Agenda of Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 August 2024

Welcome

Welcome to this Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council.

Council Meetings are an important way to ensure that your democratically elected representatives are working for you in a fair and transparent way. They also allow the public to be involved in the decision-making process of Council.

About this meeting

There are a few things to know about tonight’s meeting. The first page of tonight’s Agenda itemises all the different parts to the meeting. Some of the items are administrative and are required by law. In the agenda you will also find a list of all the items to be discussed this evening.

Each report is written by a Council officer outlining the purpose of the report, all relevant information and a recommendation. Council will consider the report and either accept the recommendation or make amendments to it. All decisions of Council are adopted if they receive a majority vote from the Councillors present at the meeting.

Public Question Time and Submissions

Provision is made at the beginning of the meeting for general question time from members of the public.

All contributions from the public will be heard at the start of the meeting during the agenda item 'Public Questions and Submissions.' Members of the public have the option to either participate in person or join the meeting virtually via Teams to ask their questions live during the meeting.

If you would like to address the Council and /or ask a question on any of the items being discussed, please submit a ‘Request to Speak form’ by 4pm on the day of the meeting via Council’s website:

Request to speak at a Council meeting - City of Port Phillip

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

To Councillors

Notice is hereby given that a Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council will be held in St Kilda Town Hall and Virtually via Teams on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 at 6:30pm. At their discretion, Councillors may suspend the meeting for short breaks as required.

AGENDA

1 APOLOGIES

2 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

Minutes of the Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council 7 August 2024.

3 Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

4 Public Question Time and Submissions

5 Councillor Question Time

6 Sealing Schedule

Nil

7 Petitions and Joint Letters

7.1 Petition Response: Request for irrigation at Gill Reserve.................................. 6

7.2 Petition Response: Use of Elwood School Reserve as a dog off-leash area.... 8

7.3 Petition Response: Extension of Elwood Beach dog off-leash restrictions...... 11

7.4 Petition Response: CoPP Dogs Network.......................................................... 14

8 Presentation of CEO Report

Nil

9 Inclusive Port Phillip

Nil

10 Liveable Port Phillip

10.1 Dog Off-Leash Guidelines................................................................................. 20

10.2 Eastern Reserve Dog Park............................................................................... 42

10.3 St Kilda Adventure Playground Upgrade.......................................................... 51

10.4 Caravan Parking in Alexandra Street, St Kilda East...................................... 149

10.5 South Melbourne Structure Plan..................................................................... 158

11 Sustainable Port Phillip

11.1 Urban Forest Strategy for Adoption................................................................ 514

11.2 Environmentally Sustainable Development Strategy..................................... 650

12 Vibrant Port Phillip

Nil

13 Well Governed Port Phillip

13.1 Carlisle Street Car Park and Laneways - Intention to Sell............................. 709

13.2 Council Policy - Revised Child Safe Policy..................................................... 726

13.3 Audit and Risk Committee Biannual Report AND Annual Review of the Audit and Risk Committee Charter.......................................................................................... 761

13.4 Update to the Procurement Policy.................................................................. 778

13.5 Councillor Expenses Monthly Reporting - July 2024...................................... 842

13.6 Appointment of Authorised Officer Pursuant to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 848

13.7 Records of Informal Meetings of Council........................................................ 853

14 Notices of Motion

14.1 Notice of Motion – Councillor Martin – Advisory Committees........................ 868

14.2 Notice of Motion – Councillor Crawford – Temperance Hall.......................... 869

14.3 Notice of Motion – Mayor Cunsolo – St Kilda Penguin Viewing..................... 871

15 Reports by Councillor Delegates

16 URGENT BUSINESS

17 Confidential Matters....................................................................................... 880

The information contained in the following Council reports is considered to be Confidential Information in accordance with Section 3 of the Local Government Act 2020.

17.1 Gasworks Arts Park - Park Upgrade (Landscape Contract Award)

3(1)(a). Council business information, being information that would prejudice the Council's position in commercial negotiations if prematurely released.

Reason:

This report contains the details of a procurement that are confidential in nature.

17.2 CEO Employment Matters - 2023/24 Performance Assessment, 2024/25 Annual Performance Agreement, updated Employment and Remuneration Policy and Employment Matters Committee Terms of Reference

3(1)(f). personal information, being information which if released would result in the unreasonable disclosure of information about any person or their personal affairs.

Reason:

Under the CEO Employment and Remuneration Policy, Section 16 - Confidentiality, Council does not disclose any personal information, being information which if released would result in the unreasonable disclosure of information about any person or their personal affairs. The CEO's performance and remuneration fall into that category.

1. Apologies

2. Minutes of Previous Meetings

RECOMMENDATION:

That the minutes of the Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council held on 7 August 2024 be confirmed.

3. Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

4. Public Question Time and Submissions

5. Councillor Question Time

6. Sealing Schedule

Nil

7. Petitions and Joint Letters

7.1 Petition Response: Request for irrigation at Gill Reserve.................................. 6

7.2 Petition Response: Use of Elwood School Reserve as a dog off-leash area.... 8

7.3 Petition Response: Extension of Elwood Beach dog off-leash restrictions...... 11

7.4 Petition Response: CoPP Dogs Network.......................................................... 14

7.1 Petition Response: Request for irrigation at Gill Reserve

A Petition containing 18 signatures, was received from local residents.

The Petition states the following:-

We, the undersigned, are residents and/or owners of premises adjacent Gill Reserve. We request our Council make arrangements for the installation of irrigation in Gill Reserve, as has already been undertaken in the adjoining Reserves along Evans and Station Streets.

Notwithstanding our previous submissions that in comparison to many other Reserves along route 109, Gill Reserve has again been overlooked for improvement (eg correspondence dated ~March 2011}. In 2011 our Council undertook to manage and improve Gill Reserve in an equitable manner, as Council has done in its approach to managing and improving the other reserves along the route 109 light rail.

Regrettably we residents of Evans Street consider that their Council has again demonstrated an inequitable approach to resource allocation by failing to install irrigation in Gill Reserve.

In the event our request is to be considered by our Councillors during a meeting of our Council, we request that reasonable notice be given to all the undersigned, in order that we may attend and be heard in respect of this request. Otherwise, we look forward to advice from you as to how Council intends to proceed to satisfy our reasonable request.

OFFICER COMMENT

Background

· Gill Reserve is one of many reserves that form a Linear Park that abuts the north and south of the Port Melbourne Light Rail (109) line between Graham, Station, Boundary and Evans Streets, Port Melbourne.

· There are several reserves, particularly on the southern side of the Light Rail lines, which are currently provided with irrigation and present superior amenity when compared to those to the north.

· Residents nearby to Gill Reserve have verbally expressed concerns about the drying of the reserve and dust generation, due to potential contamination of the area from its historical use as a railyard.

· Uplift of the Port Melbourne Light Rail Linear Parks was identified as a priority action in Council’s Places for People: Public Space Strategy 2022-32 (Volume 3, p.28), and listed with a timeframe of short to medium term (2022-2029). The action identified was to:

o Prepare a landscape masterplan for Cook, Fennell, Gill, Hester, Howe, Page, Smith, Turner, and Walter Reserves to increase the diversity of unstructured recreation and social facilities, investigate if a fenced dog off-leash area can be supported, protect mature trees, and strengthen the indigenous vegetation values along the light rail corridor.

· Currently, there is no budget provided in financial year 2024/25 for uplift of Gill Reserve or any other Reserve that forms part of the Linear Park.

· Following preliminary feasibility assessments, a proposal has been prepared by the Open Space team to initiate a project on the entire linear park.

· Officers are on-track to complete investigations and finalise a project scope by the end of calendar year 2024. Investigations include a contamination assessment.

· Budget will be requested in financial year 2025/26 and beyond to complete uplift works along the Light Rail corridor.

· Officers intend to stage uplift works and ensure Gill Reserve is prioritised in the staging plan.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Acknowledges receipt and thanks the community for their petition.

2. Notes that there is currently no budget available for any works in Gill Reserve in the 2024/25 financial year.

3. Ensures consideration is given to the petition and community engagement is undertaken in preparation and finalisation of the scope for Gill Reserve as part of the project for uplift of the entire Linear Park.

4. Investigates the contamination concerns gathering any evidence and ensure this is considered as part of any project scope development and risk register.

5. Requests officers complete investigations for staging project works for the Linear Park to ensure Gill Reserve is prioritised in the overall uplift project for consideration in the 2025/26 budget process and future budgets based on project timelines.

6. Ensures maintenance and upkeep of the existing area until the uplift project is completed.

7. Advises the petitioner of these actions.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 August 2024

7.4 Petition Response: CoPP Dogs Network

A Petition containing 2,469 signatures, was received from local residents.

The Petition states the following:-

The petition of the following named citizens draws the attention of the Council to dog owners’ needs to fair and regular access to off-leash green spaces, the beaches and shared-use sports fields.

The overwhelming community response to City of Port Phillip’s Draft Dog Off Leash Guidelines (May 2024 Stage 3 Engagement Summary Report) highlights the draft guidelines have failed to meet their objectives. The proposed guidelines are unfair to dog owners and fail to recognise the value of dogs in our community as companions and their contribution to the mental and physical wellbeing

The City of Port Phillip (CoPP) has the highest density of dogs per square kilometre of any Melbourne council, with almost 9,000 registered dogs. This number will grow considerably over the next few years.

The following Petitioners hereby request:

· No loss of current dog off-leash spaces or their present duration of usage.

· Provision of additional dog off-leash spaces commensurate to the current and future dog population.

OFFICER COMMENT

Background

· The City of Port Phillip has approximately 353 hectares of public open space, comprising 17% of our City. This includes 11km of beaches and 169 parks, including 14 sports ovals.

· There is increasing dog ownership across the municipality, with over 8,000 dogs registered and more visiting. We have also had an increase in dog walking businesses.

· According to the 2023 Victorian Pet Census, 58% of adult Victorians own a pet and 41% of these pets are dogs. The most common reasons for getting a pet were for companionship, have always had them and for mental health.

· A recent study by the University of Melbourne found that the City of Port Phillip has the highest density of dogs out of all greater Melbourne local government areas, with 410 dogs per square kilometre.

Current provision of dog off-leash areas

· Many of our public open spaces and beaches across the City of Port Phillip provide space for dogs to be off leash. This includes:

o 15 different beach zones with varying dog off-leash conditions

o 16 public open spaces across the municipality that are designated for dog off-leash areas (including two in Albert Park Reserve, managed by Parks Victoria)

o 2 fenced dog off-leash areas including Eastern Reserve North in South Melbourne and MO Moran Reserve in St Kilda.

· The schedule of designated dog off-leash areas (DOLAs) is available on Council’s website - Dog Off Leash Designated Areas.

Dog Off-Leash Guideline

· Council has developed the Dog Off-Leash Guideline (DOLG) to create a framework for DOLAs within the municipality.

