is successful, it is recommended that replaces the Moreland Flag at the Coburg Civic Centre, noting that it is in contravention of our policy and the Australian National Flag Protocol. 3. Financial Implications Officer comments: This can be carried out within the existing base budget. 4. Resources Implications Officer comments: This can be responded to within the existing base budget.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 797

Motion Council resolves to: 1. Note the Council resolution of 12 November 2014 put forward by Cr Ratnam supporting marriage equality. 2. Note its dismay at the Federal Government’s recent decision to cease funding the Safe Schools program. 3. Re-affirm its public support for marriage equality regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. 4. Note that local schools and the local LGBTIQ+ community have benefited from safe schools program, 5. Note the efforts of countless teachers, students and parents who have worked hard to create this crucial program, and urges the Federal Government to provide them with financial support to further develop and expand the program as necessary. 6. Write to all Federal Members of Parliament urging them to amend the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 in the Federal Parliament and to express its concerns over the cuts to the Safe Schools program. 7. Write to the Australian Human Rights Commission advising them of Council’s ongoing support. 8. To fly the Rainbow Flag continuously until such time as marriage equality becomes law in Australia (except when the flag poles are required for flying other flags). 9. Endorse the signing of the safe schools coalition’s supporter pledge to be an official supporter organisation of safe schools coalition.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 798

NOM31/17 COBURG COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRE (D17/192519) Cr Sue Bolton

1. Background Cr Bolton’s background: The Coburg Community Information Centre has been operating in Moreland for more than 40 years. The service manages a federally funded emergency relief program. It is the only service providing emergency relief in Moreland as other services have ceased providing emergency relief. The emergency relief is in the form of food vouchers and vouchers to purchase clothing, household goods and petrol as well as assistance with pharmacy scripts and Telstra phone cards. The service is also an accredited No Interest Loans (NILS) provider. The service is run entirely by trained volunteers and is an important point of contact to get referral to and information about other services. On average, the service assists 15 people a day but this doubled at the beginning of the end of 2016/beginning of 2017 when the federal Government’s school kids bonus was scrapped. There are around 60 similar centres around the state. The majority of the centres receive core operational funding from local councils. The average level of core funding from local council is $136,000 per annum. The Coburg Community Information Centre’s grant from Moreland Council runs out on 30 June 2017. The service is faced with the prospect of closure unless funding resumes. The service does not receive funding from state or federal government or philanthropy that can be used for the agency overheads such as rent, insurance, utilities and administration costs. 2. Policy Context Officers comments: Moreland City Council acknowledges that the Coburg Community Information Centre plays an important role in providing support to some of Moreland’s most vulnerable community members. Council understands that the Centre has seen increasing demand in the past year due to other agencies reducing their service provision and other pressures. Council facilitated a new location for the Centre in 2014 Council facilitated with Kildonan thereby reducing their ongoing rental payments. Council’s current Community grants policy does not have provision for the ongoing operational funding for organisations. 3. Financial Implications Officers comments: This amount is currently not allocated in the current 2017-2018 budget and should be referred into consideration through the submissions. 4. Resources Implications Officers comments: Officers can work with the Centre to assist with their long term viability options. Motion Council resolves to: 1. Recognise the important social support that the Coburg Community Information Centre provides to the Moreland community through its provision of emergency relief and the No Interest Loans Scheme.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 799

2. Refer an amount of $13,000 into the 2017-2018 budget process to assist the Coburg Community Information Centre to cover administration and overhead costs. 3. Receive a report on options to ensure the longevity of the service.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 800

NOM32/17 TREATY (D17/192538) Cr Sue Bolton

1. Background Cr Bolton’s background: On April 13 2016, Moreland Council voted to begin a treaty process with the Wurundjeri first nation and other first nation’s people in the Moreland Council area (NOM22/16). Since 3 February 2016, the state Government has been involved in a treaty dialogue with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community throughout Victoria. Australia is the only Commonwealth country without a treaty with the first peoples. Treaties can be made at the local level as well as state and federal levels of Government. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: Moreland’s Human Rights Policy 2016 – 2026 states Advocacy and Leadership as one of its key themes with a specific outcome being Advocacy and leadership initiatives to promote human rights and address discrimination. The process of negotiating a treaty with Indigenous people is one for Sovereign nations, rather than for individual Local Councils. The State Government is handling current negotiations on behalf of Victoria. At this stage it is uncertain what role Local Government has to negotiate such a Treaty. An open letter from the Aboriginal Treaty Interim Working Group to the Aboriginal community following the Victorian Treaty Forum on 28 April 2017 stated that: In terms of next steps, there will be a public report from Ernst & Young with a detailed analysis of the results from this round of community consultations and engagement along with the rationale of why a company limited by guarantee was chosen by the Working Group as the preferred legal structure over all other models. The Working Group are currently finalising the details for the Community Assembly (the Assembly) that was announced at the state-wide forum but largely its job will be to provide recommendations back to the Working Group on the final elements on the representative structure so it can be presented to the government and established. The Working Group is aiming to have the terms of reference for the Assembly finalised this June so the expression of interest process can start with the Assembly running across the second half of 2017. This will mean that any Aboriginal Victorian will, once again, have the chance to have their voice heard. Next steps Treaty is an evolving process. A full report on the latest phase of community consultations is being finalised by Ernst & Young and will be posted when available. This will include a detailed analysis of the Aboriginal Treaty Interim Working Group’s preferred legal structure - a company limited by guarantee - along with the other legal structures that were considered in depth. The overarching principle, decided through community consultations, is that the representative body be democratic, independent from government, and able to authorise treaty/treaties.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 801

3. Financial Implications Depending on how lard and formal the forum is, there are varying financial implications. Typical costs associated with an event might include catering, sound and lighting. If external speakers were sought, there may be a further cost to this. The cost is likely to be the order of $1,000 to $5,000, depending on scale of requirements. 4. Resources Implications This is dependent on the scale of the forum. If the forum is large, it may displace other work in the Community Development and Social Policy areas. Motion Council resolves to seek to advance the treaty dialogue with the Wurundjeri Council and other first nations people by organising a major public treaty forum and establishing a treaty circle in the Moreland area.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 802

NOM33/17 ROAD SAFETY ASSESSMENT – MAJOR ROAD, FAWKNER (D17/192551) Cr Ali Irfanli

1. Background Cr Irfanli’s background: Major Road is one of the busiest roads in Fawkner that runs right through the centre of suburb. Connecting to Sydney Road, Major Road experiences a high amount of fast through traffic for people coming in or exiting their homes in central Fawkner. Major Road also has a small popular shopping strip which attracts many residents with its numerous corner shop options. Residents have informed me of a significant safety risk at the shopping strip to pedestrians and exiting parked cars. Pedestrians feel that many cars are passing through the Major Road shopping strip at dangerous speeds despite safety signals. There are also cars are parked at 90 degree parking and when exiting it makes it difficult to see oncoming traffic which results in many near misses. This road safety assessment has been initiated on behalf of residents to conduct a review of safety issues and also advise on initiatives that would increase safety for pedestrians and road users. 2. Policy Context This motion aligns with the intent of the:  Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy  Pedestrian Strategy 2010-2019  Moreland Bicycle Strategy  Parking Management Policy by investigating and seeking to improve the safety and amenity of the Major Road Shopping Strip. 3. Financial Implications Officer’s comment: The cost to undertake the road safety audit will be around $3,000 to $4,000. This cost can be managed within the existing transport budget. 4. Resources Implications Officer’s comment: The resources required to implement this Notice of Motion can be managed within existing resources. Officer time will be required to scope the project, engage an appropriately qualified consultant, manage and review the report produced and then produce the Council report. This work is not in the schedule program to be undertaken and will result in minor delays to other planned projects. Motion Council resolves: 1. Undertake a road safety audit of the Major Road, Fawkner shopping strip. This road safety audit should at least include consideration of accidents (type and frequency), the safety of how vehicle exit the 90 degree parking, signage, speed of vehicles and pedestrian safety. 2. Report back to Council on the outcome of the Road Safety Review and any future actions required.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 803

NOM34/17 SYDNEY ROAD STAKEHOLDER WORKING GROUP (D17/192565) Cr Samantha Ratnam

1. Background Cr Ratnam’s background: As part of Council's exploratory work to make Sydney Road safer, a working group has been formed that includes key stakeholders such as PTV, Yarra Trams, VicRoads, Sydney Road traders, Revitalise Sydney Road Group and Council officers. However, there are no representatives from either Council's disability advisory committee or other disability advocacy organisations/representatives. This motion seeks to ensure that a representative from either Moreland's Disability Advisory Committee or a like disability advocacy organisation is invited to be a part of the working group from June 2017 onwards. 2. Policy Context Officer’s comments: This motion aligns with the intent of the:  Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy;  Disability Access and Inclusion Plan; and  Pedestrian Strategy 2010-2019 by investigating and seeking to improve the safety and amenity of Sydney Road for all users. 3. Financial Implications Officer’s comments: There are no financial implications associated with this Notice of Motion. 4. Resources Implications Officer’s comments: The membership of the working group was limited in numbers to allow a controlled group size to assess the information/data and formula appropriate proposals. It was recognised that there are many stakeholders interested in the outcomes of this project. Each of the stakeholders have been tasked with considering the needs of all users. However, community feedback will be sought for any proposals. A Council Officer could present any proposals for discussion/feedback to the Moreland Disability Advisory Committee or a like disability advocacy organisation at this stage. Council officers can organise an email report from each meeting to all Councillors to ensure that Councillors are kept up to date of the progress of the working group. Motion Council resolves: 1. To write to VicRoads and request that the Sydney Road Working Group invite either a representative from either Moreland's Disability Advisory Committee or a like disability advocacy organisation to become a member of the working group from June 2017 onwards and for all future meetings of the group. 2. That an email report from each meeting be circulated to all Councillors on monthly basis to ensure that Councillors are kept up to date of the progress of the working group.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 804

NOM35/17 MAKE RENTAL FAIR CAMPAIGN (D17/192589) Cr Samantha Ratnam

1. Background Cr Ratnam’s background: The Victorian Government is currently reviewing the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (RTA).The number of households renting in Victoria has increased from 389,000 to 526,000 in just 15 years. Due to our housing crisis, more people are renting for longer, including into retirement. A campaign to ensure that the protections for renters are not weakened has begun called the 'Make Renting Fair Campaign'. They claim that groups that already face discrimination will be further harmed by proposed changes, including people who have been homeless, people living with a mental illness, people with a disability, older tenants, students, people from CALD backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, women and children, and other low income households. This resolution seeks Council support for the campaign and for Council to advocate to the State Government to ensure any changes are fair and don't weaken the rights of renters. 2 Policy Context Officers comments: The recently released Homes for Victorians (State Govt) strategy promises to ‘rebalance the rights and responsibilities of renters and landlords’ through reform of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. This reform initiative seeks to examine rental issues including security of tenure, dispute resolution and the regulation of property conditions. The Moreland Affordable Housing Strategy 2014-2018 (MAHS) aims to maximise the supply of affordable housing in the municipality. As part of the strategy, Moreland City Council are committed to advocate for legislative change through joining advocacy campaigns of peak bodies and awareness raising initiatives. 3. Financial Implications Officers comments: There are no financial implications for the Council’s commitment to the Make Renting Fair Campaign. 4. Resources Implications Officers comments: The commitment to support the Make Renting Fair Campaign can be absorbed into the existing responsibilities of the Community Development unit. Additionally, the Moreland Housing Advisory Committee can consider this at a future meeting. Motion Council resolves to support the Make Renting Fair Campaign and calls on the Premier Daniel Andrews to: 1. Improve security of tenure and rental access by: a) Removing ‘no reason’ eviction notices. b) Protecting people from unjust tenancy database practices.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 805

2. Protect tenants and their families by: a) Introducing minimum property standards that address health, safety and energy efficiency. b) Creating incentives for repairs. 3. Expand privacy and use protections by: a) Preventing unwanted visits and photography. b) Allowing tenants to undertake fair modifications. 4. Protect low income and vulnerable tenants by: a) Preventing unreasonable evictions. b) Implementing the Family Violence Royal Commission recommendations. 5. Rule out punitive measures that would harm tenants, particularly those at risk of homelessness, including: a) Rejecting proposed changes that would make evicting people quicker and easier. b) Rejecting the proposed enforcement of onerous and unfair lease terms. c) Rejecting the proposed special bond scheme for pet owners. d) Rejecting additional restrictions on stays by guests and family. e) Maintaining existing protections for highly vulnerable tenants.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 806

NOM36/17 ASYLUM SEEKERS (D17/192597) Cr Sue Bolton

1. Background Cr Bolton’s background: Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton, recently announced that any people seeking asylum who have not yet submitted their protection visa application must do so by October 1 or they will lose their right to apply for refuge, and will be deported back to the countries they fled. This applies to thousands of people. These people were prevented for years from submitting applications, until recently when the government began allowing them to apply on invitation only. The application process is particularly complicated, and people need skilled legal support. Some people did not receive their invitations until October last year, and by then refugee legal services had thousands of people on their waiting lists. The government has withdrawn funding for legal services to assist people seeking asylum. Many services have to do their own fundraising to cover the costs of lawyers to assist the huge number of people needing legal assistance. People who have been contributing to their local communities for years, patiently waiting to apply for protection visas, could be deported back to serious danger. The 1 October deadline will frighten people into submitting complicated 65-page applications without legal advice or interpreters. There is no right of appeal if a mistake is made on the application forms. This means that people will be wrongly assessed and face deportation back to danger. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: Moreland Human Rights Policy 2016-2026, provides a framework and objectives for the implementation of Council’s human rights obligations. The Policy consists of four themes and outcomes, they are as follows:  empowerment and participation;  equitable access to services;  accessible places and spaces; and  advocacy and leadership. Council under the theme of advocacy and leadership has made a commitment to advocating on behalf of those from migrant and refugee backgrounds. The Policy states that: In collaboration with people from identified priority groups, Council will advocate to other spheres of government, business, partner organisations and community to promote human rights and address issues of discrimination and marginalization at the local, regional, national and international level. One of the key policy outcomes under this theme being. Advocacy and leadership initiatives to promote human rights and address discrimination. 3. Financial Implications Officer comments: Within current budget.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 807

4. Resources Implications Officer comments: Within current budget. Motion Council resolves to write to Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, calling on him to revoke the 1 October deadline for asylum seekers to apply for asylum and instead provide them with the time and support needed to make the process fair and to commit not to deport people back to danger. Copies of the letter to be sent to federal MP for Wills Peter Khalil and Victorian senators.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 808

NOM37/17 MCC CALLS ON THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO STOP INVESTING IN WESTGATE TUNNEL TOLLWAY AND TO PROPERLY ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY IN SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT SOLUTIONS (D17/192610) Cr Mark Riley

1. Background Cr Riley’s background: The West Gate Tunnel proposal was never proposed prior to the electorate at the last state election and therefore the State Government does not have a mandate to build this tollway. The project was proposed by Transurban, the largest provider of tollways on Australia's east coast, which has a vested interest in establishing more private tollways. The costs and benefits for this proposal are highly questionable at present. Whilst the vast majority of car users continue to burn fossil fuels the future users of the tollway will be contributing to higher emissions, including CO2 and other particulates. The proponents indicate that road users may be able to improve travel times initially by 20 minutes on average, and that will be reduced to only four to eight minutes, five years after the road is constructed. For around a 10th of the cost of the West Gate Tunnel, Victoria could double bus services in the west for 10 years! A train line can carry 40,000 people per hour, while a 12-lane freeway can only handle 24,000 people per hour. By the government’s own projections, travel times will be even slower than they are today from the outer west over the West Gate Bridge. Commuters will have the option of taking the tunnel instead, but in exchange for paying a toll they will only save them three minutes on 2016 travel times, after putting up with five years of roadworks. The residents of the City of Moreland will be paying for the West Gate Tunnel even if they never use it, through an extra decade of paying tolls on CityLink, through $1.5 billion or more of tax payers’ money, and through the possible loss of the opportunity to end CityLink tolling early. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: This motion aligns with the intent of the:  Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy  Municipal Health and Wellbeing Plan  Zero Carbon Evolution Strategy 3. Financial Implications Officer comments: There are no direct financial costs in preparing the submission to the West Gate Tunnel EES if internal resources are used to prepare the submission.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 809

4. Resources Implications Officer comments: The resources which prepared the East West Tunnel submission and represented Council at the panel were significant. It is proposed that a less detailed submission be prepared based generally on the information Council has at hand for this project. If a more detailed submission is required then external resources will be required to prepare the submission and submit it before the 10 July 2017 closing date, which will have a financial impact. It will be important for Council to clarify the type of submission required in the resolution. Motion Council resolves to: 1. Call on the State Government to make greater investment in better public transport for the rapidly growing population in Melbourne's west and to reduce the impacts of more cars pouring into the CBD and into Moreland City. 2. Call on the State Government to undertake an independent cost benefit study before proceeding with any significant infrastructure projects. 3. Call on the State Government to undertake a best practice consultation and community engagement process to solve Melbourne's transport challenges and ensuring that state and federal infrastructure projects are independently assessed before public consultations begin. 4. Make a submission to the Westgate Tunnel EES process, based on the research and evidence developed for the East West Link campaign, which this Council took a strong stance against.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 810

NOM38/17 LANEWAYS (D17/192618) Cr Sue Bolton

1. Background Cr Bolton’s background: With increasing development in Moreland, many developers are using the bluestone laneways as the main exit/entrance point for their developments. 2. Policy Context Officer’s comments: There are a number of Council policy positions which support the use of laneways across the municipality as access points for properties e.g. Moreland Planning Scheme, Rights of Way Strategy and the Vehicle Crossing policy being the main documents. For some properties the laneway is the most appropriate point of access. The December 2015 Council report on the outcomes of the Bluestone Laneway construction trials confirmed the pavement construction method for bluestone laneways which can carry the modern traffic loads the laneways are experiencing. During the course of all the research, investigation, discussion, community consultation and reports to Council, it was recognised that maintaining bluestone laneways was an additional cost over some other material types. The December 2015 report to Council describes in detail the costs associated with the construction of bluestone laneways. It is difficult to estimate the increased cost of repair of bluestone laneways due to development, as all modern traffic loads are greater than the original loads the bluestone laneways experienced, so all traffic in bluestone laneways cause defects not just traffic due to developments. It is recognised that the bluestone laneways play an important role within the municipality and this cost is managed within the capital works program. 3. Financial Implications Officer’s comments: There are no financial implications associated with this Notice of Motion other than the cost associated with officer time. 4. Resources Implications Officer’s comments: The information requested by this Notice of Motion (points 2 and 3) has been provided in previous reports to Council where possible. The information requested in point 1 is currently information not collected and would require a significant manual process to determine. However if Council resolves the motion below the resources required to implement this Notice of Motion can be managed within existing resources. Officer time will be required to research the information requested and then produce the Council report. This work is not in the schedule program to be undertaken and will result in delays to other planned projects. Motion Council resolves that a report be prepared which provides: 1. The number of bluestone laneways which are the main entrance/exit point to developments. 2. The structural load-carrying capacity of bluestone laneways for the increased traffic. 3. An estimation of the increased cost for council of the increased repair cost of bluestone laneways as a result of the use of the laneways as the main entrance point for developments.

Council Meeting 14 June 2017 811