3596124-V5-FEB06 CC NORTH MELBOURNE
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Page 1 of 40 COMMUNITY AND CULTURE COMMITTEE Agenda Item 5.1 REPORT 14 February 2006 NORTH MELBOURNE RECREATION RESERVE REDEVELOPMENT – INITIAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION Division Assets & Services Presenter Ian Harris, Group Manager Parks & Recreation Purpose 1. To provide an update on the consultation undertaken in relation to the three options for the redevelopment of the North Melbourne Recreation Reserve proposed in the 13 December 2005 Council meeting and to recommend approval of the preferred option and further consultation with the community. Recommendation 2. That the Community and Culture Committee: 2.1. note the consultation undertaken in relation to the three options for the redevelopment of the North Melbourne Recreation Reserve proposed in the 13 December 2005 Council Report; 2.2. approve the redevelopment of the Reserve consistent with the concept proposed in Option 1 of this Report which would involve the removal of all existing structures on the Reserve, including the grandstand; 2.3. request that further consultation be undertaken with the community in developing the detailed plans with community access to the facility to be located at the site indicated in Option 1 and to the satisfaction of Council; and 2.4. receive a further update on this project following the development of the detailed plans. Key Issues 3. Council at its 13 December 2005 meeting, resolved as follows: "1. That Council: 1.1. support the redevelopment of the recreational and sporting facilities located on land managed by the City of Melbourne at North Melbourne, Richmond and Carlton which are currently used by three Australian Football League and various cricket clubs and note that the provision of financial support will be managed through Council’s annual budget processes; 1.2. request that the Australian Football League/Clubs and State Government each contribute no less than any amount that may be provided by Council noting that any allocation by the Council may be conditional upon such commitments being provided by the Australian Football League/Clubs and State Government; and 1.3. in relation to the North Melbourne Recreation Reserve: 1.3.1. rescind all previous resolutions relating to redevelopment of the Reserve, including those relating to the old grandstand; Page 2 of 40 1.3.2. contribute no more than $2 million capital funds towards the redevelopment of the North Melbourne Recreation Reserve (inclusive of all demolition and landscaping costs) subject to: 1.3.2.1. community access to the facility to the satisfaction of the Council; 1.3.2.2. return of a significant proportion of the land, currently occupied by buildings and other structures, to parkland to the satisfaction of the Council; 1.3.2.3. approval by Council of any capital funding allocation during the Council’s annual budget processes (noting that $548,737 has been allocated in the 2005/2006 capital budget for the grandstand redevelopment); and 1.3.3. consult with the community on the three options proposed in the management report and recommend a preferred option to committee in early 2006; 1.3.4. obtain costings of the three options (refer to above); and 1.4. by instrument of delegation sealed by the Council pursuant to Section 98(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 to delegate to the Chief Executive, or the person from time to time acting in that position, its powers, duties and functions to negotiate and agree final terms and conditions of the proposed redevelopment detailed in paragraph 14 of the Management Report including the community access to the facility and the return of land to parkland.” Siting Options 4. The following three alternative siting options (as indicated in the December report) for the new facilities were subject to community consultation (see consultation section): 4.1. Option 1: locating the facilities at the eastern end of the Reserve between the Oval and the North Melbourne Pool. This option provides the best opportunity for integrated use of the Pool and community facilities in the new development. (estimated cost $7.3M) (Attachment 1); 4.2. Option 2: locating the facilities on the southern corner of the Reserve (estimated cost $7.3M) (Attachment 2); and 4.3. Option 3: locating the facilities on the southern corner linked with a renovated grandstand (estimated cost including retaining and renovating the grandstand $9M) (Attachment 3). 5. All the options propose that the existing poor standard football club buildings and other structures on the Reserve be removed (with the exception of the grandstand in Option 3) and that much of the western and southern sides of the Reserve (of about 0.6 hectare) be returned to parkland, be landscaped and made available for passive recreational use. Grandstand 6. The old grandstand on the Reserve has not been used by spectators for some years, is in very poor condition and most of it has been closed to public access due to safety concerns. The North Melbourne Football Club has indicated that it would have no operational use for the grandstand were it to be retained and refurbished. The opportunity to remove all buildings at the western end of the reserve (including the grandstand) would allow for the creation of a large contiguous area of parkland within the North Melbourne area. See Consultation section for community views on whether the grandstand should be retained or removed. 2 Page 3 of 40 7. The Grandstand’s heritage significance was assessed in December 1998 by Allom Lovell & Associates, heritage consultants, who advised that it had local historical significance and technological and aesthetic interest. Council again recently engaged Lovell Chen & Associates to update their original assessment. In summary, this latter assessment advises that “on balance, from a heritage perspective, retention of the grandstand is preferred and there does not appear to be any physical reason which would require demolition. Additionally, the costs of repairs do not appear to be unexpectedly high at this stage. However, in the broader context of redeveloping the ground, there may be a greater benefit which would accrue to the ground which may involve demolition. If such benefits were seen to outweigh the contribution made by the grandstand then demolition may be an acceptable option”. (See Attachment 4 for full report – “Revised Cultural and Heritage Assessment of the Grandstand”). Retention of the grandstand would require refurbishment at an initial estimated cost of $1.7million. Relation to Council Policy 8. Strategic Objective 3 – Inclusive and Engaging City of Melbourne: "3.3. Deliver and provide access to facilities and services to support city residents, visitors and workers: 3.3.01. Plan for the changing needs of residents, local and international students, visitors, workers and businesses in the city; 3.3.03. Improve community health and wellbeing by increasing participation in sporting leisure and recreation activities and implementing the City Health and Active Melbourne Strategy; 3.3.04. Contribute to the development of sporting and recreational facilities and investigate the feasibility of communal facilities in Docklands in accordance with Council’s ‘Partnership Funding Principles for new sports facilities in parklands’; 3.4. Promote, celebrate and further develop the City of Melbourne as a culturally rich capital city that encompasses its key strengths in art and sport: 3.4.05. Promote and further develop Melbourne as a sporting capital by delivering the Active Melbourne and National and International Sports Marketing Policy programs.” Consultation 9. Consultation in rela tion to the three options as requested by Council resolution of 13 December 2005 comprised the following: 9.1. a meeting was held with representatives from the North & West Melbourne Association on 20 December 2005. Subsequent to that meeting the North & West Melbourne Association advised that it is not satisfied with the consultation process, especially that the timelines have been too short and that the detail of the designs were not yet available. The Association has not formally expressed a view on which site option it prefers; and 9.2. a public meeting held at the North Melbourne Pool on 24 January 2006. The meeting was advertised in the Melbourne Leader and Moonee Valley Leader and listed on the City of Melbourne’s website. Also, individual invitation letters were sent to a range of representative organisations, including the North & West Melbourne Association, Errol Street Traders Association, four local primary schools and the Kangaroos Football and North Melbourne Cricket Clubs. Issues discussed at the meeting related to the consultation process, information on the detailed design, the proposed community access, management arrangements and whether or not the grandstand should be retained. (See Attachment 5 for further details of the public meeting). 3 Page 4 of 40 10. The National Trust has advised Council that it believes the grandstand should be retained. 11. Council officers have also had preliminary discussions on the proposals with representatives from the AFL, Department of Sustainability and Environment and Sport and Recreation Victoria , who are all supportive of Option 1. Finance 12. Council resolved in relation to the North Melbourne Recreation Reserve to: ". 1.3.2. contribute no more than $2 million capital funds towards the redevelopment of the Reserve (inclusive of all demolition and landscaping costs subject to: 1.3.2.1. community access to the facility to the satisfaction of the Council; 1.3.2.2. return of a significant proportion of the land, currently occupied by buildings and other structures, to parkland to the satisfaction of the Council; 1.3.2.3. approval by Council of any capital funding allocation during the Council’s annual budget processes (noting that $548,737 has been allocated in the 2005/2006 capital budget for the grandstand redevelopment). “ Legal 13. The matters detailed within the report are within the functions and powers of Council under the Local Government Act 1989.