· The DOLG has been separated into three stages. Each stage includes a principle (what we are trying to achieve for our network of DOLAs in the municipality), supported by outcomes and assessment criteria.

· The assessment criteria include assessing the current and forecast resident and dog population growth and neighbourhood density.

· The DOLG will be accompanied with an Action Plan which includes a number of recommendations including auditing and upgrading dog signage across the municipality to improve communication about times and places where dogs can and cannot be off-leash.

· The DOLG is being presented at this Ordinary Meeting of Council for Council to consider alongside this report.

Proposed changes to dog off-leash areas

· In line with the draft DOLG, Council officers have undertaken an assessment of all dog on and off-leash areas across the municipality. Following this review, Council officers recommend that Council consider the following updates to DOLAs.

· These would be subject to the process for amending the Council Order, which includes undertaking community consultation in line with Council’s Community Engagement Policy. This engagement would occur in early 2025.

Dog prohibited public open spaces

Change the following areas to dog prohibited areas at all times:

Site	Current status	Change to DOL provision
SS Anderson (Pitch 1) at JL Murphy Reserve, Port Melbourne	Off leash	Reduction by 0.9ha
Community Synthetic Ground (Pitch 3) at JL Murphy Reserve, Port Melbourne	Off leash	Reduction by 0.66ha
Oval at North Port Oval, Port Melbourne	On leash	N/A
Total reduction by 1.56ha

Fenced DOLAs

These sites could be considered as new fenced DOLAs:

Site	Current status	Change to DOL provision
Robinson Reserve, Elwood	On leash	Increase by 1ha
Fennell Reserve, Port Melbourne	On leash	Increase by 0.4ha
Howe Crescent Reserve West, South Melbourne	On leash	Increase by 0.28ha
Total increase by 1.68ha

Beach restrictions

It is recommended that the following changes are made to beach restrictions:

· Update the summer restrictions on the beach between Station Pier and Bay Street in Port Melbourne to 7.30pm - 10.00am (currently dogs prohibited at all times in summer)

· Update the summer restrictions on the northern section of Elwood Beach between Point Ormond to the rock groyne in front of Elwood Angling Club to 7.30pm – 10.00am (note that this is subject to a petition response being considered at this Ordinary Meeting of Council alongside this report).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Thanks the community for their Petition.

2. Notes that the Dog Off-Leash Guideline, including the attached action plan, is being considered alongside this report.

3. Acknowledges that the Dog Off-Leash Guideline includes criteria to assess current and forecast resident and dog population growth and neighbourhood density.

4. Notes that a number of proposed changes to dog on and off-leash restrictions are being considered in the Dog Off-Leash Guidelines report which is also being considered by Council tonight.

5. Notes that there is no proposed reduction in dog off-leash spaces and that there is a proposed increase in times dogs can access beaches in both Port Melbourne and Elwood.

6. Notes that future dog spaces will be considered in line with the delivery of the Public Space Strategy and consideration of the Dog Off Leash Guidelines.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 August 2024

10.1

Dog Off-Leash Guidelines

Executive Member:

Tarnya McKenzie, Interim General Manager, Community Wellbeing and Inclusion

PREPARED BY:

Claire Ulcoq, Coordinator Open Space

Dana Pritchard, Manager Open Space Recreation and Community Resilience

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To present the Dog Off-Leash Guideline to Council for endorsement and adoption.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 Council has developed the Dog Off-Leash Guideline (the Guideline) to create a framework for dog off-leash areas (DOLAs) within the municipality.

2.2 The Guideline (Attachment 1) has been developed in response to increasing community requests (for and against) and in response to a resulting action in the Places for People: Public Space Strategy 2022 – 2032 (PSS) and the Domestic Animal Management Plan 2022 – 25 (DAMP).

2.3 The community was given the opportunity to view and provide feedback on the draft Guideline from 25 March – 28 April 2024, with 366 submissions received.

2.4 The key things that we heard from the community included:

· better explain the purpose of the Guideline and how it will be used

· provide more detail in specific sections

· develop and implement a communications campaign regarding local laws

· emphasise owners responsibilities

· improve availability of information about the locations of DOLAs.

2.5 In response to the community’s feedback, we have made the following changes to the Guideline:

· simplified the Guideline to focus on the principles and outcomes

· strengthened the background and scope

· included a new section to better explain the strategic context of the Guideline

· incorporated the site assessment and analysis process in the Guideline to nest under the principles

· partnering the Guideline with a help sheet about all the current requirements and restrictions under the Local Law (Attachment 2)

· prepared an action plan to guide the implementation of the Guideline (Attachment 3).

2.6 The current Council Plan and Budget includes $130k to begin implementation of the Dog Off Leash Action Plan and $510k to build a new fenced dog off leash park. It is proposed that Council applies for $300k through new State Government dog park funding which has just been released. Any requests for other additional funding will be considered through future annual budget processes.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Endorses and adopts the Dog Off-Leash Guideline (Attachment 1), including the attached action plan (Attachment 3)

3.2 Thanks the community for providing feedback on the Guideline

3.3 Approves Council officers to commence community engagement in early 2025 on the following proposed changes to dog on and off-leash restrictions:

3.3.1 Change SS Anderson (Pitch 1) at JL Murphy Reserve, Community Synthetic Ground (Pitch 3) at JL Murphy Reserve and North Port Oval to dog prohibited areas

3.3.2 Change Robinson Reserve in Elwood, Fennell Reserve in Port Melbourne and Howe Crescent Reserve West in South Melbourne to fenced dog off-leash areas

3.3.3 Update the summer restrictions on the beach between Station Pier and Bay Street in Port Melbourne to 7.30pm - 10.00am

3.3.4 Update the summer restrictions on the northern section of Elwood Beach between Point Ormond to the rock groyne in front of Elwood Angling Club to 7.30pm – 10.00am

3.4 Authorises the Chief Executive Officer, or their delegate, to make minor editorial updates to the adopted Guidelines, if required.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

Context

4.1 The City of Port Phillip has approximately 353 hectares of public open space, comprising 17% of our City. This includes 11km of beaches and 169 parks, including 14 sports ovals.

4.2 With the combined challenge of limited land availability and population growth in our City, the demand for public space becomes even more competitive. For our public space network and Council’s delivery of services this means new open spaces cannot be provided at the rate of population growth and our existing spaces will need to work harder and be maintained more frequently.

4.3 According to the 2023 Victorian Pet Census, 58% of adult Victorians own a pet and 41% of these pets are dogs. The most common reasons for getting a pet were for companionship, have always had them and for mental health.

4.4 There is increasing dog ownership across the municipality, with over 8,000 dogs registered and more visiting. We have also had an increase in dog walking businesses.

4.5 A recent study by the University of Melbourne found that the City of Port Phillip has the highest density of dogs out of all greater Melbourne local government areas, with 410 dogs per square kilometre.

4.6 The limited public space, coupled with increasing dogs, is creating increasing tensions between dog and non-dog users of our public open spaces and between our dog off-leash areas and other public space uses.

4.7 There are regular requests to Council regarding dogs, including requests for both more and less DOLAs, requests for more fenced dog off-leash areas, concerns about dog owner control/compliance and impacts of dogs on sports grounds and residential amenity.

4.8 Many of these requests/concerns were raised through the development of Council’s PSS and DAMP.

4.9 In response, the following actions were included in the:

· PSS to ‘investigate opportunities for new dog off-leash areas and review permitted times in all existing public open spaces including beaches’

· DAMP to ‘develop criteria for dog off-leash parks and investigate opportunities for new dog off-leash areas using these’.

4.10 To address these actions Council has developed the Guideline to:

· outline Council’s position on the provision, distribution, design and management of DOLAs across the municipality

· guide the future of all our dog off-leash restrictions across public open space, including parks, beaches and sports fields

· provide Council officers with an evidence-based process for assessing community requests and petitions in relation to DOLAs.

4.11 To inform the draft Guideline, a three-phase community engagement process has been adopted, which included a deliberative community panel and opportunities for the wider community to provide feedback.

Current provision of DOLAs

4.12 Many of our public open spaces and beaches across the City of Port Phillip provide space for dogs to be off leash. This includes:

· 15 different beach zones with varying dog off-leash conditions

· 16 public open spaces across the municipality that are designated for dog off-leash areas (including two in Albert Park Reserve, managed by Parks Victoria)

· 2 fenced dog off-leash areas including Eastern Reserve North in South Melbourne and MO Moran Reserve in St Kilda

4.13 Albert Park Reserve (managed by Parks Victoria) is also in the municipality. The majority of the Reserve is on lead, but it also has two off-leash areas, one near Albert Road and the other on Canterbury Road side of the park - Albert Park Dog Friendly Park Factsheet

4.14 There are also several off-leash areas bordering the municipality including the Kings Way and Moray Street Reserve fenced dog off-leash area and Fawkner Park (both managed by the City of Melbourne) and Elsternwick Park (managed by Bayside City Council). While these are not managed by the City of Port Phillip, their proximity means that it is likely that they are accessed by members of our community.

Community engagement on the draft Guideline

4.15 Following phase 3 of the community engagement process, Council received 366 submissions on the draft Guideline. There were 2,755 visits to the Have Your Say page. An engagement summary report has been published on Council’s Have Your Say page (Dogs in Our Parks and Beaches | Have Your Say Port Phillip).

4.16 The key findings from the third stage of engagement include:

· over half of respondents agreed that the following issues were covered well in the draft Guidelines:

o types of sites that will be protected because of their historical value or environmental significance

o the challenges in balancing the needs of different user groups in the community

· 34% of respondents agreed that the draft Guidelines explains how different groups can share open spaces and what will be considered when disagreements happen

· 36% agreed that the draft Guidelines ensure that DOLAs are safe for dogs

· 34% agreed that the draft Guidelines will provide public spaces for dogs and people to feel safe and be safe

· 31% agreed that the draft Guidelines will help Council to decide which locations are suitable to be DOLAs or areas where dogs are not permitted.

Updates to the Guideline

4.17 Following phase 3 of the community engagement process, the Guideline has now been taken back to the original intent, setting Council’s position on the provision, distribution, design and management of DOLAs across the municipality.

4.18 The Guideline now reads more like a policy document and includes no decisions or references to current local laws.

4.19 The Guideline has been separated into three stages, and the deliberative panel’s principles and outcomes have been partnered with outcomes and the assessment process. To achieve this, some new principles and outcomes have been developed and the principles have been re-ordered to better reflect the process for planning, designing and managing DOLAs.

4.20 The updated Guideline stages are as follows:

· Stage 1: Provision – used to assess the use of a current or new DOLA

· Stage 2: Design – used to inform the design of DOLAs

· Stage 3: Management – used to create well managed DOLA.

4.21 The Guideline will now be partnered with an Action Plan (Attachment 3).

Review of dog on and off-leash areas

4.22 In line with the draft Guideline, Council officers have undertaken an assessment of all dog on and off-leash areas across the municipality. This review found that there are:

· specialised sports fields that have a premier playing level surface (meaning they host elite sport) are difficult to maintain to the high standard they need to be kept at when dogs are also using the site

· a number of on leash sites already being used as DOLAs and some of these could have the restrictions changed in line with actual usage

· there are a number of open spaces that could be designated as shared DOLAs

· there are several opportunities for fenced DOLAs in the municipality.

· significant improvements are required to signage in most on and off-leash areas

· opportunities to streamline the beach restrictions across the municipality, making access more consistent and less confusing

· limited spaces where people and dogs are not interacting across the municipality.

4.23 Following this review, Council officers recommend that Council consider the following updates to DOLAs. These would be subject to the process for amending the Council Order, which includes undertaking community consultation in line with Council’s Community Engagement Policy. This engagement would occur in early 2025.

Dog prohibited public open spaces

Change the following areas to dog prohibited areas at all times:

Site	Current status	Change to DOL provision
SS Anderson (Pitch 1) at JL Murphy Reserve, Port Melbourne	Off leash	Reduction by 0.9ha
Community Synthetic Ground (Pitch 3) at JL Murphy Reserve, Port Melbourne	Off leash	Reduction by 0.66ha
Oval at North Port Oval, Port Melbourne	On leash	N/A

Fenced DOLAs

These sites could be considered as new fenced DOLAs:

Site	Current status	Change to DOL provision
Robinson Reserve, Elwood	On leash	Increase by 1ha
Fennell Reserve, Port Melbourne	On leash	Increase by 0.4ha
Howe Crescent Reserve West, South Melbourne	On leash	Increase by 0.28ha

4.24 As part of implementation of the Action Plan, Council officers would continue the assessment process to look for further opportunities and test these with Council in early 2025 prior to community engagement.

Review of beach restrictions

4.25 The draft Guideline has been used to review existing dog off-leash restrictions along the Foreshore.

4.26 The review found that:

· there are 15 different zones for dogs with times varying from winter to summer.

· some of these restrictions could be simplified

· grouping various restrictions together provides varying experiences in a neighbourhood setting.

· signage is not clear and better signage could remove some of the confusion

· there is value in aligning dog on-leash restrictions outside of Life Saving Clubs and in no boating (swimming) zones

· there are opportunities to change some restrictions.

4.27 It is recommended that the following changes are made to beach restrictions:

· Update the summer restrictions on the beach between Station Pier and Bay Street in Port Melbourne to 7.30pm - 10.00am (currently dogs prohibited at all times in summer)

4.28 These would be subject to the process for amending the Council Order, which includes undertaking community consultation in line with Council’s Community Engagement Policy. This engagement would occur in early 2025.

Action Plan

4.29 An Action Plan (Attachment 3) has been developed to start to address these findings and includes the following recommendations:

· audit and upgrade of dog signage across the municipality

· create new designs for dog signage

· develop design guidelines for DOLAs

· develop and implement an education program for dog owners and for people interacting with dogs in public space.

· update the dog registration process to encourage more people to register dogs.

· continue to advocate to Parks Victoria to encourage the inclusion of DOLAs within Albert Park Reserve

· undertake community engagement to inform the recommended changes to designated DOLAs, in line with the requirements under the Local Law to change delegations

· deliver new DOLAs in line with the engagement outcomes.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 The community engagement approach for the development of the draft Guidelines has been undertaken in three phases:

· Phase 1 (November 2022 – February 2023) - Interviews/focused conversations, pop-ups, intercept surveys, workshops, online survey, and other online engagement activities.

· Phase 2 (May – October 2023) - Community deliberative panel made up of 33 community members.

· Phase 3 (March – April 2024) - To seek feedback on the draft Guidelines.

5.2 Following phase 3 of the community engagement process, Council received 366 submissions on the draft Guideline. There were 2,755 visits to the Have Your Say page. An engagement summary report has been published on Council’s Have Your Say page Dogs in Our Parks and Beaches | Have Your Say Port Phillip.

5.3 The key findings from the third stage of engagement include:

· over half of respondents agreed that the following issues were covered well in the draft Guidelines:

o types of sites that will be protected because of their historical value or environmental significance

o the challenges in balancing the needs of different user groups in the community

· 34% of respondents agreed that the draft Guidelines explains how different groups can share open spaces and what will be considered when disagreements happen

· 36% agreed that the draft Guidelines ensure that DOLAs are safe for dogs

· 34% agreed that the draft Guidelines will provide public spaces for dogs and people to feel safe and be safe

· 31% agreed that the draft Guidelines will help Council to decide which locations are suitable to be DOLAs or areas where dogs are not permitted.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 If the Guideline is adopted in its current form, Council will need to amend the Order No. 4 of Port Phillip City Council to change the list of designated areas and prohibited areas. The process includes:

· identify what the amendment is to be made

· identify who is affected by the amendment

· consult with the persons who are affected by using Council’s Community Engagement Policy

· compile the responses, prepare the report and recommendation and attach an amended version of the Order and draft the resolution(s)

· ensure that when the decision is made, the interests of those who are directly affected by the decision are considered and taken into account.

6.2 The Guideline will help reduce risks associated with conflicting users in public open spaces, soil contamination and environmentally sensitive areas, heritage protection and amenity impacts including noise.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 There is $130,000 to deliver the first stage of the action plan in 2024/25 (Attachment 3). The action plan includes:

· signage audit and initial implementation

· amending Council Order, including associated engagement and legal costs

· updates to Council’s website

· developing design guidelines for DOLAs

· developing and implementing a dog education program

· updating the dog registration process to encourage all dogs to register.

7.2 The current Council budget also includes $510,000 for a new fenced DOLA to be designed in 25/26 and delivered 26/27. The location of this fenced DOLA would be informed by the community engagement process planned for early 2025.

7.3 The State Government has just opened applications for Round 2 of the New and Upgraded Dog Parks program, which provides up to $300k to Councils to ‘deliver projects that enable people to socialise and exercise their dogs off-leash in areas of greatest need’. Council will apply for funding to progress one of the three fenced dog off leash areas proposed in this report (contingent on support through community engagement).

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 The Guideline aims to ensure that areas of environmental significance are not impacted by DOLAs.

8.2 It is intended that the assessment of future DOLAs under the Guideline will consider the exclusion of and/or management of environmentally sensitive areas in DOLAs.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 The Guideline will provide Council with a clear and concise position on how we provide for and manage DOLAs. The Guideline is supported by an Action Plan to make improvements to the overall network of DOLAs across the municipality to reduce confusion about restrictions and ensure our community feels safe and supported in using our public open spaces.

9.2 This project has been informed by an extensive three phase community engagement process, including a community deliberative panel consisting of 33 community members, to ensure that the diversity of opinions in our municipality were heard.

10. Gender Impact Assessment

10.1 Council officers prepared a Gender Impact Assessment for the Guideline, informed by background data and the findings from the three stages of community engagement. This information has been used to inform the preparation of the Guideline, particularly how different groups use our public open spaces, safety around dogs and accessibility.

10.2 These considerations will inform individual projects during the implementation of the Action Plan.

10.3 Gender impact assessments will be included in the assessment and design of any new DOLAs or renewal of any current DOLAs.

11. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

11.1 The development of the Guideline aligns with the Liveable Port Phillip Strategic Direction in the Council Plan 2021 – 31. The Guideline is a short-term priority action under the PSS and the DAMP.

12. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

12.1 TIMELINE

If endorsed, the project will move into the implementation stage. This will include:

· auditing, designing and installing new signage in our public spaces and Foreshore to improve communication about times and places where dogs can and cannot be off-leash (in progress)

· updating Council’s website to support the new signage (i.e. QR codes on signs to lead to Council’s website) to better communicate what restrictions are in place (late 2024)

· undertaking community engagement to inform any amendments to the Council Order required to implement any changes that Council adopts in the Guideline (early 2025)

· undertaking community engagement to inform options for new fenced and unfenced DOLAs (early 2025).

12.2 COMMUNICATION

12.2.1 Release of the DOLG will be promoted on Council’s website, Have Your Say page and through social media.

12.2.2 Community members who made a submission on the draft DOLG will be notified via email.

13. OFFICER MATERIAL OR GENERAL INTEREST

13.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Dog Off-Leash Guidelines⇩

2. Dog Off-Leash Local Law Helpsheet⇩

3. Action Plan⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 August 2024

10.2

Eastern Reserve Dog Park

Executive Member:

Tarnya McKenzie, Interim General Manager, Community Wellbeing and Inclusion

PREPARED BY:

Dana Pritchard, Manager Open Space Recreation and Community Resilience

Claire Ulcoq, Coordinator Open Space

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To review the future use of Eastern Reserve North as a fenced dog off-leash area.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 In 2014, Eastern Reserve North became a fenced dog off-leash area (DOLA). The park is designated in Council’s Local Law to be off leash between 7am and 7.30pm each day, and on leash at all other times.

2.2 The reserve is popular with the dog community.

2.3 There are also regular concerns from nearby residents, primarily centred around noise, user behaviour and condition of the park.

2.4 In response to these concerns, Council has implemented timed restrictions for dogs to be off-leash, enhanced local law patrols, installed signage, increased maintenance efforts, and commissioned an acoustics report to assess noise levels.

2.5 The Dog Off-Leash Guideline (DOLG) is being brought to this Ordinary Meeting of Council alongside this report for consideration by Council. The DOLG outlines Council’s position on the provision, distribution, design, and management of dog facilities in public open spaces.

2.6 An assessment of Eastern Reserve North against the draft DOLG shows that the site aligns with some of the criteria (access, good visibility, shade and demand) and does not align with others (size and proximity to residences).

2.7 It is recommended that Eastern Reserve North remains as a fenced DOLA for the following reasons – it is established (has been in place for 10 years), is well used, there is known demand in the area (with 747 dogs registered within a 1-kilometre radius) and it meets the risk criteria of fencing. There are also no other suitable alternatives to relocate the fenced DOLA.

2.8 In retaining the DOLA further mitigation measures are recommended to impact on adjoining residents and to ensure the park is safe and welcoming for all, including:

· implementing time restrictions on the park lighting between 7.30pm to 7am (when the park is on leash);

· trialling locking gates open between 7.30pm to 7am 1 September 2024 to 31 March 2025; and

· prohibiting dog walking businesses from using the Reserve.

2.9 Council officers will also look for opportunities to improve education and enforcement and make design enhancements, as part of the implementation of the DOLG (if endorsed by Council).

2.10 To reduce usage of Eastern Reserve North it is also recommended that further work is undertaken to identify, advocate and build new fenced DOLAs in proximity to the South Melbourne area.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Acknowledges that Eastern Reserve North is a popular fenced dog off-leash area for the dog community, being one of only two fenced dog off-leash areas in the municipality.

3.2 Continues to retain Eastern Reserve North as a fenced dog off-leash area.

3.3 Acknowledges that there are challenges associated with the location of Eastern Reserve North and implements measures to mitigate these including:

· Programming the park lighting to be on from 7am until sunrise, and sunset until 7.30pm each day

· Trialling locking gates open between 7.30pm to 7am from 1 September 2024 to 31 March 2025; and

· Prohibiting dog walking businesses from using the Reserve.

3.4 Requests Council officers to look for opportunities to improve education and enforcement and make design enhancements to the Reserve.

3.5 Requests Council officers to undertake further work to identify, advocate for and build new fenced dog off-leash areas in the area.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

Background

4.1 Eastern Reserve North is located at 148-160 Park Street in South Melbourne.

4.2 Prior to 2014, Eastern Reserve North in South Melbourne was an unfenced grassed public open space and was not designated as a DOLA.

4.3 Community engagement in 2011 and 2012 on the future of Eastern Reserve North and South saw the community requesting the Reserve become a fenced DOLA.

4.4 In 2014, Council approved the park to become a designated DOLA, following a trial and additional community consultation.

4.5 Eastern Reserve North is:

· open 24 hours

· off-leash between 7am and 7.30pm, outside these times it is on-leash only

· 2600m² in size

· located 20 metres from the nearest residential dwelling

· lit by a streetlight which keeps the park well-lit after dark

· adjacent to Eastern Reserve South, where there is a playground, basketball ring and picnic facilities (this park is on-leash).

4.6 The park is well used and considered an important part of the dog park network across the municipality.

4.7 However, there are ongoing concerns from some residents on the impact on amenity and the suitability of its ongoing use as a dog park.

4.8 There was also a petition in October 2022 which led to an upgrade of the reserve, to ensure it was safe to use while a decision on the long-term future was made.

4.9 The surface is now a combination of granitic sand and turf. The turf is often fenced off as the growing conditions in the park are poor, particularly in winter.

4.10 Council has been developing the DOLG which will outline Council’s position on the provision, distribution, design and management of dog facilities in public open spaces.

4.11 The draft DOLG is being presented at this Ordinary Meeting of Council for Council to consider alongside this report.

4.12 The draft DOLG have been used to assess the ongoing suitability of Eastern Reserve North as a fenced DOLA.

Site context

4.13 There are 747 dogs registered within 1 kilometre of Eastern Reserve, and 8,747 dogs registered within the City of Port Phillip

4.14 There are currently 31 DOLAs within the municipality and two fenced dog parks.

4.15 The closest DOLAs to Eastern Reserve are Albert Park Reserve (500m), followed by Gasworks Arts Park and Lagoon Reserve (2km). The other fenced DOLA in the municipality is at MO Moran Reserve in Elwood.

4.16 There is limited public open space within South Melbourne, outside of Albert Park Reserve which is managed by Parks Victoria (see below image).

4.17 Eastern Reserve North is well used and an important part of the dog park network across the community.

Image 1: Public space in South Melbourne and surrounds

Assessment

4.18 Using the updated criteria from the DOLG, it was found that:

Benefits

· A DOLA is needed in the South Melbourne area, with high use and a large population of dog owners

· This site would fit the criteria for fencing as it is in a high-risk environment due to its proximity to very busy roads and as it is catering for significant numbers of dogs.

· It also meets other criteria for access and good visibility.

· There is also currently no other suitable site available within the catchment area

Challenges

· It scores poorly with regards to proximity to residents

· It is also smaller than the recommended size, concentrating dogs in the small space and providing less play opportunities

· While the trees provide shade, they also restrict sunlight, and the combination has previously led to impacts to ground conditions (these are being addressed through the introduction of granitic sand).

· The fencing restricts shared usage

Overall

· The park usage and dog registration numbers in this area shows that there is a demand for a fenced Dog Off-Leash Park.

· While there are challenges with this park due to its proximity to residents and size, it meets many of the other criteria with regards to connections, visibility and dog population.

· Overall providing and average rating – Medium suitability.

Opportunities explored

4.19 The following ideas have been investigated to reduce the impact of the park on adjoining residents:

New DOLAs

4.20 To relocate or relieve the pressure on Eastern Reserve North, alternate sites for a fenced DOLA have been considered.

4.21 With the DOLG development the following parks in the area have been identified as options for fenced DOLAs:

· Fennell Reserve, Port Melbourne

· Howe Reserve, South Melbourne.

4.22 By introducing new fenced DOLAs it is likely to reduce the usage of Eastern Reserve North.

4.23 Given the growing dog population it is possible that they may not replace Eastern Reserve North but be used to supplement the network of dog parks and be used to ‘take the pressure off’ the well-used resource.

4.24 Community engagement and the Local Law would need to be undertaken prior to any changes occurring.

4.25 Further information on this process is outlined in the DOLG report which is also being presented at Council tonight.

4.26 In their draft Albert Park Sports Management Plan 2023, Parks Victoria are proposing a new fenced dog park potentially on John Blackman Oval (Oval 21), which is behind the Albert Park Driving Range. This would be a great addition to the area, however there is no current funding.

4.27 Parks Victoria has indicated that they have no future plans to fence existing DOLAs in Albert Park Reserve. This is to reduce landscape clutter and complications associated with the Grand Prix.

Lighting

4.28 The lighting in the reserve is via a streetlight that is owned by CitiPower.

4.29 There is an option to have this light updated so it can dim or turn off as programmed.

4.30 It is recommended that the lighting is programmed in line with the off/on leash status of the park. Turning off between 7.30pm and 7am when the reserve becomes an on-leash area.

Locking open/closed gates

4.31 The reserve is on leash after 7.30pm but we know that dogs are regularly off-leash outside these times.

4.32 Locking gates open will encourage more on leash activity in the park.

4.33 Locking gates closed would remove all access to the park after 7.30pm.

4.34 It is recommended that the park is locked open as a trial between 1 September 2024 to 31 March 2025.

Restrictions on dog walking businesses

4.35 During the day this is a popular park for dog walking businesses

4.36 Restrictions could be introduced into dog walking permits which could remove Eastern Reserve north as a permitted space.

4.37 To lessen the impact on the Reserve, it is recommended that dog walking businesses are prohibited from using the Reserve.

Introduction of vegetation buffers

4.38 Eastern Reserve North could be enhanced by the inclusion of more vegetation. This was part of the original design but not implemented as we did not want to establish gardens if the usage was to change.

4.39 There is now an option to increase the vegetation on the residential side of the reserve to provide a buffer.

4.40 This should provide some sound dampening to the adjacent properties, particularly on the ground floor but unlikely to change the ‘amphitheatre effect’ for those residents in higher apartments.

4.41 Additional greening will also improve the look of the reserve and could also improve movement of granitic sand.

4.42 It is recommended to consider greening upgrades, through the next Council budget process.

Site management

4.43 When the reserve was redesigned the dog community strongly supported the retention of a grassed area within the reserve, understanding that it could be fenced off for up to six months of the year (as drainage in the area is poor and trees shade the park).

4.44 Since the upgrade of the park in late 2022 the grass area continues to be impacted and has been fenced off regularly.

4.45 As a small DOLA this fencing concentrates dogs into an even smaller space, which increases the risk for dogs/people in the reserve and could also be impacting the likelihood of dogs barking.

4.46 The DOLG include principles around quality, maintenance, size and sites being fit for purpose. It is not possible to keep this site open all year around and have it fit for purpose.

4.47 It is recommended to consider removing the grass and replacing with granitic sand, through the next budget process.

Electronic Barking Deterrents

4.48 An option to install anti-barking ultrasonic devices has also been considered at this reserve.

4.49 When barking is detected, these devices emit an ‘annoying’ ultra-sonic tone which deters dogs from barking. When the barking stops, the sound is no longer emitted. It cannot be heard by humans.

4.50 Further research would need to be undertaken to understand more about how the devices work and any adverse impacts e.g. dog heath, or on native fauna.

4.51 Benchmarking against our neighbouring Councils showed that they are not using these types of devices. Only the City of Melbourne had reoccurring complaints related to dog parks and they do not look into the complaints as they are not an offence under the Domestic Animal Act.

4.52 It is not recommended to progress with this option at this stage.

Other

4.53 To address issues with the site and its use, the following activities have also been undertaken:

· increased the numbers of Animal Management officers

· increased Local Laws inspections, along with officers engaging in conversations with dog owners about excessive noise and the distress it causes to adjacent residents, and what effective control means

· inspection times were included when large numbers or professional dog walkers were expected to be present.

· made improvements to signage on site, considering different messaging to try to reinforce the ‘respectful use’ message

· undertook monitoring of dog barking.

Recommendation

4.54 It is recommended that option 1 (to continue current usage of Eastern Reserve North as a fenced DOLA) is supported.

4.55 There is a proven need for this DOLA, a growth in dog ownership across the municipality and a clear gap in the network in this area. When assessed against the draft DOLG they show that, while there are challenges with the Reserve, it also meets many of the requirements.

4.56 While a fenced DOLA may not be built in a similar area in the future, the importance of the Reserve in the network of DOLAs in the area, the lack of viable alternatives and the need to meet the varying requirements of the community all support retaining the Reserve in its current form.

4.57 In retaining the Reserve, further mitigation measures should be considered to reduce the ongoing impact on adjoining residents and to ensure that the Reserve is safe and welcoming for all, including:

· programming the park lighting to turn on at sunrise and off at 7am and on at sunset and off at 7.30pm each day

· trialling locking gates open between 7.30pm to 7am 1 September 2024 to 31 March 2025

· prohibiting dog walking businesses from using the Reserve

· continuing the enforcement presence at the Reserve

· implementing education programs, improving signage and making design enhancements as part of the implementation of the DOLG

· identify, advocate and build new fenced DOLAs to distribute the current and future usage to other areas.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 Community engagement was undertaken between 2011 and 2013, prior to the Reserve being designated as a DOLA.

5.2 Community engagement was undertaken in November 2022 to inform upgrades to the surface of the Reserve.

5.3 Three stages of community engagement were undertaken during the development of the DOLG in 2023 and 2024, which included feedback about Eastern Reserve North.

5.4 Council has received ongoing feedback directly about the Reserve, including through meetings with residents, correspondence, petitions and on-site conversations with Councillors and Council officers.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 No changes are required to the Local Law.

6.2 Removal of the DOLA would displace many community members and dogs who regularly walk their dog at this site. There are no other fenced options in the area and movement to another site (off leash or not) may lead to other impacts including overuse or conflicts with other user groups.

6.3 Risk of ongoing amenity concerns from adjoining neighbours.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 There is current budget that could be used to fund the changes to the park lighting, as well as improvements to signage and design enhancements (such as removal of grass and additional planting to form a noise buffer) in the Reserve.

7.2 Removing the grass from the Reserve will reduce the financial burden of the ongoing maintenance required to reinstate the grass.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 Design enhancements such as additional planting to form a noise buffer in the Reserve will improve greening in the Reserve.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 The ongoing provision of Eastern Reserve North as a fenced DOLA is likely to be supported by many, particularly the 834 registered dog owners in South Melbourne.

9.2 There is likely to be ongoing concerns from the adjoining residents who have reported the ongoing impact of the dog park on their amenity.

9.3 Council officers will implement measures to help mitigate these concerns including implementing time restrictions on the park lighting and prohibiting dog walking businesses from using the Reserve, as well as looking for opportunities to improve education and enforcement and make design enhancements.

9.4 There may be concerns from dog walking businesses that Council is restricting their access to the Reserve North, however this will have positive impacts on amenity by reducing the number of dogs who are congregating in the Reserve.

10. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

10.1 Liveable Port Phillip - A city that is a great place to live, where our community has access to high quality public spaces, development and growth are well managed, and it is safer and easier to connect and travel.

10.2 Responding to Action 60 in the Public Space Strategy:

· Eastern Reserve North Investigate the potential to expand the size of Eastern Reserve North through conversion of part of the adjoining road reserve in conjunction with the current Park Street tram extension. Identify options land for the most appropriate design and future use in consultation with the local community. This includes identifying if dog off-leash can continue to be supported in part of the reserve.

11. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

11.1 TIMELINE

11.1.1 Council officers will commence work to immediately following this meeting to implement mitigation measures.

11.2 COMMUNICATION

11.2.1 As part of implementation of the DOLG, Council officers will make improvements to signage in the Reserve in the 24/25 financial year.

12. OFFICER MATERIAL OR GENERAL INTEREST

12.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 August 2024

10.3

St Kilda Adventure Playground Upgrade

Executive Member:

Lachlan Johnson, General Manager, Operations and Infrastructure

PREPARED BY:

Sascha Martin, Project Landscape Architect

Felicity Leahy, Executive Manager Family, Youth & Children and Divisional Performance

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To seek City of Port Phillip’s (Council’s) endorsement for the concept design for the St Kilda Adventure Playground (SKAP).

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 A consultant team is engaged to work with Council to design and deliver an upgrade to SKAP.

2.2 Following two rounds of community consultation and engagement, a concept design has been prepared for the development of the landscape and playground as well as a new consolidated building.

2.3 To meet Council’s adopted Adventure Playground vision and design principles/objectives, the concept design is developed with children at the centre of the design process.

2.4 The concept plan is estimated for delivery within the project budget.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Endorses the concept plan for the St Kilda Adventure Playground.

3.2 Authorises the Chief Executive Officer, or their delegate, to make minor editorial amendments to the concept plan that do not materially alter the intent.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 SKAP is a beloved community space with long-standing ties to the St Kilda area.

4.2 The playground was built in 1978 under the former South Melbourne Council. Council has managed the playground since 1981, fully funding its operations since federal funding ceased in June 2014.

4.3 Consultation in 2018 was carried out regarding upgrading the facilities.

4.4 In 2020 the site experienced closures due to covid lockdowns.

4.5 In 2021 unstaffed opening hours were trialled. The community responded with concerns, including the submission of a petition regarding perceived service withdrawal.

4.6 Reports assessing the condition of the existing two buildings (2015) and play equipment (2021) determined most of the site’s structures to be at the end of their functional life.

4.7 In 2022 Council reiterated its support for adventure playgrounds. Council adopted vision for Adventure Playgrounds and design principles/objectives for the redevelopment of both sites.

4.8 Council’s vision for adventure playgrounds is to provide safe and welcoming spaces that honour diversity, build resilience and creativity, provide social connections, and encourage all children and families to maximise their development outcomes.

4.9 The design principles/objectives proposed by the community and adopted by Council will:

4.9.1 offer risky (but safe) play with staff to support this

4.9.2 be accessible, safe and welcoming for all, meeting Australian standards (Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliance and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) best practice

4.9.3 connect children to nature

4.9.4 be designed with children at the centre

4.9.5 have a unique look that recognises the past and looks to the future.

4.10 In November 2023 a consultant team lead by Landscape Architects were engaged to work with Council to design and deliver the SKAP upgrade.

4.11 In meeting the adopted design principles/objectives, the concept design is developed with children at the centre of the design process.

4.12 Children who hold a membership at the playground and children from the local Primary Schools participated in design workshops that contributed to the development of the concept design.

4.13 The draft concept design was presented to the community with the consultation process framed to ascertain that it meets the design principles/objectives and vision.

4.14 Concept design – site opportunities and constraints:

4.14.1 Most existing play items and the two existing buildings will be demolished and removed.

4.14.2 Play items in sound condition to be retained is the in-ground trampoline, haunted house and pirate ship.

4.14.3 Existing trees are a key feature of the site providing shade and connecting children to nature. All trees are to be retained.

4.14.4 The location and mature size of the trees, limits vehicle access into the site.

4.14.5 The restricted access and budget constraints prompted the placement of the new building to the south-east corner adjacent to the entrance at Newton Court.

4.14.6 This location will allow ease of access during the construction phase safeguarding the works within budget.

4.15 Concept design – playground:

4.15.1 The concept plan features a series of proprietary and custom play items for children aged between 5 – 12 years.

4.15.2 There are six new play elements proposed which were chosen in response to consultation with children.

a) Elevated tree houses raised above the ground and connected by a rope tunnel. Tree houses are accessed via rope ladder and departed via a slide

b) Shark plane: an elevated structure taking on the form of a shark and aeroplane promoting imaginative play

c) Inside out cubby; the inside out cubby is an adaptive reuse of the central brick building. The roof is removed, and external brick walls cut down. Plants will be added and a sandpit

d) Tower: a climbing tower with attachments such as bouldering, ropes, and windows exited via two slides (one large one small)

e) Zip line

f) Group swing

4.15.3 The existing basketball court will be replaced to the east of its existing location to make room for the proposed zip line.

4.15.4 Accessible play elements for all abilities are proposed to the ground floor plane.

4.15.5 The proposed play items are predominately made of timber providing a blank canvas for the community to re-paint the structures. Commanding colour and artworks to be added, contributing to the unique identity of the site.

4.15.6 The design supports the use of pack-away play elements such as crash mats, fabric, buckets and spades, craft materials and any other elements that children can use during supervised sessions.

4.15.7 Lockable storage sheds will be located within the site to store pack-away items.

4.15.8 A shelter is located centrally providing an open-air facility for all weather use. The shelter will predominantly be used by staff and children during supervised sessions. It also offers a space for the public to host birthday parties.

4.15.9 DDA accessible paths and surfaces is a feature of the design. This change will make the site accessible for all abilities.

4.16 Concept Design – Building:

4.16.1 A new building (Club House) is located at the south-east entrance to the site adjacent to Newton Court.

4.16.2 The Club House will include an open plan flexible area for 30-40 children to participate in art and craft programs and to be served communal dinners.

4.16.3 The Club House includes the following features:

a) a new kitchen

b) a standard toilet and an accessible toilet with baby change table

c) flexible workstation for staff

d) Kiln

e) storage

4.17 Concept design – additional items:

4.17.1 The concept design and each play element are supported in principle by the community. The children and broader community in phase 2 of the consultation process offered ideas on how each play item can be further developed. This will be further investigated in the detail design phase.

4.17.2 The concept design shows additional play items not currently costed within the cost plan. There is potential for these items to be added at a later stage in the design process as the project contingency scales.

4.17.3 The Quantity Surveyor will formulate concise cost estimates based on the detailed design and tender documentation drawings (cost plans C and D) reducing the contingency amount.

4.17.4 Alternatively, there is potential for these items to be included as a tender line item. Tendering contractors may provide competitive prices determining the overall scope.

4.17.5 These items include the following:

a) nature cubbies

b) rotanet

c) mini trampolines

4.17.6 A request has been received from neighbours from the bordering properties to replace fencing and to remove and make good redundant drainage that runs across property’s boundaries. This will be further investigated in the detail design phase.

4.17.7 The concept package is attached to this report as Attachment 1.

Figure 1: Final concept design

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 Engagement and consultation phase 01 – a series of design workshops:

5.1.1 Children have been at the heart of the design process for developing the draft concept plan for the site. This meets Child Safe Standard 3: Children and young people are empowered about their rights, participate in decisions affecting them and are taken seriously.

5.1.2 Children are most impacted by changes made to the playground, and so their input has been prioritised in the engagement process.

5.1.3 In February 2024 consultation with children with the support of the adventure playground staff commenced.

5.1.4 On 29 February and 7 March 2024 children holding membership at SKAP participated in design workshops.

5.1.5 Children prepared drawings and models to communicate their ideas on the look and function of the playground upgrade.

5.1.6 On 7 March the same workshop was held with children at the St Kilda Park Primary School.

5.1.7 On 29 March the same workshop was held with children at the St Kilda Primary School.

5.1.8 On 1 May and 15 May 2024 online sessions were held with adventure playground staff and the design team to develop the draft concept plan. The sessions were aimed at ensuring the operational needs, child supervision and the functional requirements for the new facility were considered in the concept design.

5.1.9 The community was invited to share stories about their connection and stories of the playground via the dedicated Have Your Say webpage.

5.1.10 The information collated in the phase 01 of the engagement and consultation process informed the development of the draft concept design.

5.2 Engagement and consultation phase 02 – testing the draft concept design:

5.2.1 The purpose of phase 02 engagement was to present the concept plan to children and the broader community to ensure the proposal responds to stage 01 consultation and the vision and design principles/objectives.

5.2.2 On Thursday 6 June the draft concept plan was released to the community for phase 02 of the consultation process.

5.2.3 On 6 June a workshop was held with enrolled children at SKAP to present the draft concept design and gather feedback on the proposal.

5.2.4 On Saturday 8 June an onsite pop-up was in place for the broader community to engage with Council staff on the project.

5.2.5 On Sunday 16 June a stall was set up at the Esplanade Sunday Markets to engage with the community on the project.

5.2.6 On 25 June Council ran a workshop at SKAP with the children from St Kilda Park Primary School.

5.2.7 St Kilda Primary School was invited to engage, however were unable to participate.

5.2.8 The Engagement Summary Report contains a detailed account of the engagement activities, reach of participants and summary of feedback. The Engagement Summary Report is attached to this report as Attachment 2.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 There is no legal or risk impacts arising directly from this report.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 Council has committed $2.506m to the delivery of the project.

7.2 Consultant design fees, Project Management fees, Communication and Engagement fees, and site investigations make up approximately $500,000 of the allocated budget.

7.3 The remaining amount of approximately $2,000,000 is allocated to the demolition of the existing structures and the construction of the new building, playground and associated landscape.

7.4 A Quantity Surveyor has prepared Cost Plan B providing confidence that the concept design can be delivered within the allocated budget. A contingency of 20% has been applied to the play equipment and surrounds, and 40% to the building of the Club House.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 The concept design retains the existing trees on site. Pruning of lower lying limbs will be required for access and to allow room for new play equipment. Pruning will be conducted under Council’s arborist supervision/ guidance.

8.2 Where suitable native vegetation and landscaping is integrated to maximise, nature play opportunities for children. This in return increase biodiversity to the area.

8.3 Upgrades will provide better soil contamination management with improved pathway network and drainage.

8.4 Council’s City Planning and Sustainability team will be consulted for the development of the Club House in the detailed design phase. This will ensure the facility is developed in-line with Council’s sustainability objectives.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 The planned upgrades will cause disruptions during the construction phase.

9.2 Many families rely on SKAP and the services that Council provides for afterschool care.

9.3 Feedback from community on alternative service delivery sites and service considerations were collected during consultation.

9.4 Council has committed to relocate services to alternative facilities wherever possible for the duration of upgrade works.

10. Gender Impact Assessment

10.1 The playground upgrade is tailored to meet the needs of children aged 5 -12 years old.

10.2 The upgrade will support diverse play opportunities for all genders and abilities. The design provides for solo play, group play, imaginative play, passive, active, and challenging play.

10.3 The upgrade will provide for all abilities with DDA accessible pathways and surfaces and interactive play elements.

10.4 The upgrade will provide safe but risky play opportunities for children supporting their development.

10.5 The playground will support children connecting to nature and being in the outdoors.

10.6 The new facilities will support community involvement such as arts and craft and cooking workshops, helping people share skills and connect socially.

10.7 SKAP is a supervised site ensuring child safe standards.

11. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

11.1 The upgrade aligns with the Inclusive Port Phillip Strategic Direction in the Council Plan 2021 – 31. It is a key initiative for delivery within Family and Young People service profile.

11.2 The upgrade will better support the programs and services provided by Council to the community promoting attendance and additional enrolments at the site.

12. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

12.1 On 21 August 2024 Council will consider endorsement of the concept design.

12.2 Post endorsement, the project will progress into the detailed design phase. During this phase the heights, bulk and function of the play equipment will be determined.

12.3 Town Planning approval will be sought.

12.4 After Town planning approval, the project will enter documentation and tender documentation, with the attainment of all relevant permits and approvals.

12.5 The approach to market is anticipated for early 2025.

12.6 Construction is anticipated for mid-2025 with completion by the end of 2025.

12.7 Cost Plans C and D will be prepared within this time to track the delivery of the project within budget.

13. COMMUNICATION

13.1 The concept plan and engagement summary report will be uploaded to the dedicated project webpage noting Council’s endorsement and the next steps for the project.

13.2 Internal stakeholders will be notified via internal protocols and invited to participate in the detailed design phase to resolve the concept design.

14. OFFICER MATERIAL OR GENERAL INTEREST

14.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Concept Design Package⇩

2. Engagement Summary Report⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 August 2024

10.4

Caravan Parking in Alexandra Street, St Kilda East

Executive Member:

Brian Tee, General Manager, City Growth and Development

PREPARED BY:

Thomas Mason, Coordinator Transport Safety

Supun Weerasinghe, Senior Transport Engineer

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To respond to the Notice of Motion requesting options to reduce the long-term caravan parking and current on-street parking conditions in Alexandra Street, St Kilda East.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 At the Ordinary Council Meeting held 5 June 2024, Councillors considered a Notice of Motion in relation to the long-term parking of caravans, trailers and boats on Alexandra Street, between Dandenong Road and Alma Road St Kilda East. The Motion was carried, and the resolution is outlined below:

1. Request officers to investigate options to reduce the amenity impacts of long-term parking of caravans, trailers, and boats on Alexandra Street, St Kilda East, and report back to Council at a future meeting.

2. Separately considers a local law amendment that applies municipality wide.

2.2 Separate to the resolution of Council, officers also received a jointly signed letter by 13 residents of Alexandra Street representing nine properties, raising concerns of long-term storage of vehicles, and requesting the implementation of a 4-hour parking restriction on both sides Alexandra Street to address the issue.

2.3 The parking of caravans, campervans, boats, and trailers is a complex and enduring issue within our municipality. Long-term storage of these vehicles on street has been reported to negatively impact the amenity of the local area and at times impact parking availability for residents and their visitors.

2.4 Caravans, campers, and boats/trailers can be legally parked on a public street if the vehicle is registered, under 7.5 metres in length and less than 4.5 tonnes, and the vehicle complies with the signed parking controls.

2.5 A large proportion of these vehicles within the municipality are parked legally in unrestricted areas, as is the case for Alexandra Street.

2.6 Council currently has no mechanism to address the issue of long-term parking for these vehicle types where there are no parking controls in place.

2.7 Parking surveys of parking utilisation undertaken on Alexandra Street between 4 May and 10 May 2024 indicate that parking occupancy levels regularly exceed eighty percent (80%). As a result, residents and their visitors often find it difficult to locate a parking space close to their homes.

2.8 Based on the high parking occupancy levels, the introduction of new parking controls on Alexandra Street is consistent with Council’s Parking Management Policy to better manage on street parking.

2.9 The introduction of timed parking restrictions on Alexandra Street would effectively prohibit the long-term storage of these vehicle types at this location.

2.10 Before implementing any form of parking control measures, consultation with residents of Alexandra Street is required. In accordance with Council’s Policy, a clear majority of support from returned questionnaires is necessary to proceed with the parking restrictions.

2.11 The potential introduction of parking restrictions on Alexandra Street aligns with the Parking Management Policy, where high parking occupancy rates are evident.

2.12 In other streets in the municipality with unrestricted parking that also experience the amenity impacts of long-term parking of caravans, trailers, and boats, but do not experience significant parking demands, the introduction of parking controls would not be consistent with the Parking Management Policy.

2.13 Part 2 of the Notice of Motion, consideration of a local law amendment, will require further detailed consideration to ensure it achieves the desired objectives.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Notes that current parking occupancy levels in Alexandra Street require parking management intervention.

3.2 Requests officers to undertake consultation with all residential properties in Alexandra Street, between Dandenong Road and Alma Road, to seek feedback on a proposal to implement 4P, between 8am and 6pm, Monday to Friday parking restrictions on both sides of the street.

3.3 Implements 4P restrictions if majority of feedback supports the proposal, in accordance with parking management framework.

3.4 Includes both sides of Alexandra Street between Alma Road and Dandenong Road in the Council’s Resident Parking Permit Scheme.

3.5 Commences the statutory process to introduce a municipal wide Local Law to effectively manage the long-term parking of caravans, trailers, and boats as part of the 2025/26 budget process, and report back to the Council with the next steps.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 The decision to install or alter existing parking restrictions is governed by the Council’s Parking Management Policy. Under this Policy, a minimum parking occupancy threshold of 80% must be reached before consulting affected residents on any proposal to install or modify parking restrictions.

4.2 The high number of parked caravans, campervans, and trailers on this section of Alexandra Street does impact access to on-street parking for residents. In residential streets, priority for on-street parking should be given to residents.

4.3 Parking surveys undertaken on Alexandra Street between 4 May and 10 May 2024 found that parking occupancy levels regularly exceed eighty percent (80%). As a result residents and visitors often find it difficult to locate a parking space.

4.4 Implementing a timed parking control during the hours of 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday, is expected to facilitate reasonable parking turnover while accommodating parking needs for other road users. The Parking Management Policy provides for parking permits so residents and their visitors are exempt from certain parking restrictions. However, not all residential properties within City of Port Phillip are eligible for parking permits under the terms and conditions of this Policy.

4.5 A review of all properties in the section of Alexandra Street where parking restrictions are proposed indicates that all properties would be eligible for parking permits if timed parking controls are implemented.

4.6 The following options were considered during the preparation of this report. These options are further detailed in Attachment 1.

4.7 Change parking restrictions to one of the below options on both sides of Alexandra Street to stop long term parking of caravans, boats and trailers:

a) 4P, 8am – 6pm, Monday to Friday parking restrictions as requested in the jointly signed letter

b) 2P, 8am – 8pm, Monday to Friday restrictions

c) long-term parking restrictions during weekdays (eg: 10P, Monday to Friday)

Two other options were also considered;

d) maintain status quo

e) introduce a municipal-wide local law for the parking of caravans, boats, and trailers

4.8 Parking Permits

4.9 The Council’s Parking Management Policy aims to address various parking needs and challenges within the municipality.

4.10 Generally, where parking controls are proposed, eligible residents and their visitors are exempt from certain restrictions if they obtain and use parking permits.

4.11 Under the terms and conditions of the Resident and Visitor Parking Permits, holders are only exempt from parking restrictions adjacent to sites that are 100% residential. This condition aims to limit the impacts of resident parking in high-activity areas and places that generate their own demands, such as parks.

4.12 Officers have considered if residents with parking permits should be exempt from parking restrictions along the western side directly adjacent to the cemetery. Officers consider that residents with parking permits should be exempt from parking restrictions because the cemetery does not generate a significant need for parking.

4.13 Under the policy, only passenger vehicles are eligible for parking permits. Caravans, campervans, boats, and trailers are not covered.

4.14 Risks and Impacts

4.15 In accordance with the Council’s Parking Management Policy, a resident parking permit costs $92 per annum, with additional permits at an increased cost. Some residents may be concerned about the need to pay for parking permit fees if parking restrictions are implemented.

4.16 A review of the eligibility for parking permits indicates that every residential property on Alexandra Street in this section is eligible for parking permits.

4.17 There is a risk that the introduction of parking control measures could potentially shift the long-term parking of campervans, caravans, and trailers to other areas. Some narrow streets with unrestricted parking are deemed unsuitable for storing these recreational vehicles.

4.18 Recommended Parking Restrictions

4.19 Officers propose consulting with the community on the introduction of 4P, 8 AM to 6 PM, Monday to Friday. These parking restrictions are expected to address the long-term parking of caravans, boats, and trailers while providing parking turnover for residents, their visitors and those attending the cemetery.

4.20 This restriction is consistent with the request within the jointly signed letter representing 9 properties along Alexandra Street. If 4P restrictions are implemented, it will be monitored to understand its effectiveness.

4.21 Officers considered the implementation of longer-term parking controls e.g. 10P, Monday to Friday, to accommodate daily commuters/employees. These parking controls are not defined in Councils Parking Management Policy to address high parking demand and would present considerable parking enforcement challenges. Shorter term parking restrictions, such as 4P, are an appropriate measure to target high parking demand, and encourage parking turnover supporting better parking availability for residents and their visitors.

4.22 Local Law Review

4.23 An amendment of the Local Law could remove the ability for caravans to be parked on the street for longer than a certain period without a permit. Nearby municipalities such as Monash and Bayside have local laws prohibiting the storage of caravans, boats or trailers on a road for longer than 7 days or 28 days respectively.

4.24 Part 5 of the Local Government Act 1989 (LGA 1989) sets out the requirements to amend a Local Law including a requirement to pass a resolution by Council to advertise and consult with the community in relation to the Local Law. Council will need to comply with Council’s Community Engagement Policy pursuant to Division 1 of Part 3 of the Local Government Act 2020 (LGA 2020). Council must consider any submissions and hear any person who wishes to be heard on the Local Law.

4.25 It is estimated that the preparation of an appropriate Local Law, preparation of Council report, Council resolution to consult with the community, consideration of submissions, and making of the Local Law typically takes up to 12 months to complete. A process for fining and/or towing vehicles as required would need to be developed and tested.

4.26 The most recent review of the Local Law occurred last year, with the new regulations now in place until 2033. Introducing a local law to establish a maximum duration for parking caravans, boats, and trailers is considered the most effective way to address long-term parking. Once implemented, this local law will apply municipal wide.

4.27 A review of customer enquiries indicates a considerable increase in community requests and complaints regarding caravan, boat, and trailer parking within the City of Port Phillip in recent years.

4.28 While officers continue to monitor the impact of parking caravans, campervans, and trailers across the municipality, a budget will be required to implement a local law. There is an opportunity to consider this as part of 2025/26 budget process and detailed information regarding budgeting and timelines will be reported back to Council at a later stage.

4.29 Given the timelines, engagement, and resources required to implement a local law, along with the current high parking occupancy levels, it is recommended to introduce 4P parking controls on Alexandra Street, pending consultation with adjacent residential properties.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 In accordance with the Council’s Engagement Framework, all residential properties in this section of Alexandra Street will be consulted before implementing timed parking control measures. A majority of resident support from returned questionnaires is required to proceed with the proposed parking restrictions.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 In accordance with the Road Management Act, Council is the responsible road authority for traffic and parking management in Alexandra Street.

6.2 There is a risk that the introduction of parking control measures could potentially shift the long-term parking of campervans, caravans, and trailers to other areas. Council must consider community concerns when implementing new parking controls at targeted locations, as some residents may oppose this approach.

6.3 Council will need to monitor parking levels on surrounding streets following the implementation of timed parking controls on Alexandra Street to determine if further parking management interventions are needed.

6.4 There is an opportunity to review the Council’s Local Law to address the long-term parking of caravans, campervans, boats, and trailers as a holistic approach addressing part 2 of the Notice of Motion noting there would be budget needed for this project to commence.

6.5 Officers will continue to monitor the impact of parking of caravans, campervans, and trailers across the municipality, noting that there have been concerns raised by residents in several other locations in the municipality, predominantly Port Melbourne, Elwood and St Kilda. There are also complaints raised by residents throughout the municipality.

6.6 Officers will come back with a response to this issue, outlining the extent of the impacts and addressing further part 2 of the motion including timeline and budget implications.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 The cost associated with consultation and implementation of parking controls is not significant and can be absorbed into existing operating budgets.

7.2 A review of the Local Law to incorporate a clause around caravan parking would require budget for project management and consultation.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 There are no natural environment impacts to consider as part of this report.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 The aim of installing timed parking controls in Alexandra Street is to ensure the relevant car parking users needs are prioritised, with a view to determine the best usage of on-street parking by various members of the community.

9.2 The provision of timed parking controls on both sides would enhance access to on-street parking for residents and turnover of on-street parking amongst other road users including visitors to the cemetery.

9.3 Following installation, it has been proposed to monitor the 4P restrictions to understand its effectiveness. Residents can request changes or the removal of the 4P controls if they believe the restrictions are unnecessary or need adjustment.

10. Gender Impact Assessment

10.1 There are no gender impact assessments to consider as part of this report.

11. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

11.1 The Proposed timed parking control measures in Alexandar Street aligns with the strategic direction;

Liveable Port Phillip in the Council Plan 2021-31: A City that is a great place to live, where our community has access to high quality public spaces, development and growth are well-managed, and it is safer and easy to connect and travel within the below Strategic Direction of Council Plan;

12. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

12.1 If the recommendation in this report is adopted;

12.2 A letter and questionnaire will be distributed within two weeks of the Council meeting to all abutting residential properties. Residents will be asked to vote and provide feedback on a proposal to introduce 4P parking restrictions, from 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday, on both sides of Alexandra Street between Alma Road and Dandenong Road.

12.3 After the consultation period, all responses will be carefully evaluated, and residents must be informed in writing of the decision. If the proposal is supported by a majority of residents, it will be implemented.

12.4 Signage is expected to be installed within 4-6 weeks from the date of the survey outcome letter alongside with resident parking permit scheme on both sides being added into Councils database to enable resident exemptions from the parking restrictions.

12.5 Part of the Notice of Motion that involves an introduction of a Local Law will be considered as part of 2025/26 budget process and will be reported back to Council separately with next steps.

13. OFFICER MATERIAL OR GENERAL INTEREST

13.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Options Considered⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 August 2024

10.5

South Melbourne Structure Plan

Executive Member:

Brian Tee, General Manager, City Growth and Development

PREPARED BY:

Felicity Symons, Acting Head of City Policy

Matthew Budahazy, Principal Strategic Planner

Sarah Stephenson, Project Manager - Urban Design

Romy Fanarof, Strategic Planner

1. PURPOSE

1.1 This report seeks Council adoption of the South Melbourne Structure Plan August 2024 and seeks Council endorsement to request authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Planning Scheme Amendment C219port.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 The South Melbourne Structure Plan (SMSP) sets a long-term strategic direction for land use and development in the South Melbourne Major Activity Centre and Enterprise Precinct.

2.2 There are three main pathways to support the implementation of the actions in the SMSP: planning scheme amendment, capital works and advocacy.

2.3 The SMSP has been informed by comprehensive analysis and technical advice, as well as extensive community consultation.

2.4 Phase 3 consultation involved engagement on the draft SMSP in February-March 2024 to enable the community to comment on the content and actions in the draft SMSP and review the background technical reports (Refer to The Phase 3 Engagement Report at Attachment 3).

2.5 Adoption of the SMSP will enable its implementation and the commencement of the planning scheme amendment process to update South Melbourne’s planning controls in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

2.6 The Planning Scheme Amendment process will result in further engagement with the community, stakeholders and landowners who will be able to make submissions on the Amendment, which will be considered by Council and (if necessary) by an independent Planning Panel.

Updates to the SMSP

2.7 Following Phase 3 engagement, officers have reviewed all submissions and sought additional technical advice to respond to matters raised in submissions. The following changes have been made in response to submissions (refer to Attachment 2):

2.7.1 Updates to the Vision to make stronger reference to South Melbourne’s role as a Major Activity Centre and Enterprise Precinct.

2.7.2 Updates to the objectives in Theme 1: Activities and Uses to articulate the role of South Melbourne as an Enterprise Precinct and a Major Activity Centre more clearly.

2.7.3 Updates to Theme 2 Built form relating to content on Floor Area Ratios and, flood risk.

2.7.4 Updates to Theme 3 Access and Movement to incorporate feedback from DTP and the implementation strategy regarding Tram Stops.

2.7.5 Corrections to typographical, grammatical and formatting errors.

2.7.6 Slight increases to the Floor Area Ratios (FAR) where justified, to allow for additional housing and/or commercial capacity.

2.7.7 Changes to the zoning and/or the built form/heritage recommendations for individual properties (See Attachment 2 for details).

2.8 The following supporting technical documents have been updated: South Melbourne Built Form Review 2024 and the South Melbourne Employment and Economic Land Use Study 2024.

Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment AmC219port

2.9 Amendment C219port proposes changes to local policy, zones and overlays within the Port Phillip Planning Scheme to implement the recommendations of the SMSP.

2.10 These documents contained in Draft Planning Scheme Amendment C219port documents (ctrl + click on the link to open) will form the Authorisation Request to the Minister for Planning for Amendment C219port and comprise:

· Draft Amendment C219port Explanatory Report

· Draft Amendment C219port Amendment Instruction Sheet

· Draft Amendment C219port Amendment map sheets

· Draft Amendment C219port new or replacement clauses and schedules:

o Purpose and Vision

o Planning Policy Framework

o Overlay Schedules

o Operational Provisions

2.11 Changes proposed through Amendment C219port (draft amendment documents at section 2.10) include:

· Update local planning policy in the Municipal Planning Strategy and Planning Policy Framework.

· Replace existing Design and Development Overlay (DDO) Schedules 8 and 16 with four new DDO schedules.

· Rezone the ‘City Road Industrial Triangle’ bound by City Road, Ferrars Street and York Street from the Industrial 1 Zone (IN1Z) to the Commercial 2 Zone (C2Z) and apply the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to the land.

· Rezone and/or apply the DDO to several anomalous sites within the precinct.

· Apply the Heritage Overlay to 9 individual heritage places assessed to be of local significance and include 4 places assessed to be of contributory significance as an extension to HO440 (Emerald Hill Residential Precinct).

· Make consequential changes to the Planning Policy Framework and Operational Provisions.

Background Technical Reports

2.12 A series of background technical reports inform the South Melbourne Structure Plan and Amendment C219port and will be submitted with the Amendment documents. The documents are linked below (ctrl + click on the links to open), with dates in bold identifying reports that have been updated since Council endorsed their release on 7 February 2024:

· Background Report: South Melbourne Structure Plan, prepared by City of Port Phillip, August 2024

· South Melbourne Structure Plan: Activity Centre Boundary Report, prepared by City of Port Phillip, June 2024

· South Melbourne Structure Plan: Zoning Anomalies Report, prepared by City of Port Phillip, June 2024

· South Melbourne Built Form Review, prepared by Hodyl & Co, August 2024

· South Melbourne Economic Employment Land Use Study, prepared by Urban Enterprise (with input from Echelon Planning), 2023 with Addendum dated 3 July 2024

· South Melbourne Major Activity Centre & Employment Precincts - Heritage Built Form Analysis & Recommendations, prepared by GJM Heritage, Oct 2023

· Heritage Review: Report & Place Citations: City of Port Phillip Stage 2 Heritage Review: South Melbourne, prepared by Trethowan Architecture, May 2023

· South Melbourne Public Realm Framework 2024-44, prepared by City of Port Phillip, July 2024

· South Melbourne: Transport, Movement & Place Study – Transport Assessment and Recommendations, prepared by Ratio, November 2023.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Notes the officer report in relation to the adoption of the South Melbourne Structure Plan.

3.2 Notes the consultation undertaken and the response to submissions in the preparation of the final South Melbourne Structure Plan (August 2024)

3.3 Adopts the South Melbourne Structure Plan (August 2024) at Attachment 2 for public exhibition as part of Amendment C219port.

3.4 Requests authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C219port to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, in accordance with section 8A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

3.5 Prepares Amendment C219port to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme to implement the recommendations of the South Melbourne Structure Plan, generally in accordance with the documentation provided in the links at section 2.10 of this report, subject to Ministerial Authorisation.

3.6 Place Amendment C219port to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme on exhibition in accordance with the requirements of section 19 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, subject to Ministerial Authorisation.

3.7 Notes that the exhibition of Amendment C219port will provide an opportunity for community members to lodge submissions in accordance with section 21 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

3.8 Endorses the associated background technical documents, provided at the links in section 2.12 of this report, as the general basis for Amendment C219port to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

3.9 Authorises the Chief Executive Officer (or their delegate) to make minor changes to the South Melbourne Structure Plan (August 2024) (Attachment 2) and the C219port Amendment documents (provided at the links in section 2.10 of this report) if those changes do not alter the overall intent of the Planning Scheme Amendment, or if the changes are requested by the Department of Transport and Planning.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 South Melbourne is a well-loved place; it is a vibrant inner urban location with an engaged community, a diverse mix of housing and businesses, and rich cultural and architectural heritage. These attributes, as well as its location between Melbourne’s CBD and Port Phillip Bay, mean that South Melbourne will continue to be an attractive location to live, work and play.

4.2 State Planning Policy defines South Melbourne as a Major Activity Centre (MAC) and an Enterprise Precinct (regionally significantly employment land), to be protected to support the State’s economic activity and provide employment land.

4.3 The current South Melbourne Central Structure Plan was adopted by Council in 2005 and the existing planning controls require updating. The new SMSP seeks to better respond to contemporary issues and enable Council to appropriately plan for and manage land use and development in South Melbourne into the future.

SMSP Approach

4.4 The SMSP is underpinned by detailed investigations and analysis, including technical reports, demographic data, and stakeholder and community input. The SMSP Background Report synthesises this detailed technical analysis (section 2.12).

4.5 The SMSP is also underpinned by Council’s recently completed strategic planning documents: the Port Phillip Housing Strategy and the Spatial Economic and Employment Framework.

Housing Strategy

4.6 On 16 June 2024 the Victorian Government released draft Local Government Housing Targets. Port Phillip’s target is for an additional 56,000 new dwellings to be built by 2051.

4.7 The Port Phillip Housing Strategy (Housing Strategy) assists Council in planning for our residents' current and future housing needs. It provides direction on where, and how much housing should be accommodated in areas across the municipality to meet projected housing growth.

4.8 The Housing Strategy identifies that there is currently enough residentially zoned land in Port Phillip to incorporate 59,000 additional dwellings, if every site is developed to its full potential (Port Phillip Housing Strategy 2024).

4.9 The Housing Strategy informs Council’s precinct level structure planning, including the SMSP.

Spatial Economic and Employment Framework

4.10 Council adopted the Spatial Economic and Employment Framework (SEEF) in March 2024. The SEEF provides an overview of the municipal economy, its influences and challenges and outlines a series of strategic directions to support economic growth and prosperity over the coming years.

4.11 It identified that there is around 409 hectares of land that allows for commercial activities across the municipality, with the three most common zones being the Capital City Zone, Commercial 1 Zone, and Mixed-Use Zone. Each of these zones also allow dwellings at upper levels. The only zones strictly for employment are the Commercial 2 Zone (South Melbourne Enterprise Precinct totalling 20.4 hectares) and the Industrial 1 Zone and Industrial 3 Zone (three small areas totalling 3.5 hectares). This is around 24 hectares of the 409 hectares of land across the municipality.

4.12 As the only substantial area of employment-only zoned land in the municipality, the ongoing business role of the South Melbourne Enterprise Precinct (Commercial 2 Zone) is of high economic importance to the City and should be protected and enhanced.

4.13 The SEEF recognises that the South Melbourne Major Activity Centre is surrounded by urban renewal areas – Montague (Fishermans Bend), Domain and Southbank. Strong population growth in surrounding areas means that the retail and services role of South Melbourne will need to increase over time.

4.14 The SMSP is underpinned by the actions articulated in the SEEF, including:

· Retain employment land in the South Melbourne Enterprise Precinct.

· Identify the South Melbourne Enterprise Precinct in local policy and encourage creative business and activity which builds on the existing specialisations in media, design, and technology.

· Consider the merits of alternative employment zones such as the Commercial 2 Zone in South Melbourne’s industrial zoned area.

5. Summary of Phase 3 Engagement and Response

5.1 The following section provides an overview of key matters that emerged in the Phase 3 Engagement. It also includes general responses to submissions (See Attachment 1). Officers reviewed all submissions and sought additional technical advice in response to matters raised. Where justified, changes have been made to the SMSP in response to submissions. For individual properties, changes to the zoning and/or the built form/heritage recommendations are outlined in Attachment 2.

5.2 Several submissions indicated overall support for the strategic directions of the SMSP, with issues/concerns raised primarily about matters of detail – namely proposed built form controls that relate to specific properties.

Theme 1: Activities and Uses

High Level Summary of Submissions

5.3 The key issues raised under Theme 1 related to capacity to accommodate housing; protection of employment land, supporting businesses, rezoning remnant industrial land and flooding.

5.4 There was support to protect the Enterprise Precinct from residential encroachment by continuing to apply the Commercial 2 Zone, which prohibits dwellings. This view, shared by a mix of respondents, is consistent with the direction of the Victorian Government’s Melbourne Industrial and Commercial Land Use Plan, which identifies land in South Melbourne as both regionally significant commercial and industrial land.

5.5 Submissions from landowners were received requesting land in the City Road Wedge/Triangle be rezoned from remnant Industrial 1 Zone land to a zone that allows dwellings, rather than the Commercial 2 Zone.

5.6 Submissions also suggested that more land be rezoned to allow increased residential densities to address the ongoing housing crisis and increase activation, and that more should be done to support businesses. It was suggested that higher population targets should be pursued in South Melbourne, to address perceived declines in population.

5.7 Some resident submissions wanted limited density and development as overdevelopment could threaten South Melbourne’s liveability and character. Under this view the South Melbourne’s population should not be substantially increased.

5.8 Melbourne Water submitted that flood risk should be addressed through the SMSP, including consideration of land use zoning and ensuring there is not an increase in density that may risk life and property, and recommended that the SMSP area be reduced to remove areas of flood risk.

Response to Submissions

Capacity to accommodate housing

5.9 As outlined above the Housing Strategy has identified that Port Phillip has enough existing capacity (without rezoning) to accommodate 59,000 additional homes across the municipality.

5.10 South Melbourne is projected to require approximately 1,000 additional dwellings by 2041 (South Melbourne Employment, Economic and Land Use Study 2023).

5.11 The planning controls recommended in the SMSP provide capacity for approximately 2800 dwellings (or 5,400 residents) without the need to rezone land (South Melbourne Built Form Review 2024).

Protection of employment land

5.12 The Melbourne Industrial and Commercial Land Use Plan (MICLUP), Plan Melbourne 2017-2050, Port Phillip Planning Scheme and the SEEF include policy directions to protect, support and retain employment land. These documents reinforce the importance of the Commercial 2 Zone (C2Z) and Industrial 1 Zone (IN1Z) in catering for future commercial floorspace needs.

5.13 The State Government’s Housing Statement does not downgrade the policy importance of MICLUP or suggest that all land should accommodate housing.

5.14 Other enterprise precincts (Collingwood, Cremorne) remain in a C2Z and rely on nearby Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) and Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z) areas to provide housing opportunities. The South Melbourne Enterprise Precinct is in a similar context in that there are locations within walking distance where significant housing growth is supported.

5.15 There is capacity in surrounding areas to supply housing, with capacity for approximately 40,000 additional dwellings within 1km of the study area.

5.16 The Enterprise Precinct’s proximity to the South Melbourne Major Activity Centre (including the Clarendon Street precinct) and existing/planned medium-higher density residential areas (Montague, Southbank, and Domain/St Kilda Road) provides proximity to living options without providing housing in the Commercial 2 Zone (C2Z).

5.17 The number of workers in South Melbourne is growing substantially (having increased by almost 40 percent since 2011), and the Enterprise Precinct will play a significant role in accommodating the projected employment population. It is within walking, cycling and public transport distances of locations where substantial residential growth will occur.

5.18 As outlined in the SEEF, the C2Z in South Melbourne is the only precinct in Port Phillip where dwellings are not permitted (excluding some other minor remnant industrial sites). Therefore, the importance of retaining employment-only zones in South Melbourne is heightened by the lack of such zones elsewhere in the municipality, and the land use flexibility which enables dwellings in Port Phillip’s other employment precincts.

5.19 Retaining employment only land supports and retains a diversity of businesses within Port Phillip that may not be compatible with residential amenity expectations, such as those that operate 24/7.

5.20 To date the C2Z has underpinned South Melbourne’s success as an Enterprise Precinct, anchored by its specialisations in creative industries and professional services. It is amongst Council’s most economically productive land generating gross revenue of approximately $88 million per hectare (compared with the Council average of $14 million) (REMPLAN economic analysis).

5.21 Consideration was given to the use of the Commercial 3 Zone within the Enterprise Precinct which would allow for some dwellings (refer to the South Melbourne Economic Employment Land Use Study – SMEELUS in section 2.12). The analysis concluded that the State policy priority was for South Melbourne’s Enterprise Precinct to function as a regionally significant employment precinct. MICLUP specifies that regionally significant employment precincts should be retained and allow a range of industrial and new and emerging businesses that require access to affordable and well-located land.

5.22 The SMEELUS report has assessed the role and function of the employment land flanking Clarendon Street. It found that this area plays an important role in catering for employment, and that it will continue to be required to meet the future regional employment floorspace needs of the region in the coming decades.

Supporting businesses

5.23 The SMSP includes Council initiatives to support businesses and is informed by the Creative and Prosperous City Strategy 2023-2026. This includes developing an investment attraction strategy for South Melbourne and continuing to work with and support the Clarendon and Coventry Streets Business Association. These initiatives, coupled with the public realm/placemaking actions in this SMSP aim to support businesses and drive investment in South Melbourne.

5.24 The SMSP also includes an action to review the Emerald Hill Masterplan 2012 to create an attractive and vibrant public space near the town hall recognising the opportunities to activate the wider precinct, with improved links to Clarendon and Park Streets to encourage greater visitation and activation.

5.25 The SMEELUS also identifies that proximity to high-growth and high-density urban renewal precincts will create substantial population growth and associated demand for retail and other services in the South Melbourne Major Activity Centre.

Rezoning of remnant industrial land

5.26 The SMSP recommends rezoning the ‘City Road Industrial Triangle’ (Industrial Triangle) from the Industrial 1 Zone (IN1Z) to the Commercial 2 Zone (C2Z) and apply the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to the land.

5.27 The Industrial Triangle, located along City Road adjacent to the South Melbourne Enterprise Precinct and Activity Centre, primarily accommodates offices and larger format retail premises. The precinct is primarily no longer used for industrial purposes, with some former industrial buildings converted to office space and creative studios (e.g., media, sound recording). