hobsons bay city council · 12/15/2015 · on 17 august 2015 council received a petition from the...

HOBSONS BAY CITY COUNCIL Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 15 December 2015

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday 15 December 2015


THE COUNCIL’S MISSION

Working with our community to plan, deliver and advocate for the services and infrastructure that will achieve a healthy, connected and sustainable future in Hobsons Bay.

OUR VALUES

Honesty

Trust

Integrity

Collaboration

Respect

Accountability

Council acknowledges the people of Yalukit Willam of the Boon Wurrung Country that makes up the Greater Kulin Nation as the traditional owner of these municipal lands.

Chairperson:

Cr Peter Hemphill (Mayor) Strand Ward

Councillors:

Cr Sandra Wilson Cherry Lake Ward

Cr Angela Altair Strand Ward

Cr Paul Morgan Strand Ward

Cr Jason Price Cherry Lake Ward

Cr Colleen Gates Wetlands Ward

Cr Carl Marsich Wetlands Ward

Chris Eddy Chief Executive Officer Hobsons Bay City Council


1

CONTENTS Agenda .................................................................................................................................... 3

1 Council Welcome ............................................................................................................ 3

2 Apologies ........................................................................................................................ 3

3 Disclosure of Interests ................................................................................................... 3

4 Minutes Confirmation ..................................................................................................... 3

4.1 Ordinary Council Meeting .................................................................................. 3

5 Councillors’ Questions .................................................................................................. 5

6 Petitions/Joint Letters .................................................................................................... 6

6.1 Petition – Request to Implement Speed Humps on Council Lane, Williamstown ....................................................................................................... 6

6.2 Petition – Burns Road Estate ............................................................................. 9

7 Business ........................................................................................................................ 10

7.1 Corporate Services ........................................................................................... 10

7.1.1 Council Advisory Committee Nominations .......................................................... 10

7.1.2 Policy Review - Public Question Time at Ordinary Council Meetings ................. 13

7.2 Infrastructure and City Services ...................................................................... 16

7.2.1 Grade Separation Principles for Hobsons Bay .................................................... 16

7.2.2 Western Metropolitan Region Football Facilities Strategy .................................. 19

7.3 Strategic Development ..................................................................................... 22

7.3.1 Nelson Place Free Parking Trial Report .............................................................. 22

7.3.2 Amendment C88: Precinct 15, Altona North ....................................................... 27

7.3.3 Development of a Long Term Community Vision ................................................ 34

7.3.4 Draft Affordable Housing Policy Statement ......................................................... 36

7.3.5 Development of a Liquor Licensing Policy Statement ......................................... 39

7.3.6 Environmental Sustainability Report 2014-15 ..................................................... 41

7.3.7 Plan Melbourne Refresh ..................................................................................... 43

7.3.8 Events and Festivals Plan 2016-21 ..................................................................... 47

8 Notice of Motion ............................................................................................................ 49

8.1 Notice of Motion No. 1177 – Request for amendment to the Terms of Reference relating to the Local Government Act 1989 Review .................... 49

9 Public Question Time ................................................................................................... 50


2

10 Urgent and Other Business ......................................................................................... 52

11 In Camera Business ..................................................................................................... 52

Hobsons Bay City Council 15 December 2015 Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes

3

Agenda

1 Council Welcome The Chairperson welcomed members of the gallery and acknowledged the people of the Kulin Nation as the traditional owners of this land.

2 Apologies Nil.

3 Disclosure of Interests In accordance with Sections 77A, 77B, 78 and 79 of the Local Government Act 1989 Councillors are required to disclose a "conflict of interest" in a decision if they would receive, or could be reasonably perceived as receiving a direct or indirect financial or non-financial benefit or detriment (other than as a voter, resident or ratepayer) from the decision.

In accordance with Section 79B of the Local Government Act 1989 Councillors who consider that they have a personal interest that is in conflict with their public duty in relation to a matter may, if they do not have a conflict of interest as described above, apply to Council to be exempted from voting on the matter.

Disclosure must occur immediately before the matter is considered or discussed.

Nil.

4 Minutes Confirmation

4.1 Ordinary Council Meeting Confirmation of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting of the Hobsons Bay City Council held on 1 December 2015 (copy previously circulated).

Motion

Moved Cr Colleen Gates, seconded Cr Jason Price:

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of the Hobsons Bay City Council held on 1 December 2015, be confirmed.

Carried


4

Certificate Presentation – Racism. It Stops with Me Award - Behind the Smile Campaign

The Mayor acknowledged the participants of Council’s recent Behind the Smile Campaign who were present in the gallery. The project was shortlisted as a finalist from 390 entries in the national Human Rights Awards in Sydney. While the project did not win, it was a great achievement to have been a finalist. Council received a certificate, presented by Professor Gillian Triggs, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, acknowledging Council’s outstanding contribution to the advancement of human rights in Australia.

Motion

Moved Cr Angela Altair, seconded Cr Carl Marsich:

That Council suspend standing orders.

Carried

The Mayor called the participants of the Behind the Smile Campaign forward to have a photograph taken with the certificate.

Motion

Moved Cr Carl Marsich, seconded Cr Sandra Wilson:

That Council resume standing orders.

Carried


5

5 Councillors’ Questions Cr Carl Marsich referred to the Federal Government’s recent statement in relation to the budget position and asked if there was any further information in relation to the impact of budget cuts, such as those affecting in home based care and family day care, that could impact on Council?

Peter Hunt, Director Community Wellbeing, advised that the details of the proposed budget cuts will need to be further considered to determine how they will apply. Mr Hunt took the question on notice and agreed to provide further information to councillors in due course.

Cr Angela Altair requested an update on the graffiti and vandalism spree across the city over the weekend, in particular damage to the elm trees at the Williamstown Botanic Gardens. Cr Altair suggested that the sign alerting people to previous vandalism in the gardens may be having the opposite effect, and contributing to the problem.

Sherry Clarke, Director Infrastructure and City Services, advised that the police are investigating the damage to the trees, including whether the graffiti tags can be identified. Council is in discussion with the police regarding increasing patrols in the area and Council’s Parks staff will be doorknocking local residents to see if they can provide any information to police. Public assistance will also be sought to help monitor behaviour in the area. Ms Clarke took the issue about the signage on notice and advised that other communication strategies to deter vandalism will be explored.

Cr Angela Altair noted the poor condition of the historic Moreton Bay fig on The Strand, Williamstown which was reported by a local resident. Cr Altair commended officers for their quick response, attending to the tree on Saturday morning. Council will be following up the matter with the landlord which is the State Government.

Cr Angela Altair advised of complaints about late night noise from Shelly’s Beach Pavilion at the Esplanade, Williamstown and requested an update on the investigation.

Natalie Walker, Director Strategic Development, confirmed that Council has received complaints in relation to late night music from the facility. Council officers are in contact with the operator to ensure compliance with licensing requirements, and will work with them to resolve any noise issues and ensure there is no impact on surrounding residents.

Cr Sandra Wilson referred to the sand bar/spit running adjacent to Doug Grant Reserve at the mouth of Laverton Creek, which is an area of significant feeding ground and habitat for migratory shorebirds. As the site is close to the beach and allows public access, Cr Wilson asked what process can be undertaken to determine who the land manager is, and how its significance, risks to habitat and opportunities for greater protection can be assessed?

Natalie Walker, Director Strategic Development, advised that the land is under the management of Parks Victoria, Melbourne Water and the Port Phillip Catchment Management Authority. Ms Walker suggested that Council write to the Chief Executive Officer of Parks Victoria and the Minister for Environment requesting an assessment to be undertaken of the site and management actions to address its environmental significance. As the State Government is responsible for the land, a copy of the letter can also be forwarded to the local state member.


6

6 Petitions/Joint Letters

6.1 Petition – Request to Implement Speed Humps on Council Lane, Williamstown

Directorate: Infrastructure and City Services Appendix: 1 1st Pink

Purpose

To advise Council of the results of a recent traffic volume and speed survey undertaken in Council Lane, Williamstown and to seek endorsement of recommendations.

Motion

Moved Cr Paul Morgan, seconded Cr Angela Altair:

That Council:

1. Install entry threshold line markings at each end of Council Lane, Williamstown to visually reinforce the existing Shared Zone (10kph).

2. Introduce appropriate line markings adjacent to each driveway.

3. Provide advice to residents if they wish to exercise an option to install convex mirrors within their properties.

4. Inform the lead petitioner and residents of Council Lane of the outcome.

Carried

Report Summary

Council Lane is a 4.2 metre wide lane located in Williamstown that runs parallel to Thompson Street, between Cecil and Aitken Streets (Appendix 1, figure 1). It is adjacent to the Nelson Place retail area.

It provides frontages to five properties namely No. 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 (Appendix 1, figure 2) and has been designated as a shared pedestrian and vehicular zone, with regulatory signs installed at either ends of the laneway (Appendix 1, figure 3).

A petition consisting of five signatures (Appendix 2) was received by Council on 17 August 2015 from residents of Council Lane Williamstown in relation to:

safety concerns arising from vehicles regularly exceeding the posted 10kph ‘Shared Zone’ speed limit, creating potential to injure pedestrians using Council Lane

claims that an increase in vehicle and pedestrian volumes using the lane to transit between Aitken Street and Cecil Street are attributable to:

the activities of neighbouring Joan Kirner House Williamstown Child Care Centre casual parkers visiting the retail area of Nelson Place

safety concerns related to obstructed visibility when reversing from residents’ driveways


7

A traffic survey of speed and volumes was completed which does not support the claims. An inspection of the site by Council’s traffic engineers does support safety concerns regarding obstructed visibility when reversing and supports the painting of the laneway surface to ameliorate this issue.

In response to the petitioners’ request to install two speed humps and advisory pavement speed markings Council undertook a traffic speed-volume survey, the results of which did not confirm the incidence of high volumes and speeds.

The results of the survey (Appendix 3) revealed vehicle speeds are generally within the posted 10kph limit during weekdays, although at certain hours on weekends speeds ranged between 10 to 15 kph. Field observations made through the week revealed that the low traffic volumes were mostly attributable to residents’ traffic. For this reason speed humps will not prove effective other than to inhibit wheelchair and electric scooter access.

A number of physical features within the lane, such as its narrowness (4.2 metres), the high masonry walls and timber paling fences contribute to the issue of restricted visibility encountered by residents when reversing from their properties. On this basis, it is suggested that contrasting road-surface colours be installed to indicate to through traffic, the location of each crossover and to highlight the possibility of interaction with a reversing vehicle.

It is estimated that the cost of implementing the recommendations using line marking would be between $2,000 and $4,000, however this would require regular repainting every three years.

Background

On 17 August 2015 Council received a petition from the residents of 28, 29, 30 and 31 Council Lane. The petition was tabled at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 25 August 2015 requesting:

“That two speed humps be located in the lane to ensure vehicles slow down as they pass the frontage of homes in the lane and to ensure pedestrian safety.”

The petition also noted that:

“Speed advisory signs be painted on the laneway surface so that they can be readily seen by all drivers turning into Council Lane from either end.”

Discussion

Review of Speeds and Volumes

In response to the concerns outlined in the petition, a seven-day traffic volume and speed survey was conducted outside 30 Council Lane, from Sunday 6 September to Sunday 13 September 2015. (Appendix 1, figure 4)

The following provides an outline of traffic survey results:

Council Lane carries extremely low volumes of traffic, up to 21 vehicles per day (vpd), with a maximum hourly volume of four vehicles per hour during weekdays and three vehicles per hour on weekends (Appendix 4)

the average vehicle speed and 85th percentile speed on weekdays are generally within 10 per cent of the posted speed limit of 10kph (Appendix 3)

on weekends between the hours of 10am to 2pm and 5pm to 7pm, both average and 85th percentile speeds are observed to range between 10kph, to a maximum of only 15kph (Appendix 3)

Given the narrowness of Council Lane at 4.2 m, it is unlikely that high speeds can be reached. Since the vehicle speeds recorded in the survey do not exceed 15kph, the


8

installation of speed humps will not achieve any further speed reduction (20kph being the advisory speed at speed hump locations).

Based on the results of the traffic volume and speed survey and the above discussion points, the installation of speed humps is not supported.

It is claimed by petitioners that Council Lane is used by vehicles as a ‘cut-through’ to Nelson Place, or otherwise by those intending to cross between Aitken Street and Cecil Street. This is not supported by the volumes outlined in the traffic study. It is also not supported by the fact that Thompson Street is only 60 metres away and offers a substantially wider carriageway to manoeuvre a vehicle, as well as significant on-street parking opportunities.

Sight Lines and Visibility

A visibility issue exists when residents reverse out of their driveways. The three photos attached as Appendix 4 show that the visibility problem is caused by obstructions above the driver’s eye height of 1.2 metres, such as fences, trees and landscaping. Unsafe situations could arise in the event one of the residents reverses out of their driveway as an oncoming vehicle travels through the lane.

It is acknowledged that it is unrealistic or unfeasible to expect the removal or even the modification to the physical obstacles to visibility. An alternative would be for residents to install convex mirrors within their property. This would improve their ability to detect through traffic in the lane. To improve the awareness of through traffic the laneway may be painted with a prominent contrasting colour, to provide the visual cues of the respective driveway locations. (Appendix 1, figure 5)

Shared Zone

Based on traffic engineering principles, it would be considered appropriate to clearly indicate and further reinforce the message to drivers that Council Lane is a Shared Zone (10 kph) and that under Clause 83 of the Road Safety Road Rules Victoria 2009, that,

“ A driver driving in a share zone must give way to any pedestrian in the zone.”

Based on the design guidelines for a Shared Zone described in Chapter 4 Section 4.8 of the VicRoads Traffic Engineering Manual Vol. 1, it is desirable that there is a surface texture difference between the shared zone and the surrounding road network. On this basis, it is suggested that threshold treatments be included to achieve this objective.


9

6.2 Petition – Burns Road Estate Directorate: Strategic Development

A petition containing 35 signatories was tabled in relation to the Burns Road Industrial Estate.

Motion

Moved Cr Jason Price, seconded Cr Sandra Wilson:

That Council:

1. Receive and note the petition in relation to the Burns Road Industrial Estate.

2. Receive a further report in relation to this matter at the Council meeting to be held on 9 February 2016.

Carried

Petition:

We the undersigned landowners of the Burns Road Estate and our families hereby petition the Hobsons Bay City Council to:

a) Work collaboratively with the Burns Road Estate Project Group,

b) Appoint two delegates from the Burns Road Estate Project Group to the proposed Burns Road Estate Steering Committee,

c) Conduct a public meeting where all Burns Road Estate landowners are invited to jointly discuss the future of the estate,

d) Provide sufficient resources so that a Strategic Development Plan can be developed and endorsed by the Council within 12 months,

e) Provide a waiver of all rates for Burns Road Estate property owners in light of the decades of rates received by the Council for nothing in return, and

f) Commit to identifying the owners of all property in the estate within the next 6 months.


10

7 Business

7.1 Corporate Services

7.1.1 Council Advisory Committee Nominations Directorate: Corporate Services

Purpose

For Council to appoint additional committee members for the remaining term of the advisory committees.

Motion

Moved Cr Colleen Gates, seconded Cr Paul Morgan:

That Council:

1. Appoint for the remaining terms of the advisory committees:

(a) Owen Hyde and David Hopwood to the Truganina Explosives Reserve Advisory Committee

(b) Dianne Lane, Bernard Graham OAM, Daniela Kotevski, Ellen Hibbert and Anne Knight to the Disability Advisory Committee

(c) Andree Parker, Amal Abou-Eid, Hue Man Dang, Ann Goodwin, Emma Weaver, Kerry Maikousis, Pamela Sutton-Legaud, Sonja Ilievska and Amira Maleken to the Women’s Advisory Committee

(d) Alexandra Paleologoudias, Dr Dominique Hes, Shannon Pedrotti, Catherine Curtain, Dr Priya Rajagopalan and Arlan Fajardo to the Sustainable Environment Advisory Group

(e) Jack Greg, Camille Folley, Jason Rostant, David Grech, Edwin Pascoe, Wolf Graf and Alyce Vella to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transsexual, Intersex and Queer (GLBTIQ) Advisory Committee

(f) Amal Abou-Eid, Hue Man Dang, Zhuoxin (Bridget) Sun, Ruby Lay, Eh Kler Carter and Amira Maleken to the Multicultural Advisory Group.

2. Adjust the terms of reference for the Disability Advisory Committee, to accommodate the additional committee members.

3. Thank all nominees for their interest in Council’s advisory committees.

Carried

Report Summary

Advisory committees are a key way for Council to engage with community members, drawing on their skills and knowledge to provide Council with strategic advice on key pieces of Council’s work such as master plans, policies, strategies and major developments.


11

Council has recently sought expressions of interest to fill vacancies on a number of committees. A total of 42 community members applied and it is recommended that 35 be approved to join the committees for the remainder of their recently extended term ending June 2017.

Background

Council has a range of advisory committees including the Truganina Explosives Reserve Advisory Committee, Disability Advisory Committee, Women’s Advisory Committee, Sustainable Environment Advisory Group, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transsexual, Intersex and Queer (GLBTIQ) Advisory Committee and the Multicultural Advisory Group. Each committee is comprised of community representatives that have a knowledge and skill set in their committee’s area. The role of each committee is to draw on their skills and knowledge, to provide Council with strategic advice on key pieces of Council’s work such as master plans, policies, strategies and major developments.

Council’s current committee terms have recently been extended to enable the appointment of committees to be aligned with the new Council Plan, Council Health and Wellbeing Plan and Council’s priorities for the new Council term. As the committees had some vacancies, Council resolved to seek expressions of interest from community members to fill these vacancies until June 2017.

Discussion

Committee vacancies were advertised in the local newspapers and on Council’s website for four weeks, with a total of 42 community members submitting an expression of interest. Each of the committees has a Terms of Reference (TOR) and some of the TOR indicate the number of members required on each group.

Due to the quality and diversity of the applicants, as well as their enthusiasm to support Council, it is recommended that 35 of the applicants be approved to join the committees for the remainder of the term, ending June 2017. For some committees this will increase the membership indicated in their TOR, however it will provide an opportunity for a broader number of community members to be involved, prior to the end of its term.

Below is a summary of each committee, the number of nominations and recommendations. The appendix provides further information on the nominees.

Truganina Explosives Reserve Advisory Committee

The purpose of the Truganina Explosives Reserve Advisory Committee is to advise Council on long term and strategic issues pertaining to the development of a master plan for the site, heritage matters within the Explosives Reserve, carrying out improvement works on the Keepers Residence, associated significant historical features within the reserve and increasing public awareness of the reserve.

The membership of the Truganina Explosives Reserve Advisory Committee comprises of nine representatives from a diverse range of community groups. There are currently three vacancies. Council received two nominations and it is recommended that Council endorse the two nominees who represent local community groups and meet the selection criteria for the remainder of the Truganina Explosives Reserve Advisory Committee term.

Disability Advisory Committee (DAC)

The purpose of the Disability Advisory Committee (DAC) is to advise Council on long term and strategic issues that affect people with a disability and their families’ participation in community life. The DAC also supports the implementation of Council’s Disability Access and Inclusion Strategy 2013-17, with a vision to work towards achieving a fully accessible


12

and inclusive municipality where all residents, regardless of their ability, can reach their full potential and lead fulfilling lives.

The DAC currently has two vacant positions (a person with a disability and an industry representative). Five applications were received from a diverse range of community members, each having something unique to bring to the DAC. As such, it is recommended that all five be included for the remainder of the DAC term and that the terms of reference be updated accordingly.

Women’s Advisory Committee

The Women’s Advisory Committee aims to achieve greater participation of women in leadership roles within the community, celebrate and recognise women who are actively involved in the community. The Committee advises Council on issues affecting women’s participation, how new or revised policy may affect women’s issues and promoting a positive image of women as leaders within the Hobsons Bay municipality through various initiatives.

The Women’s Advisory Committee currently has twelve members and no limit specified in the terms of reference. Nine applications were received from a diverse range of community members, each having something unique to bring to the Women’s Advisory Committee. As such it is recommended that all nine applications be included for the remainder of the Women’s Advisory Committee term.

Sustainable Environment Advisory Group

The purpose of the Sustainable Environment Advisory Group (SEAG) is to advise Council on long term and strategic issues that affect the Hobsons Bay community with respect to environmental sustainability.

Twelve nominations were received from across the municipality. There are currently six vacancies on the SEAG. Six nominees are recommended, which indicated clear alignment to the selection criteria and have the required skill set to be included on the group for the remaining term.

GLBTIQ Advisory Committee

The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Queer (GLBTIQ) Advisory Committee advises Council on issues and barriers affecting people from the GLBTIQ community, who work, live or study in Hobsons Bay. The GLBTIQ community is vibrant and diverse and offers a valuable and unique contribution to the broader Hobsons Bay community. The committee works to inform Council of the needs and interests of the GLBTIQ community, so Council can play a stronger role in ensuring better safety, visibility, health and wellbeing outcomes for GLBTIQ communities.

The GLBTIQ Advisory Committee currently has five members and seven vacant positions. Seven nominations were received, with each applicant offering a unique perspective and expertise. All applicants are recommended to be included for the remainder of the term.

Multicultural Advisory Group

The Multicultural Advisory Group (MAG) aims to make a positive difference for all multicultural communities in Hobsons Bay. The group provides advice to Council on issues relating to Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) communities within Hobsons Bay and assists Council in providing culturally and linguistically appropriate programs and services as well as promoting cultural diversity within the municipality.

The MAG currently has eight members, with six vacant positions. Seven applications were received, of which six community members are recommended to join the MAG, each bringing knowledge and understanding of the needs and issues affecting culturally and linguistically diverse communities.


13

7.1.2 Policy Review - Public Question Time at Ordinary Council Meetings

Directorate: Corporate Services Appendix: 2 1st Green

Purpose

To consider submissions received in relation to the proposed Public Question Time Policy, prior to finalisation and adoption of the policy.

Motion

Moved Cr Angela Altair, seconded Jason Price:

That Council:

1. Having considered the submissions received, adopt the Public Question Time Policy as attached.

2. Revoke the Public Question Time Policy, dated 18 December 2007.

Carried

Report Summary

This report proposes changes to the Public Question Time Policy (the policy) that determines the operation of the Public Question Time (PQT) at Ordinary Council meetings.

Background

Council has operated a PQT segment during Ordinary Council meetings since 1996. The aim of PQT is to provide an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions about Council actions and decisions and/or to obtain timely information and answers to simple questions, without the need for reports and correspondence.

The current policy, adopted by Council on 18 December 2007, requires questions to be submitted during the meeting. PQT is held toward the end of the meeting. A maximum of three questions may be asked by any one person at the Ordinary Council meeting.

It is a requirement that the questions are in writing and officers generally are able to provide a written response on the night. In accordance with the policy, the question and response are read out by the Chairperson, with the proviso that the person is present in the gallery. Where a person is not present and for questions that require some research, a formal written response is provided.

Following the adoption of Council’s Meeting Procedure and Common Seal Local Law in June 2015, it was appropriate to review the operation of PQT at Ordinary Council meetings. At the Ordinary Council meeting held on 8 September 2015, Council endorsed changes to the policy and agreed to place the proposed policy on public exhibition for a period of six weeks, inviting submissions and comment.


14

The key changes proposed in the exhibited policy were that:

questions be put in writing and submitted by 4 pm on the day of the Council meeting. Questions may be submitted online, by email or delivery to the Council offices, however questions provided on via social media will not be accepted

public questions received during the Council meeting will be taken on notice and formally responded to in writing, or referred to the next Ordinary Council meeting, to provide a public response, if so requested by the submitter

the PQT is brought forward to the commencement of the Council meeting

The exhibition period closed on 30 October 2015. Five submissions were received from the community in relation to the proposed policy.

Discussion

The attached policy, recommended for adoption, is based on the proposed policy that was placed on public exhibition, with some additional amendments as a result of the submissions received. All submissions received were generally supportive of the revised policy, particularly in relation to moving PQT to the start of the Council meeting.

The key issues raised in the submissions were as follows:

Review of the policy after 12 months of operation

It is agreed that it is good governance practice to review operation of the amended policy after 12 months of operation and the recommended policy now includes a review date of December 2016.

Opportunity to ask supplementary questions related to the initial question

One submission suggested that the person asking the question be given the opportunity to address Councillors during PQT, allowing discussion on the issue. The submitter is seeking to allow follow-up question/s to clarify the initial response if required, to avoid having to submit a further question on the same matter at a subsequent Council meeting. A time limit on the question/discussion was proposed.

The proposed exhibited policy required questions to be submitted in writing prior to the Council meeting. This will enable officers more time to prepare an informed response. Both verbal and written supplementary questions answered immediately may pose some problems. In particular, it does not allow for officers to prepare an informed response and PQT provides an opportunity for the public to ask questions and obtain information, it is not intended to be a forum for debate.

This process has not been included in the recommended policy.

Supplementary question time at the end of the meeting regarding items on the agenda

The submitter has suggested that there should be an opportunity for members of the public to submit supplementary questions that arise during the evening’s proceedings. The question should be directly related to an item on the agenda and answers provided in terms of the existing PQT procedure. This would require an additional supplementary PQT at the end of the meeting. If any other questions are submitted, which do not directly relate to an item on the agenda, they must be responded to either in writing or at the following Ordinary Council meeting.

This submission requests that there be two PQT segments during the Ordinary Council meeting; one segment at the start of the meeting as per the proposed exhibited policy and a second opportunity for questions at the end of the meeting, in accordance with the existing PQT arrangement.


15

This suggestion has been included in the recommended attached policy, but only relates to items included on the agenda. Questions received during the meeting that do not relate to items on the agenda will be responded to in writing or answered at the next meeting.

Detailed submissions have been provided to Councillors and a summarised copy is attached.


16

7.2 Infrastructure and City Services

7.2.1 Grade Separation Principles for Hobsons Bay Directorate: Infrastructure and City Services Appendix: 3 1st Yellow

Purpose

To present draft principles relating to grade separation projects in Hobsons Bay for Council consideration and endorsement.

Motion


That Council:

1. Note the Draft Grade Separation Principles for Hobsons Bay and place them on public exhibition until 28 February 2016.

2. Provide the Level Crossing Removal Authority with a copy of Council’s draft Grade Separation Principles.

3. Receive a further report considering the public submissions, following the consultation period, for adoption of the Grade Separation Principles.

4. Establish an advocacy plan specifically engaging with VicRoads and Wyndham City Council.

5. Engage with local members of parliament in relation to the draft Grade Separation principles.

Carried

Report Summary

The State Government has selected three rail crossing sites within Hobsons Bay for grade separation being;

Aviation Road, Laverton (adjacent to Aircraft Station) Ferguson Street Williamstown North (adjacent to North Williamstown Station) Kororoit Creek Road, Altona (adjacent to Mobil).

These grade separation, projects are also known as level crossing removals and are primarily undertaken to address issues of safety and congestion. These major redevelopments can have negative impacts, or present significant opportunity for urban regeneration with far reaching benefits for local communities.

For this reason, it is imperative for Council to advocate on behalf of the community for the best possible outcomes at these locations, particularly as the Kororoit Creek Road grade separation process has commenced. To support Council’s position throughout the planning and delivery of these three projects, Draft Principles for Grade Separation in Hobsons Bay have been prepared (refer Appendix 1). In adopting these principles, Council is also better placed to advocate for grade separation within the municipality at its identified priority sites.


17

Background

A long-term strategic plan is being developed by the State Government to remove 50 level crossings in Melbourne by 2022. The implementation of this plan is being overseen by the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA).

On 5 May 2015, the Victorian Government allocated $2.4 billion in its 2015-16 budget to remove at least 20 level crossings across Melbourne by 2018. Since this time, 23 grade separations have been formally announced and committed to, including the recently announced Kororoit Creek Road crossing in Hobsons Bay. It has been foreshadowed that a further 27 grade separations shall be completed in the government’s second term. This second tranche would include the Aviation Road and North Williamstown Station sites.

The primary objectives of the project according to the LXRA are to:

deliver safety improvements for drivers and pedestrians improve travel around Melbourne for train users, pedestrians, cyclists and drivers get people home safer and faster make our roads more reliable, enabling people to better predict their travel times stimulate economic growth by creating thousands of jobs during construction revitalise local communities, with many areas benefiting from station rebuilds enable more trains to run more often and on time The LXRA will be submitting a business case to the state government in the coming weeks for approval. This report will outline the proposed 50 crossing removal projects, including the three Hobsons Bay sites. Detailed investigations are also being undertaken at each site such as soil testing, geotechnical studies, heritage studies and the like. These investigations are being used to identify feasible options and to detail the costs for consideration by the State Government. The LXRA will provide details and identify preferred options in a Project Proposal Report to the State Government later in 2016.

Discussion

How these developments are designed and implemented may improve or detrimentally affect the amenity of the local community. The basis for the prioritisation of the sites is also not clear. The construction of the Kororoit Creek Road grade separation will be the first level crossing site in Hobsons Bay. It is anticipated to commence in 2017 and will involve disruption to the Altona Loop service for a period of up to three months. LXRA has confirmed that a shuttle bus service would be provided during the construction period.

According to LXRA, level crossing removal involves four possible scenarios being:

1. Rail at ground level, road above 2. Road at ground level, rail above 3. Rail at ground level, road below 4. Road at ground level, rail below

Options are driven by a range of considerations, including technical issues and costs. The design will respond to site specific constraints such as ground conditions, cultural heritage values, environmental impacts and the like. Each option will result in substantial changes to the urban fabric of the local area.

To ensure benefits of grade separations are realised and local opportunities for urban revitalisation are well considered, Hobsons Bay City Council will advocate for best practice community and stakeholder engagement, as well as the incorporation of good planning and design principles throughout the process.


18

In line with Plan Melbourne directives, Council strongly supports a holistic approach to the planning, design and delivery of the level crossing removals. This approach includes:

a network approach to planning to ensure that all modes of transport are factored into the planning process to enhance connectivity to the broader transport network

the development of Structure Plans for Williamstown North and Laverton precincts led by Council to ensure the integration of land use and transport outcomes as well as enhancing permeability, particularly through creation and enhancement of pedestrian and cycling paths (currently these structure plans are unfunded)

incorporation of good design principles, such as use of high quality materials and consideration of sustainability and universal design principles

incorporation of community and stakeholder engagement throughout the process to allow collective input and delivery of innovative and relevant solutions

To ensure each of the proposed level crossings is well integrated into the local area and that the community’s amenity is protected, Council advocates that principles are applied during the planning, design, consultation and implementation of each project. These principles are outlined at Appendix 1. Further details that informed the development of these principles are located in Appendix 2. Development of strong relationships and ongoing advocacy with the LXRA will be needed throughout the process to ensure these outcomes are realised.


19

7.2.2 Western Metropolitan Region Football Facilities Strategy Directorate: Infrastructure and City Services Appendix: 4 1st Blue

Purpose

To provide Council with the Australian Football League (AFL) Victoria’s draft Western Metropolitan Region Football Facilities Strategy (WMRFFS) for information.

Motion

Moved Cr Angela Altair, seconded Cr Sandra Wilson:

That Council:

1. Note that AFL Victoria has placed the draft Western Metropolitan Region Football Facilities Strategy on public exhibition until 31 January 2016.

2. Request that AFL Victoria develop and release a formal advocacy plan based on this strategy to secure state and federal government and/or commercial partnerships and funding to assist with the implementation of this strategy.

3. Authorise officers to prepare a co-ordinated submission to the draft Western Metropolitan Region Football Facilities Strategy, under the CEO’s signature, based on the issues identified in this report.

Carried

Report Summary

The Australian Football League Victoria (AFLV) has led the development of the draft Western Metropolitan Region Football Facilities Strategy (WMRFFS Appendix 1) in collaboration with the Cities of Hobsons Bay, Maribyrnong, Wyndham, Melton and Brimbank. Similar strategies have been undertaken in other regions throughout Victoria such as the Barwon South West Region. The purpose of this strategy is to guide the development of, and to grow participation in Australian Rules football within the Melbourne western metropolitan region. The WMRFFS provides a strategic framework to guide future investment into community football facilities and to support future funding applications. The WMRFFS provides invaluable information to support AFL Victoria, as the peak sport agency, to advocate to state and federal government for funding to assist in the delivery of the strategy. This strategy provides the business case to support community sport, specifically football, of which local government is just one of the many stakeholders.

AFL Victoria also has commercial partners and similarly this strategy is a valuable tool to seek support from these entities to assist in the delivery. The implementation of the WMRFFS through local government alone is not sustainable, particularly in a rate capping environment. Appendix 2 to this report provides a summary of the estimated cost to implement the Hobsons Bay facility improvements detailed in the WMRFFS.

Background

Football is the most popular traditional club based sport in Hobsons Bay, with an estimated 2,014 registered players with a projected increase to 2,272 participants by 2025. The Hobsons Bay Sport and Recreation Strategy 2014 identified a shortage of football ovals in the eastern part of the municipality, particularly around Williamstown, Williamstown North


20

and Newport. The western part of the municipality is considered to have an adequate supply of facilities. Ongoing investment in football facilities is required to meet current and projected participation demands. Given Council’s commitment to providing multi-purpose facilities to accommodate a diverse range of sport and recreation opportunities, a key aspect in planning for these facilities is to ensure facilities are accessible and have the capacity to cater for more than one particular code or use.

Each participating Council has their own sport, recreation and football specific plans. AFLV’s Football Facilities Development Strategy provides a state level, strategic overview of facility provision and development. AFLV’s Western and North West Regions Future Directions Reports identify a need for a ‘whole of game’ approach to address the challenges and capture opportunities across the region.

Currently, local government can apply for contributing funding to improve or develop new football facilities through the state government (Community Sport Infrastructure Fund), AFLV (various funding programs) and club contributions. Typically State Government funding responds to specific issues, as demonstrated by the recently launched Female Friendly Facilities Fund, which allocates up to $100,000 as a project contribution. In most project cases Council has contributed the majority of the project costs.

Discussion

The WMRFFS has found that participation in football in the western metropolitan region is currently the lowest of all metropolitan regions. The region also has the lowest provision of facilities, per head of population in the metropolitan area. Participation is expected to increase to 17,600 by 2025, however current facility planning does not meet projected participation requirements. Other key issues for the region include access to finals’ venues for leagues and provision of unisex amenities, to cater for female participation and officials.

The WMRFFS states there are five critical actions that need to be delivered to ensure a positive future for football within the region. These actions and how they specifically relate to Hobsons Bay are detailed as follows:

Critical action 1 recommends that local government authorities prioritise change room upgrades for application to Sport and Recreation Victoria Grants Programs, based on current provision and existing and projected female participation to cater for unisex use. This is generally consistent with Hobsons Bay planning and a recent application has been submitted to the state government for the development of unisex facilities as a part of the JK Grant Reserve Pavilion redevelopment. $25,000 has also been pledged to this project from AFLV, pending success with the state government application. Six of the ten football facilities in Hobsons Bay do not currently have access to unisex change rooms. This is an issue that is common across many other sporting codes.

Critical action 2 recommends AFLV and local government authorities prioritise umpire amenity upgrades to those facilities in poor condition, to ensure attraction and retention of umpires. Again, this is incorporated in pavilion redevelopment or improvement projects, such as the JK Grant Reserve Pavilion project. Three of the ten football facilities in Hobsons Bay have been identified by AFLV as requiring umpire amenity upgrades. This is an issue that is common across many other sporting codes.

Critical action 3 recommends project partners work collaboratively to bring facilities with no or low lighting up to minimum standards, based on facility usage. Hobsons Bay is currently undertaking a sportsground lighting audit across all codes, which will guide future lighting improvement works. Bryan Martyn Oval will have additional lights installed for the 2016 football season, with additional lights planned for Altona Green for the 2017 football season. These upgrades achieve only part of the need for floodlighting improvements across football and many other sporting codes in Hobsons Bay.


21

Critical action 4 recommends project partners work on key regional facility priorities, including umpire training venues, finals venues and state level training facilities. The Strategy recommends that Hobsons Bay City Council engage with football and other stakeholders during the development of a master plan for Croft Reserve in 2016-17. AFLV view Croft Reserve as having potential as a key regional facility for the Under 18 pathway. AFLV consider Croft Reserve to be below the standard provided at other TAC Cup facilities across Victoria. The development of the Croft Reserve Master Plan is included in the draft 2016-17 capital works program. Council welcomes the opportunity to work with the respective stakeholders to determine finals and state level training facilities, to distribute the capacity across the region where possible. However, Croft Reserve may not be the most appropriate location or venue, as this reserve provides for a broad range of active and passive sport and recreation activities.

The strategy does not acknowledge the non-football related role of Croft Reserve, both currently and into the future, including the important open space function the reserve serves for the Altona North community. Future developments within the Altona North precinct will place additional demand on public open space where there is already an existing under supply. The objective of the Croft Reserve Master Plan will determine the future role of the reserve, beyond providing for Australian Rules.

Critical action 5 recommends project partners work collaboratively to identify alternate funding streams to support a range of football needs. This is an ongoing action and the development of this strategy will provide further support for the regional business cases and funding applications.

Similar strategies have been undertaken throughout other regions within Victoria including the Barwon South West Region. These strategies are an important tool to support AFLV’s advocacy activities to state and federal government as well as commercial entities seeking partnerships and funding to assist in the delivery of the strategy recommendations. This strategy does not define AFLV’s advocacy plan, as the peak body, to secure such funding and partnership support.

The WMRFFS recommends that the project control group reconvene as a minimum twice yearly to ensure an ongoing collaborative and strategic approach to facility planning and investment.


22

7.3 Strategic Development

7.3.1 Nelson Place Free Parking Trial Report Directorate: Strategic Development Appendix: 5 2nd Pink

Purpose

To outline the results of the free parking trial in Nelson Place, Williamstown.

Motion

Moved Cr Angela Altair, seconded Cr Paul Morgan:

That Council

1. Write to the business operators involved in the Nelson Place Working Group thanking them for their input and work to date.

2. Note the results of the free parking trial in Nelson Place, the survey findings and outcomes.

3. Adopt the Nelson Place Action Plan and consider the implementation of initiatives to other significant trader precincts across Hobsons Bay where applicable.

4. Continue the Nelson Place Working Group in partnership with the Nelson Place Traders and the Williamstown Chamber of Commerce.

5. Undertake those actions from the Nelson Place Action Plan that can be scheduled within existing resources.

6. Refer $250,000 to the 2016-17 budget process for further consideration.

Carried

Report Summary

A free parking trial was undertaken between August and October 2015 in Nelson Place, Williamstown. It was observed that there was a slight increase in visitation to the precinct during the trial. However, it is unclear whether this has translated to additional spending, as a result of increased marketing of the precinct or promotion of free car parking permits for Hobsons Bay residents. The results of surveys undertaken during the trail highlighted that whilst the provision of paid parking was of some concern, it was one of a number of issues identified and not viewed as the primary area for improvement within Nelson Place for either businesses or visitors. It was found that the dominant reason why people either did not visit Nelson Place, or would like to see improvement, related to the competitiveness with surrounding areas and retail precincts.

In partnership with the Nelson Place Working Group (NPWG), a draft Action Plan has been developed that seeks to address the key issues identified through the trial and survey results, to improve trade and boost visitation to Nelson Place.


23

It is recommended that Council adopt the Nelson Place Action Plan, undertaking those actions that can be scheduled within existing resources and refer $250,000 to the 2016-17 budget process.

Background

Nelson Place is the only retail location within Hobsons Bay that operates paid parking. It was originally introduced to capture income from visitors and to increase parking turnover within what is considered the city’s premier tourist area. Residents from Hobsons Bay are exempts from paid parking upon application and grant of a car parking permit.

With its heritage streetscape, maritime aspects, access to Commonwealth Reserve and proximity to a mix of residential densities and local employers, Nelson Place has the potential to be, and should be, a vibrant tourism gateway, as well as a popular retail and hospitality precinct, attracting local custom from within Williamstown, across Hobsons Bay and surrounding suburbs. The precinct is subject to seasonal fluctuations, with reduced levels of trade midweek and during winter and autumn periods. Nelson Place is the only retail area within Hobsons Bay to have paid parking in place and there has been ongoing concern raised by local traders that this may be a significant factor in discouraging trade and visitors, particularly during off-peak times, when demand for parking is not at a premium. At its Ordinary Council Meeting 14 July 2015, Council resolved to implement a free parking trial in Nelson Place. This set in place a number of actions, including working in partnership with Nelson Place businesses, the development of a business survey, visitor survey and commissioning of traffic analysis to inform the evaluation of the free parking trial, which would in turn help the development of a set of actions aimed at improving the economic vitality of Nelson Place. The parameters of the free parking trial were: Monday-Thursday for the period 3 August to 29 October Nelson Place from Pasco Street to Thompson Street, including Syme Street regular parking time limitations still applied meters deactivated at the start of the week and activated again on Friday morning new temporary onsite signage in place advertising the trial period The free trial was advertised in the Maribyrnong and Hobsons Bay Star Weekly and the Leader. The free trial received exposure on Council’s Facebook page, web page and through social media from the Williamstown Chamber of Commerce and associated businesses. The NPWG consists of business owners (identified through an expression of interest), Strand Ward Councillors (rotating as Chair), a WCC representative and Council officers. The NPWG met on nine occasions between 28 July and 24 November 2015. Surveys of businesses and the general community were carried out during the course of the free parking trial period. The surveys provided insight into business practice and public perceptions and informed potential improvements that could be considered as part of a comprehensive plan to encourage people, especially the local community, to Nelson Place.


24

Discussion

Traffic Analysis Car parking surveys were undertaken during the trial. Car parking surveys were undertaken at the following times:

1. 9am-8pm (at hourly intervals) – Thursday 30th July 2015 (metred car parking still applied)

2. 9am-8pm (at hourly intervals) – Thursday 27th August 2015 (trial period)

3. 9am-8pm (at hourly intervals) – Thursday 24th September 2015 (trial period and school holidays)

4. 9am-8pm (at hourly intervals) – Thursday 22nd October 2015 (trial period)

Preliminary observations of the trial, confirm that the non-metred car parking within Nelson Place was more highly utilised during the trial period. The average utilisation of car parking available to the public within the Primary Area was observed as follows:

1. 38 per cent – Thursday 30 July 2015 (metred car parking still applied)

2. 48 per cent – Thursday 27 August 2015 (trial period)

3. 66 per cent – Thursday 24 September 2015 (trial period and school holidays)

4. 55 per cent – Thursday 22 October 2015 (trial period)

Over this same period, a slight decrease of on-street car parking utilisation within the ‘Secondary Area’ was also observed, however an overall increase in the combined areas (includes Primary Area and Secondary Area) was observed. This confirms that there was an increase of overall parking demands to the Nelson Place area and surrounds, with greater increase generally observed within the primary area (trial area).

Business Survey Feedback A total of 63 business questionnaires were distributed to Nelson Place businesses, aimed at gaining a better understanding of where customers were travelling from and the factors influencing the operation of individual businesses. Seventeen surveys were completed (representing only 27 per cent response rate), whilst this sample size is not extensive, the responses offered some useful insights. Businesses responded that the majority of their customers were thought to be from Williamstown or the local area. Respondents were asked to rank a range of influences considered most important to their business. The ability to park was considered to be of a high influence to customers, compared to having to pay for parking which was considered to be of a lower influence. Word of mouth, good customer service and marketing were also considered very important influences. Five business operators consented to contributing a measurement of business activity. A confidentiality agreement was entered into with each business operator for the purpose of preventing the unauthorised disclosure of confidential commercial information. The structure of the trial period (Monday to Thursday) made it problematic for businesses to accurately calculate the impact of trade against a non-trial period across a full week’s worth of trading. Anecdotally, businesses reported positive comments from customers who could park without cost and without the concern of receiving a ticket for an expired meter (notwithstanding that time restrictions remained in place). Customers also noted that they were visiting Williamstown for the first time, for the first time in a while, or that they were encouraged to stop for a coffee without having to consider paying to park. Given the variables of the trading period, the timing of the trial and marketing undertaken for it, data received from the business operators is of interest but inconclusive in terms of establishing a trend.


25

Business owners reported positively that the trial period had increased their own level of awareness of the issues affecting Nelson Place as a whole trading precinct, as opposed to what solely affects their individual business. Community Survey Feedback A total of 366 responses were gained from an on-line survey and from public intercept surveys, conducted during the Live at the Rotunda school holiday family event in Commonwealth Reserve on 30 September 2015 and in the foyer of Coles, Douglas Parade on 15 October 2015.

Respondents visited Nelson Place for the purpose of having a meal, a coffee and/or for recreational purposes including using the playground (approximately a quarter of responses each for these three categories).

Respondents typically used a car to travel to Nelson Place (53 per cent), were aware of the resident parking permits (86 per cent) and had a permit (63 per cent).

Walking was the second most popular mode of transport (32 per cent), which highlights a significant proportion of people from within the Williamstown area.

Respondents typically considered that the ability to park their vehicle and the requirement to pay for parking were factors in their decision making process. Again, the availability to park (74 per cent) was a stronger factor than paying for parking (57 per cent).

Of those who visit Nelson Place regularly, 62 per cent of respondents would likely recommend Nelson Place to other people. Whilst 62 per cent is still a majority, 22 per cent of respondents were either unlikely or very unlikely to recommend Nelson Place, with a further 16 per cent undecided.

There were many suggestions offered, but the most popular response raised by 39 per cent of respondents, related to ensuring the experience and offering meets people’s expectations of what a precinct like Nelson Place needs to be.

A further 21 per cent of respondents cited changes to parking options, such as free parking and adding more parking capacity.

Other suggestions for improving custom to Nelson Place included upgrading the physical appearance of the street, a greater diversity of shops and greater activation of Nelson Place and Commonwealth Reserve, including activities and events. The survey results highlighted that whilst the provision of paid parking was of some concern, it was only one of a number of issues identified and not viewed as the primary area for improvement within Nelson Place for either businesses or visitors. The availability of parking and the actual ability to park was of greater concern. The dominant reason why people either did not visit Nelson Place or would like to see improvement concerned its general competitiveness with surrounding areas and retail precincts. Nelson Place Action Plan In response to the trial and survey results, the NPWG has identified a number of improvements and actions through the development of a draft Nelson Place Action Plan, which addresses the following themes; 1. Upgrade the streetscape to better define a tourism precinct 2. Encourage consistent business improvement activities 3. Ensure options for parking are consistent with the needs of the precinct 4. Drive the marketing and identity of Nelson Place

Examples of actions for consideration include investigating varying time of paid parking (currently 9am), technological improvements to broaden the ways that people can pay for


26

parking, inclusion of a small number of short term free parking spaces, introducing planting on the shopping side of Nelson Place to soften the appearance of the asphalt, upgrading parking signage, creating a parking and sustainable travel map for the precinct, coordinated event and retail marketing, and a number of business improvement measures. A copy of the draft Nelson Place Action Plan is attached (see Appendix). These actions will combine to improve the vitality, diversity and vibrancy of Nelson Place, to build on existing assets such as the waterfront location and Commonwealth Reserve (as well as a growing events calendar) to fulfil its role as a vibrant local precinct and a key tourism gateway within Hobsons Bay to the benefit of Williamstown and Hobsons Bay. In adopting a holistic view to the trading situation in Nelson Place, the issues which have been identified can be addressed under multiple projects, with a combined outcome of addressing seasonal troughs and capitalising on what could and should be one of Melbourne’s most vibrant waterfront destinations for locals and visitors alike.


27

7.3.2 Amendment C88: Precinct 15, Altona North Directorate: Strategic Development

Purpose

To provide an overview of Amendment C88 for Precinct 15, the Former Dons site, Altona North, to the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.

Motion

Moved Cr Jason Price, seconded Cr Sandra Wilson:

That Council:

1. Continue to work through the planning scheme amendment proposal.

2. Receive a further report once an appropriate response to Council’s request for further information has been received.

3. Note that community consultation and engagement will take place as part of the amendment process at a future date.

Carried

Report Summary

Amendment C88 was lodged with Council on 27 March 2015, to rezone Precinct 15 (refer to map one) from its current industrial zones to allow a residential outcome proposing 3,000 dwellings and a 5,500m2 Neighbourhood Activity Centre (NAC), associated open space areas and a community facility.

A preliminary request for further information was made in July 2015 and an additional request for further information was made in October 2015. In its current form, the amendment proposal is considered incomplete. While Council has a number of options when determining how to proceed, Council should continue to work through the planning scheme amendment process. A subsequent Council report will be provided to Council in the New Year, outlining progress of the amendment and a way forward.


28

Map one: Boundaries of precinct 15, Altona North

Background

Precinct 15 is a 67 hectare site located between Blackshaws Road, New Street, Kyle Road and the West Gate Freeway in Altona North. It excludes the SPI Brooklyn Power Station site at 70 to 84 Kyle Road but includes 65 – 69 Kyle Road, Altona North. The precinct is predominantly zoned Industrial 1 Zone with 65 – 69 Kyle Road and a number of small industrial properties along New Street zoned Industrial 3 Zone.

Amendment C33 introduced the Hobsons Bay Industrial Land Management Strategy, 2008 (ILMS) into the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme (HBPS). The ILMS reviewed all industrial land in the municipality and sectioned land into three categories, being core industrial, secondary industrial and strategic redevelopment areas (SRAs); surplus to industrial requirements and potentially suitable for alternative uses. The ILMS requires the preparation of an Outline Development Plan (ODP), otherwise known as a structure plan as part of any rezoning proposal for the precinct.

Precinct 15 is identified as a SRA, with a small portion of secondary industrial at 248 to 268 and 232 to 246 Blackshaws Road, Altona North. These sites were the Former Don and Apollo Engineering sites, which have either ceased to operate or are planning on ending operations. The entire precinct is considered a SRA and potentially suitable for a residential outcome, subject to strategic justification and consideration of a number of key matters such as contamination, traffic, noise and vibration issues.

Council has considered planning for the precinct on a number of occasions. In October 2010, Council wrote to the then Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, requesting an advisory committee to consider planning for the precinct, however this request was never actioned by the Minister. A working group was set up from 2011 to 2013 between Council, the Department of Planning and Community Development, Tract Consultants (representing a consortium of owners proposing the rezoning) and other land owner representatives. As part of this process, Council also engaged with stakeholders such as VicRoads, Public Transport Victoria and service providers. Themed workshops were held to discuss the precinct and


29

background reports that would inform a structure plan were prepared by Tract Consultants for the applicant, with Council officers providing preliminary comments. This process never progressed to an amendment or structure plan/ODP. Between late 2013 to early 2015, the land holding of the consortium sold and planning for the precinct stalled.

The precinct and its development requires the consideration of a range of complex matters, including the management of multiple land owners, staging and implementation, contamination, transport and infrastructure needs and community infrastructure.

Discussion

Amendment C88 to the HBPS was lodged on 27 March 2015 by Tract Consultants, on behalf of 82 per cent of the landowners in the precinct. The amendment proposes the following changes to the HBPS: rezones the majority of the precinct from its current Industrial 1 and 3 zones to Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) rezones a small portion of the precinct at 200 – 214 Blackshaws Road to Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) to facilitate a NAC applies a Development Plan Overlay (DPO), to guide future development through the use of a development plan. This overlay requires a Development Plan to guide future redevelopment and also removes notification and appeal rights at the planning permit stage includes the associated Development Plan, which proposes:

development of up to 3,000 dwellings, 7,000 people heights of up to four storeys on the interfaces through to eight storeys in the

remainder of the precinct a 1.3 hectare NAC at 200 – 214 Blackshaws Road, Altona North a 0.4 hectare/ 1500m2 community facility 7.3 hectares of open space with 2.98 hectares in the centre of the precinct

applies the Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO), which facilitates the

collection of development contributions for projects such as main roads and community facilities through a Development Contributions Plan. Use of this tool also requires Council to commit to financing and providing infrastructure and considering and potentially accepting works in kind

includes the associated Development Contributions Plan removes Heritage Overlay – Schedule 166: Gilbertsons Meat Processing Complex

(former) applies the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to the entire precinct to address

contamination

The amendment proposes to use the Development Plan to meet the structure plan/ODP requirement in the ILMS. The precinct represents a significant urban renewal opportunity that requires appropriate consideration of a number of complex matters and requires these matters to be investigated properly. A holistic planned outcome for the precinct is critical to ensuring its outcomes achieve a net community benefit. When considering amendment applications, it is not standard practice for Council to make amendment documents public, prior to Council resolving to seek authorisation and exhibition for an amendment, as documents generally undergo changes and are altered during the preauthorisation phase. Making documents public prior to Council resolving can cause confusion in relation to the status of the amendment and what is being proposed. From lodgement to October 2015, Council has been working through amendment documentation, which has included peer reviews of technical reports, internal workshops with


30

each directorate, external workshops with various stakeholders including VicRoads and Public Transport Victoria and meetings with the applicants to progress planning for the precinct. This has informed a request for further information and preliminary assessment of the amendment. A preliminary request for further information was made by Council officers in July 2015 with a subsequent request for further information made in October 2015. Below are some matters that require further information. The applicant is currently working through this request and has provided an initial response. Requirement for a structure plan, notification and referral authorities The ILMS requires the preparation of a structure plan/ODP for the precinct, which the Development Plan aims to achieve. However, in its current form the Development Plan is not satisfactory. The use of the DPO removes third party notice and appeal at the planning permit stage. The preparation of the Development Plan with the amendment also means that stakeholders and the community will only have the opportunity to comment during the amendment’s exhibition. Therefore it is critical that the amendment and its supporting information are satisfactory and that the amendment provides certainty to Council, community, future and existing landholders and stakeholders. At the time of writing, there are still a number of landowners (that own existing businesses operating in the precinct) that are not engaged in the planning scheme amendment process. These landowners must be engaged.

Strategic justification Strategic justification to support the planning provision chosen by the applicant is required. Justification of dwelling yield Justification of the dwelling yield and consistent treatment of the proposed dwelling yield is required. Supporting technical documents should inform the number of dwellings proposed, however they fail to provide justification, particularly in relation to traffic and urban design. The applicant submitted a density and design principles report on 24 November 2015, which includes more information on density as requested in the request for further information. This report includes an analysis of other large redevelopment sites in Melbourne, being the Bradmill Site, Banbury Village, Coburg Hill Development and Maidstone Hamstead Road. The report concludes that a density of approximately 45 to 60 dwellings per hectare for precinct 15 is appropriate. This equates to 3,015 to 4,020 dwellings, based on 67 hectares. A comprehensive review of this report is taking place. The remainder of the planning scheme amendment documents do not reflect this report’s recommendations. While it is acknowledged that the densities often drive the requirement to increase services and infrastructure, the proposed densities are greater than most of the suburbs in Hobsons Bay and similar to that of suburbs in inner metropolitan Melbourne such as Carlton. However unlike Carlton, the precinct does not have access to the same level of service and amenities. The proposed densities, in the absence of supporting infrastructure are of concern. Urban design and built form justification The applicant submitted a density and design principles report in November 2015. More detailed information in relation to dwelling distribution per site, with details of the number of two to three storey (seven per cent of proposed dwellings), three to four storey townhouses (60 per cent of proposed dwellings) and five to six storey apartments (33 per cent of proposed dwellings) are proposed on the precinct for each parcel of land has been provided. However, this report outlines that there is the potential for greater than five storey built form if the transport capabilities around the precinct allow. This report also states that aside from the


31

three bounding roads, the remainder of the precinct does not need to have townhouse type development and can have greater height in the core linking the MUZ area and Quarry Park. This report includes suggested design principles and interface management options for future residential and existing industrial interface (including the Brooklyn Terminal Station), existing residential interface, open space interface and NAC interface. This report also includes urban design principles for the residential areas and NAC based on themes such as character and sense of place and diversity. A comprehensive review of this report is being undertaken. More information in relation to the justification for the delineation of precincts into the proposed eight character precincts and more varied design principles for these areas is still required. It is also highlighted that the remainder of the planning scheme amendment documents do not reflect this report’s recommendations. The submitted report aims to meet the request for further information being the requirement of an urban design report. The requested report must include justification for the heights (ranging from three to eight storeys) including distribution (around connector roads, the NAC, open space areas and the north eastern boundary) and informs dwelling yields. This requested report must also include design principles for areas such as the interfaces, NAC and community facility. Justification of the delineation of the precinct into character precincts and provides more detail in relation to height, built form and massing is also required and how they translate into future planning controls for the site. Existing uses in the precinct A report that considers the impact the proposal will have on the existing uses in the precinct is required. This assessment must include consideration of impacts on existing use rights, analysis of how uses will expand if rezoned to a residential zone, analysis of new interfaces will impact legislative and compliance requirements and details of how interfaces will be treated. Neighbourhood Activity Centre The NAC size is contingent on the dwelling and population yield expected in the precinct and surrounding area. Generally, 7,000 new residents equate to 3,000m2 of retail floor space demand. Accounting for servicing of a modest catchment, this equates to approximately 4,500m2 of retail floor space anchored by a small mid size supermarket and some speciality shops. Any additional floor space above and beyond this will affect the catchment of existing centres. The NAC should be reduced in size to 4,500m2 so that it only services the needs of the future residents of the precinct and does not detract from the other NACs in the region. Documentation that considers the impacts of locating a smaller NAC into the precinct, in addition to the option of co-locating the NAC with the open space and community facility is required. Transport and movement The density possible on the precinct will be informed by the changes in land use, in addition to an analysis of the local and arterial road network and a strong integrated transport outcome. As noted above, the proposed densities are greater than most of the suburbs in Hobsons Bay and similar to that of suburbs in inner metropolitan Melbourne such as Carlton. However unlike Carlton, the precinct does not have access to the same level of service and amenities such as public transport (tram, bus and trains) and bicycle links (such as designated on road bicycle links). Precinct 15 is within 2.5km of Newport train station and has a bus services along its Blackshaws Road interface, which runs once every 20 minutes on a weekday and once every 45 minutes on a weekend.


32

A more integrated response to transport is required for the precinct and its surrounding area given current transport constraints. This includes bicycle and pedestrian connections in and outside the precinct to avoid creating a car dependent neighbourhood. The Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) submitted with the amendment requires significant review to address matters such as including key development sites in the vicinity of precinct 15, revising the traffic counts from 2012, updating accidental statistics, including details of the impact of the proposal on existing on street car parking provisions and addressing inconsistent findings between the TIA for the Former Caltex Site, South Kingsville and this precinct as conclusions differ. A Cumulative Impact Assessment is being undertaken by VicRoads and Council to determine what impact this precinct and other SRAs will have on the Millers Road, Blackshaws Road and Melbourne Road arterial road network. This assessment must be completed and considered as part of the traffic assessment for the precinct. Contamination More extensive information in relation to contamination is required, along with a remediation strategy that includes details of ongoing management of any statement or monitoring requirements for land. The applicant has submitted further information in relation to contamination on 19 November 2015, which is going through a comprehensive review. Noise and vibration assessment The noise and vibration assessment requires review to include new measurements, more information and trigger or threshold requirements for the further consideration of noise and vibration and compliance mechanisms. Community needs and social infrastructure A housing diversity report is required, detailing socio-demographic analysis of the existing population, residential market analysis of existing dwelling stock and discussion on how housing diversity and variety can be achieved through the re-development of the precinct. Ten per cent affordable housing as per Council’s affordable housing policy statement (currently under review) is required as part of the proposal. The size and shape of the community facility require greater justification. Details of how the amendment package justifies 51.5 per cent of apportionment cost of the community facility are required. The use of the DCP requires Council to make a commitment to contributing to the works and services the future population of this precinct will require. This includes considering works in kind proposals. Preliminary Council work suggests that a higher contribution of open space than what is proposed will be required and that local parks are to be a minimum of one hectare, in accordance with clause 56.05-2: Public Open Space Provision Objectives of the HBPS. The use of the open space should be passive and active recreation, not just passive recreation. Interim open space and community infrastructure provisions should be incorporated into the amendment package. Sustainability Council’s vision for the precinct, as noted at its 14 December 2010 Ordinary Council meeting, includes an environmentally sustainable community and a development which sets new standards in sustainable best practice and urban development and design. The precinct presents a significant opportunity to implement best practice sustainability outcomes, given its size and scale. Clear commitment to best practice Environmentally Sustainable Design is required. This aligns with Council’s Community Health and Wellbeing Plan and Council Plan.


33

Infrastructure requirements A water sensitive urban design (WSUD) and drainage master plan for the precinct is required. A holistic approach to WSUD and drainage matters is required. The opportunity for a third pipe, providing recycled water to the precinct should be further explored. A stormwater management plan is required prior to and post environmental audits for the precinct with sufficient detail to indicate stormwater retention, treatment and harvesting strategies. Development contributions Further work is required to refine and identify what is required to form part of the DCP, including appropriate apportionment towards infrastructure surrounding the precinct, which will be further strained as a result of the development. As mentioned above, the use of a DCP will require Council to make a commitment to contributing to the works and services the future population of this precinct will require. This includes considering works in kind proposal. Staging and sequencing A greater level of detail is required in relation to staging and sequencing of the development in the precinct to inform a number of issues, including dealing with interface issues and delivery of infrastructure within the precinct. The applicant is currently working to address Council’s request for further information. Given the anomalies, gaps in information and the fact that some of the existing land owners in the precinct are not engaged in this planning scheme amendment process, it is premature to release the amendment documents, as they may raise expectations in relation to planning for the precinct. They may also raise questions and confuse stakeholders, the community and land owners in the precinct (that are not involved) as to the status of the amendment. Many of the reports submitted to support the amendment need to clearly demonstrate how the elements of the technical reports that require further consideration are captured in the development plan and translated into future planning controls for the site that are incorporated into the planning scheme.


34

7.3.3 Development of a Long Term Community Vision Directorate: Strategic Development

Purpose

To consider the development of a long term community vision, that will replace the Community Health and Wellbeing Plan 2013-17 in June 2017.

Motion

Moved Cr Angela Altair, seconded Cr Sandra Wilson:

That Council:

1. Endorse the development of a long term community vision.

2. Endorse the community engagement process for developing the community vision.

Carried

Report Summary

Council is committed to engaging with the community about the future of the municipality. The development of a community vision will be driven by community engagement, articulating what the community wants for the future. For everyone who lives, works and studies in Hobsons Bay, a community vision will clearly set out a long term direction to inform future Council policies and work until 2030. The community vision will aim to influence changes in the social determinants of health, therefore also meeting Council’s legislative requirements for a Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan.

Background

Council is halfway through the implementation of its Community Health and Wellbeing Plan 2013-17 (CHWP). Currently, the CHWP is the leading strategic document for the organisation, and the first time Council has developed a health plan of this level. This plan includes Council’s Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan, which councils are legislated to develop.

In thinking about Council’s next CHWP, a midterm evaluation was undertaken across the organisation. This evaluation identified that the CHWP has a strong profile in Council and is being used to support policy and decisions regarding strategic directions. In relation to how this plan could be improved, the evaluation indicated strong support for a longer term community vision, developed through a robust engagement process with the community. In addition, the findings indicated that stronger links between the objectives of the plan and the implementation of Councils work (via the Council Plan) was required.

Discussion

In reviewing the evaluation findings and other models of health plans, it is recommended that the next CHWP become a longer term community vision. This will provide Council and the community with a vision that can align with other long term plans, such as the long term financial plan and the ten year capital works plan. In addition, this will allow the Council Plan


35

to become a more operational four year plan, supporting stronger linkages between the vision and Council’s day to day operations.

The concept of a community vision is not untested. A number of other local governments within Victoria already have a community vision in place and it is a legislated requirement within the rate capped environment of local government in New South Wales.

A key focus of the proposed rate capping framework for Victoria is that councils set their rates, in line with the services they know the community wants and to address identified community needs. A community vision will help to clearly document what the community wants and expects from Council.

Currently the State Government is reviewing the Local Government Act 1989, with the recent discussion paper providing a positive response to longer term community plans, articulating that “the medium term nature of the council plan (four years), means it tends to focus on delivering election promises rather than achieving the primary objective of local government being ‘…to endeavour to achieve the best outcomes for the local community having regard to the long term and cumulative effects of decisions’ (s. 3C(1)).”

A key part of developing a community vision will include community engagement. As indicated in the phases below, this will include a range of methods such as marketing campaigns, collection of stories, online engagement, workshops, surveys and key talks.

Consultation Phases for the development of the community vision

Phase 1: Activating the community- marketing campaign to build community awareness of the development of the community vision and encourage participation (February 2016).

Phase 2: Story and idea gathering- gather a breadth of views about the future of Hobsons Bay, what is important now and what the community should include in 2030 (February to May 2016).

Phase 3: Discussing the big ideas- engaging with the community to prioritise and develop the draft community vision themes based on data and feedback gathered in phase 2 (June to August 2016).

Phase 4: Draft community vision and development of Council Plan- exhibition of the draft community vision, along with community consultation on the priorities for Council’s four year Council Plan and the accompanying budget priorities (February to March 2017).

Phase 5: Public comment- statutory process, involving a minimum of 28 days public advertisement of the draft community vision and Council Plan, where community members have an opportunity to make any final comments (April to May 2017).

Phase 6: Celebrate and launch- community event to launch the community vision and Council Plan (June to July 2017).


36

7.3.4 Draft Affordable Housing Policy Statement Directorate: Strategic Development Appendix: 6 2nd Green

Purpose

To present the draft Affordable Housing Policy Statement and background paper for public exhibition.

Motion

Moved Cr Paul Morgan, seconded Cr Carl Marsich:

That Council:

1. Note the draft Affordable Housing Policy Statement and background paper and place it on public exhibition for a period of six weeks.

2. Receive a further report considering the public submissions, following the consultation period, for adoption of the Policy Statement.

Carried

Report Summary

Housing costs in the inner metropolitan municipalities such as Hobsons Bay have increased significantly over recent times. Given its proximity to the Melbourne CBD, services, infrastructure and open space, the cost of housing in Hobsons Bay has become a barrier to a sizeable proportion of households wanting to rent or buy a home in the municipality.

While the need for affordable housing is clearly established, Council’s current Improved Housing Choices for Residents on Low Incomes Policy Statement (Affordable Housing) has had mixed success in supporting an increase in the supply of stock in the municipality.

As a result, Council has undertaken several pieces of work to analyse the level of housing stress in the city, resulting in a revised draft Affordable Housing Policy Statement. It is recommended that the draft Affordable Housing Policy Statement be placed on exhibition.

Background

In February 2011, Council adopted the Improved Housing Choices for Residents on Low Incomes (Affordable Housing) Policy Statement. As the name indicates, the policy statement was primarily responding to concern about the rising cost of housing in Hobsons Bay and the impact that was having on low income households, particularly those in the private rental market. The policy statement, together with Council’s Social Impact Assessment Guidelines, recognised Strategic Redevelopment Areas (SRAs) as providing an important opportunity for including affordable housing as well as developments of 20 dwellings or more. To achieve this, the policy statement included the following action:

“Encourage at least 10 per cent inclusion of affordable housing for low income households in all redevelopment sites identified in the Industrial Land Management Strategy as well as key development sites across the municipality”


37

To date, this action has had mixed outcomes. While Council has successfully negotiated with several supportive developers to include affordable housing, it has also been successfully challenged by others at Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Discussion

As per Council’s current affordable housing policy statement, the principles and goals of the Community Health and Wellbeing Plan 2013-17 and the Advocacy Strategy, increasing access to affordable housing is a key priority for Council. Council has been actively advocating to the Victorian Government to provide a policy direction and legislative framework around this issue. In addition, Council hosted an affordable housing forum for all western region councils, housing associations and key stakeholders on the housing issues affecting the west. An alliance of these councils is currently being canvassed to provide a unified voice on housing in the western region. Council has been actively monitoring the impact of rising housing costs. To quantify the number of households who are affected, Council undertook an analysis of housing stress. The research found that overall, 9.4 per cent of households were in housing stress, with slightly more than 22 per cent of renting households and 10.6 per cent of purchasers in housing stress. However, in areas such as Laverton, 28 per cent of renting households are in housing stress and in Altona North and Brooklyn, approximately 18 per cent of households with a mortgage are in housing stress. Council has also been monitoring the supply of rental housing that is affordable for households who are eligible for Centrelink payments. The data reveals a substantial decline in affordable housing for this group in Hobsons Bay since 2005, when affordability peaked at 243 dwellings, dropped to 63 dwellings in 2014 (Department of Health and Human Services, 2015, March Report). Council has had mixed success in applying the current affordable housing policy statement. Therefore a background paper, collating data and best practice implementation was developed to inform the development of a new draft policy statement. The paper identified a number of areas of weakness, together with a range of actions to improve Council’s planning processes and advocacy around affordable housing. Key among these weaknesses was a narrow a focus on households eligible for affordable housing and a lack of implementation and partnering options for the delivery of affordable housing. Both issues were raised by VCAT and Planning Panels in findings to question Council’s request for affordable housing on several redevelopment sites. The background paper recommended widening the policy statement definition of affordable housing eligibility to include both low income households and key workers, in line with the VCAT criticism. While still including a focus on low income households this change ensures Hobsons Bay also provides affordable housing for key workers in close proximity to employment. In considering a viable mechanism for increasing affordable housing the background paper identified the need to establish a housing trust. The suggested model for the trust draws on elements of a successful model established by Port Phillip City Council. The trust operates independently of Council, through a trust deed operating through a management board, which has responsibility for managing the assets it holds and the costs incurred. Council has representation on the board and among the trusts assets are housing, land and financial contributions resulting from residential development in the municipality.


38

The development of a trust is crucial to the implementation of affordable housing. A trust would strengthen Council’s negotiating position with developers, aid in securing a percentage of affordable housing, provide a mechanism for managing assets associated with affordable housing and provide a sound model for delivering affordable housing in the municipality. If Council does not develop a trust, there would be risk to its ability to implement the policy.

Policy

The draft Affordable Housing Policy Statement will replace Council’s existing policy adopted in 2011, Improved Housing Choices For Residents on Low Incomes (Affordable Housing) Policy Statement.

In addition, affordable housing is a key priority within Council’s Advocacy Strategy 2014-18.


39

7.3.5 Development of a Liquor Licensing Policy Statement Directorate: Strategic Development Appendix: 7 2nd Yellow

Purpose

To consider the Liquor Licensing Background Paper and preparation of a Liquor Licensing Policy Statement.

Motion

Moved Cr Paul Morgan, seconded Cr Colleen Gates:

That Council:

1. Receive and note the Liquor Licensing Background Paper.

2. Prepare a Liquor Licensing Policy Statement for consideration.

Carried

Report Summary

For most, alcohol is associated with socialisation and relaxation however, there are risks associated with alcohol consumption. These include risk taking activities, drink driving accidents, crime, amenity issues, violence, as well as long term health issues as a result of excessive consumption over many years. Research has also established a strong link between the density of liquor licenses and myriad of alcohol related harms.

Currently, Council lacks a policy position on liquor licensing and the placement of liquor outlets. As a result, there is no clear rationale for managing issues associated with alcohol consumption, particularly those related to packaged liquor outlets.

To inform the development of a policy statement, a background paper has been prepared. It provides an overview of the legislative and regulative environment, examines the broad health and social impacts of alcohol as well as those specific to the Hobsons Bay community, and includes a series of recommendations for managing the supply of alcohol and alcohol issues in the municipality.

Key among these recommendations is the development of a social policy statement and subsequently, its incorporation into the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.

Background

Local Government’s legislative authority and responsibilities regarding liquor licensing are defined through the Victorian Planning Scheme (Particular Provisions Clause 52.27) of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme. This provides the framework for assessing planning applications to operate a licensed venue with consideration to:

relevant policy frameworks, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies

the impact of the sale or consumption, hours of operation and the number of patrons on the amenity of the surrounding area

the cumulative impact of any existing licensed premises and the proposed licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area


40

Clause 52.27 stipulates the ‘decision guidelines’ that local government should consider when assessing planning applications. These primarily focus on issues of amenity in the surrounding area. Through the schedule for Clause 52.27, local government can specify areas where permits are either not required or will not be granted. Currently, the Hobsons Bay schedule does not include areas where permits will not be granted. To change the schedule requires a planning scheme amendment to be prepared.

Council has a compliance role involving land use and the amenity elements, when assessing planning permit applications for liquor premises. Additionally, Council considers the community health and wellbeing impacts that result from new premises or increases to operations. To date, without a social policy direction, this comment is ad hoc, and lacks a rigorous basis for assessment.

Discussion

Council, as the closest level of government to the community, is well positioned to understand the needs and vulnerabilities of the local community. In order to address the harms associated with alcohol consumption, a harm minimisation approach considers:

1. the supply of alcohol – influencing the availability and accessibility of alcohol through the location of licensed premises, venue opening hours and management

2. the demand for alcohol – influencing consumption patterns through community education, social norms, drinking environments, availability of alternate activities, and pricing

3. the harms associated with alcohol – mitigating negative impacts of alcohol consumption through services, treatment, programs, and built environment interventions such as transport, lighting, and security

There are a number of recommendations in the background paper, which cover a range of activities over which Council either has responsibility or influence. While the paper found the alcohol consumption of Hobsons Bay residents was relatively moderate, to ensure a continuation of this trend, it is important for Council to be proactive. Given Council is currently reviewing the Municipal Strategic Statement and Activity Centre Strategy, it is timely to consider the permitted and prohibited locations for premises serving and selling liquor.

The key actions to progress this work involve:

1. development of a policy statement that gives clear criteria for assessing the potential wellbeing impacts of liquor outlets, monitors relevant demographic and alcohol consumption data, identifies potentially vulnerable communities, raises community awareness and identifies partnering and advocacy opportunities

2. identifying information that should be considered when assessing a liquor licensing permit application, and strategically planning the appropriate locations for different types of licensed venues and outlets

As part of the development of the policy statement further work will occur to strengthen Council’s position on the consumption and sale of alcohol and its impact on the health and wellbeing of the community.


41

7.3.6 Environmental Sustainability Report 2014-15 Directorate: Strategic Development Appendix: 8 2nd Blue

Purpose

To present the Environmental Sustainability Report 2014–15 to Council.

Motion

Moved Cr Angela Altair, seconded Cr Colleen Gates:

That Council:

1. Receive the Environmental Sustainability Report 2014–15.

2. Make copies of the Environmental Sustainability Report 2014–15 available to the public on Council’s website.

Carried

Report Summary

The fourth annual Environmental Sustainability Report 2014-15 provides an analysis of Council’s greenhouse gas, water, waste and litter management, reporting trends of emissions, use or collection by volume, over at least the past five years (waste collection data trends back to 2001-02). The report identifies that Council’s greenhouse gas emissions have decreased, mains water use has decreased, and collection of garbage, recyclables and garden waste have all increased.

Background

In 2011-12, Council commenced reporting to the community its key environmental undertakings and the results of five years of measurement of greenhouse gas emissions and water use to the end of June 2015 and waste collection data trending back to 2001-02. This is the fourth annual sustainability report. Three previous reports have been produced and made publicly available. Data capture and reporting has improved substantially, permitting an ongoing analysis of performance trends.

Discussion

The report provides Council’s operational data for waste collection, water use and greenhouse gas emissions to the end of June 2015. The report also addresses issues of biodiversity management, community and council projects and any strategies under development.

Council was operationally responsible for 4,348 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in 2014-15. This is a decrease of 4.2 per cent (194 tonnes) from 2013-14. The majority of these emissions (98 per cent) can be attributed to fuel consumption and electricity use from buildings and metered lighting (e.g. sportsgrounds, parks and reserves).

This decrease in emissions can be partly attributable to a reduction in fuel use across Council’s vehicle fleet. In addition, there has been a drop in energy use (electricity) at several major buildings.


42

In 2014-15, Council used a total of 299.6ML of water. Of this total amount, 270ML was drinking water, 29.4ML was stormwater through the Paisley Park stormwater harvesting and reuse system and a small amount (0.2ML) of bore water. This has increased water use overall by 45.6ML (17 per cent) from 2013-14. Fifteen per cent of this increase was drinking water.

In 2014-15, 18,669 tonnes of garbage, 10,530 tonnes of recyclables and 7,111 tonnes of garden waste was collected. In 2014-15, Council experienced a minor increase (0.6 per cent) in total waste collected from the previous year. Household garbage rose (0.6 per cent) and hard waste declined (-14.2 per cent). There was an improvement in Council’s recycling rate over the previous year by 1.25 per cent, but a decline of 11.2 per cent in the amount collected through the garden waste service.

The environmental sustainability report identifies the many capital works actions, day-to-day activities, community programs and events that are undertaken to protect the municipality’s biodiversity, manage waste, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and sustainably manage our water resources. This includes the planting of over 20,800 trees, shrubs and native grass tube stock, up from 13,700 in 2013-14 and facilitating 163 separate community environmental events, up from 152 events in 2013-14.


43

7.3.7 Plan Melbourne Refresh Directorate: Strategic Development Appendix: 9 3rd Pink

Purpose

To inform Council that the Victorian Government has released a discussion paper on the refresh of Plan Melbourne - the overarching Metropolitan Planning Strategy and to consider a submission to the discussion paper.

Motion


That Council endorse the submission in response to the discussion paper of Plan Melbourne, generally in accordance with the appendix.

Carried

Report Summary

The Victorian Government has released the Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper (PM2016) for review. Plan Melbourne is the overarching planning strategy for the metropolitan region and is being reviewed to be consistent with the priorities of the current State Government.

The discussion paper proposes that the refresh build on the existing policy, with an emphasis on economic development, housing and recognition of climate change and the associated issues.

The principles covered in the discussion paper are generally consistent with Council policy, and it is recommended that Council provide in principle support for the refreshed PM2016 and endorse the submission generally, in accordance with the attached submission.

Background

The Minister for Planning released the draft Metropolitan Planning Strategy: Plan Melbourne on 9 October 2013. After extensive consultation, the final report was released on 19 May 2014. Plan Melbourne replaced Melbourne 2030 and guides the planning of Melbourne until 2050. Plan Melbourne identified seven objectives each containing directions and initiatives that assist with implementing these outcomes. The objectives fall under the following themes: delivering jobs and investments

housing choice and affordability

a more connected Melbourne

liveable communities and neighbourhoods

environment and water

a state of cities

implementation: delivering better governance


44

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 26 November 2013, Council endorsed a submission in response to the draft Plan Melbourne report. After the final report was released in May 2014, Council noted the draft report at the Ordinary Council meeting on 12 August 2014. Discussion

PM2016 does not comprehensively review the document, focusing on five key areas:

jobs and investment a connected Melbourne housing climate change new planning tools

The recommendations are developed by the original Ministerial Advisory Committee, which was re-established as part of this PM2016 refresh. It is proposed that these key areas be strengthened to deliver better planning outcomes across metropolitan Melbourne.

Jobs and investment

PM2016 proposes to create a city that drives productivity, supports investment through certainty and creates additional jobs. The refresh seeks to build on this by providing a number of options for discussion such as:

ensuring commercial development opportunities are preserved and early delivery of key transport infrastructure in central city urban renewal precincts

proposing to increase the area of the National Employment Cluster (NEC) in Werribee to include the Werribee activity centre and the Werribee Park tourism precinct

updating the Metropolitan Melbourne Structure Plan to remove any anomalies and reincorporate the list of activity centres into the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs) and planning schemes.

listing emerging activity centres as part of the Metropolitan Structure Plan revising the strategic direction for activity centres to remove reference to growth

associated with the removal of floor space caps for retail and office development developing clearer activity centre policy and practice notes for identification and

establishment of new activity centres modifying the existing criteria for identifying new activity centres to explicitly include

meeting a market gap and contribution to the delivery of the 20-minute neighbourhoods.

Most of the activity centres, NECs and urban renewal precincts fall outside Hobsons Bay however, it is important to maintain links and synergies between Hobsons Bay and these areas to ensure economic prosperity. The revised 20-minute neighbourhoods criteria provides clarity regarding planning for Hobsons Bay’s Activity Centres.

In addition, the review of the Plan Melbourne document provides an opportunity to realign the boundary of the Western State Significant Industrial Precinct, to take into account the rezoning of the land on Kororoit Creek Road, as part of the C96 planning Scheme Amendment.

A more connected Melbourne

PM2016 proposes to provide an integrated transport system connecting people to jobs and services. The refresh seeks to build on this by providing a number of options for discussion including:

new transport projects such as the removal of level crossings, the Melbourne Metro Rail Project and an expanded bus network

future transport options and the embedding the Principal Public Transport Network


45

The proposal to include the Principle Public Transport Network in PM2016 will assist Council in identifying locations for further housing growth and development. It will also assist Council in preparing the Integrated Transport Plan (ITP), which is currently being developed.

Within the list of rail and road projects that are proposed to be updated in PM2016, the Western Distributor or the West Gate Distributor have been identified, subject to the outcome of assessments under way. Council’s submission includes advocating for the progression of the Western Distributor (subject to further improvements), rather than the previous West Gate Distributor, as it provides a better route to the Port, together with less intrusion on the surrounding community.

Housing

Housing diversity in defined locations that are close to jobs and services is an important element in PM2016. The refresh seeks to build on this by providing a number of options for discussion such as:

increasing housing supply in established areas. This will includes identify planning tools and reforms to boost established area housing supply

better defining and communicating Melbourne’s housing needs by either setting housing targets for each Council and subregion, or developing a metropolitan housing strategy that includes a housing plan that identifies preferred housing outcomes

introducing a policy statement in PM2016 to support population growth and housing growth in defined locations and acknowledging that some areas will require planning protection based on valued character

clarifying the direction to ‘protect the suburbs’ supporting greyfield renewal (residential areas nearing the end of their physical life) and

investigating planning scheme mechanisms to achieve coordinated and sustainable renewal of established suburbs

including an action that investigates how the building and planning system can facilitate housing that readily adapts to the changing needs of households over the life of a dwelling

affordable housing – creating a definition, adding opportunities and how it can be implemented.

Providing greater certainty and direction on ‘protecting suburbs’ and planning for growth will assist Council in implementing the new residential zones and planning for housing in the future. The discussion paper provides greater support for affordable housing, which will assist the Council in its work on providing a more affordable Hobsons Bay. However, greater direction is required on defining affordable housing and identifying how it can be implemented in land use terms.

Climate Change

The creation of a sustainable city that protects natural assets, better plans water and energy consumption waste management is supported in PM2016. The refresh seeks to build on this by providing a number of options for discussion such as:

introducing strategic environmental principles in PM2016 to guide implementation of environment, climate change and water initiatives

review policy and hazard management planning tools (such as overlays) to ensure the planning system responds to the challenges of climate change

updating hazard mapping, based on the best available climate change science and reviewing risk management actions to promote resilience and avoid unacceptable risks

incorporating natural hazard management criteria into Victorian planning schemes, to improve planning in areas exposed to climate change and environmental risks

investigating consideration of climate change risks in infrastructure planning in the land use planning system, including consideration of an ‘infrastructure resilience test’


46

strengthening high priority habitat corridors throughout Melbourne and its peri-urban areas to improve long-term health of key flora and fauna habitats

adopting strategies to encourage:

o increasing tree canopy, vegetated ground cover and permeable surfaces throughout Melbourne

o using Water Sensitive Urban Design and irrigation with various water sources o seeking lead partners in research, property investment or government to

facilitate innovative demonstration projects in Greenfield and urban renewal precincts

o strengthening the structure planning process to facilitate future renewable and low emission energy generation technologies in Greenfield and urban renewal precincts

o strengthening the structure planning process to require consideration of the costs and benefits of renewable or low-emission energy options across a precinct

The matters raised in the discussion paper are consistent with the suite of climate change policies adopted by Council, including the Corporate and Community Greenhouse Action Plan, Climate Change Adaptation Plan and Integrated Water Management Plan. Providing environmentally sustainable design tools within the Victorian Planning Provisions will assist Councils achieving the sustainability outcomes identified within the discussion paper.

New Planning Tools

The Victorian Government is also evaluating the merits of code assessment for multi-unit development, taking into account the findings from the ‘Better Apartments’ process to either, replace ResCode with a codified process for multi-unit development or identify ResCode standards that can be codified. The new planning tools aim to streamline the planning process and encourage more certainty.

The application of a ‘code assess’ process for multi unit applications could assist Council in streamlining the planning process and creating more certainty. There is concern that some elements such as neighbourhood character cannot be captured via a code assessment process. Neighbourhood character is subjective and careful consideration will be required by the Victorian Government when developing this tool.

It is therefore recommended that Council provide in principle support for PM2016 and endorse the submission generally in accordance with the attached document


47

7.3.8 Events and Festivals Plan 2016-21 Directorate: Strategic Development Appendix: 10 3rd Green

Purpose

To present the Hobsons Bay Events and Festivals Plan 2016-21 for adoption.

Motion

Moved Cr Jason Price, seconded Cr Paul Morgan:

That Council:

1. Note the public submissions received to the draft Events and Festivals Plan 2016-21, Events and Festivals Funding Policy and Guidelines and the Events and Festivals Action Plan.

2. Adopt the Events and Festivals Plan 2016-21, Events and Festivals Funding Policy and Guidelines and the Events and Festivals Action Plan.

3. Write to the submitters thanking them for their input and notify them of Council’s decision.

Carried

Report Summary The Events and Festivals Plan (the Plan) provides strategic direction for the development and coordination of events and festivals in Hobsons Bay. The Plan provides a framework for planning and decision making, clearly identifying the role of Council and addressing why and how events are supported. The Events and Festivals Funding Policy and Guidelines provide a consistent, equitable, transparent and accountable process for the allocation of Council funds to events and festivals. On 13 October 2015, Council placed the draft Events and Festivals Plan 2016-21, draft Events and Festivals Funding Policy and Guidelines and the draft Events and Festivals Action Plan on exhibition for six weeks to seek community feedback. Feedback was invited from across the community with eight submissions being received.

Giving consideration to all submissions received, no changes to the Plan were required and it is now recommended for Council endorsement.

Background

Following extensive community and stakeholder consultation, an Events and Festivals Plan was developed, prioritising three key goals, each with underlying objectives and outcomes for Council to guide the future direction of events and festivals in the city, including to:

strengthen and support events that enhance our community strengthen tourism and economic outcomes effectively manage event impacts


48

The goals outlined in the Plan are to support the sustainability of Council’s current resource allocation and ensure events and festivals can evolve and meet the needs of the community. The Events and Festivals Funding Policy and Guidelines support the creation of four funding categories: a Major Events Fund, Local Events and Festivals Fund, Small and/or Short Lead Events and a Special Events Fund for one-off events. Discussion

The draft Plan, Action Plan and Events and Festivals Funding Policy were placed on public exhibition for six weeks, with the consultation period closing on Friday 27 November 2015. The opportunity to provide feedback and input was promoted to the community and stakeholders between 14 October and 27 November, via Council’s website, direct email and media releases. Eight submissions were received.


49

8 Notice of Motion

8.1 Notice of Motion No. 1177 – Request for amendment to the Terms of Reference relating to the Local Government Act 1989 Review

Directorate: Corporate Services

Motion

Moved Cr Carl Marsich, seconded Cr Colleen Gates:

That Council write to the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Natalie Hutchins MP, advocating that the Terms of Reference relating to the review of the Local Government Act 1989 be expanded to incorporate consideration of external boundary alignments.

Carried


50

9 Public Question Time M Sergi Altona

Q. The Burns Road Estate Project Group understands Council has not identified who owns a significant number of blocks of land in the estate. How many blocks of land within the estate are in this situation, and what is the Council doing to find their legal owners?

A. There are a number of orphan lots in the estate where ownership is unclear. Accurate ownership records are critical and Council is currently working through records to confirm ownership. It is a priority piece of work.

M Sergi Altona

Q. Council has previously stated it would give the ownership of the land it owns in the estate to the owners of the remaining blocks in the estate to assist with the strategic development of the site. This land was previously set aside for roads and footpaths etc when the area was subdivided for a residential development which will no longer be the case. Can the Council confirm this land will still be given to the remaining landowners to enable the future development of this estate?

A. Council has not formally resolved to gift or otherwise land and roads it owns in the estate. Council remains open to all options subject to consensus among Burns Road owners.

M Sergi Altona

Q. Council has received approximately $500,000 in rates from landowners in the Burns Road Estate over the last 10 years. Can the Council please provide details of how much the Council has spent on the Burns Road Estate over the same period?

A. Property rates are considered property tax. Rates and charges are collected from landowners and used by Council to deliver services and critical community assets for the overall benefit and betterment of the city as a whole. Individual rates collected are not linked to specific projects or services. Specific details of how much Council has spent on the Burns Road Estate over the past 10 years will be taken on notice and a more detailed response provided in due course.

D Kennedy Melton West

Q. The Council appointed a consultant to lead the process with owners of this estate last year, but the timelines were not met and the contract with the consultant has been extended for another 18 months. How many other consultants were considered for this role and on what basis was the winning consultant chosen? What KPIs are associated with the contract with the consultant and what outcomes are expected by the end of 2016?


51

A. Council engaged the services of the consultant in compliance with procurement requirements. A number of consultants were considered for this work. There are a number of KPI’s set by Council including monthly reports to Council, a number of meetings with land owners and a final report in April 2017.

S Kennedy Melton West

Q. Has Council explored options regarding compulsory acquisition of the land in the estate to ensure the economic development future of the area, particularly given the estate’s proximity as a transport hub? If so, what has been discussed and with what government departments? Is compulsory acquisition still a potential outcome?

A. Council has had a range of discussions with government departments such as the Metropolitan Planning Authority and Department of Primary Industry. Council has not seriously entertained acquisition at this time. Council remains open to all options, subject to consensus amongst Burns Road owners.

P Constandaras Keilor Downs

Q. The key to unlocking the future of this site is for all landowners to work together openly and transparently, and with Council’s assistance. When will the Council conduct a meeting of all landowners where everyone can openly hear what work the Council is doing for the estate and ask questions without the secrecy and division of conducting smaller meetings of invited landowners?

A. Council agrees that obtaining land owner agreement to restructure the estate is the single biggest impediment. Council held a series of small land owners meetings between February 2015 and July 2015. These meetings were welcomed by landowners with 70 owners confirming interest in participating in Council’s engagement process. A facilitator has been engaged for a further 18 months to establish and support a land owners group. The facilitator will assist in the establishment of a land owner group steering committee. Estate owners can contact Council’s consultant to register for this process. Meetings are ongoing.


52

10 Urgent and Other Business Nil.

11 In Camera Business In accordance with s89(2) (d) and (h) of the Local Government Act 1989, Council may resolve that the meeting be closed to members of the public if the meeting is discussing contractual matters and any matter which Council considers would prejudice Council or any person.

Motion Moved Cr Sandra Wilson, seconded Cr Carl Marsich:

That Council, in accordance with s89(2) (d) and (h) of the Local Government Act 1989, close the meeting to members of the public as the items relate to a contractual matter and a matter which Council considers would prejudice Council or any person.

Carried

Council considered the report and discussed the matter In-Camera.

The meeting was re-opened to members of the public.

There being no further business, the Chairperson declared the meeting closed at 9.41pm.

____________________________________

Chairperson - Cr Peter Hemphill

Signed and certified as having been confirmed.

9 February 2016


53

hobsons bay city council · 12/15/2015 · on 17 august 2015 council received a petition from the...

Documents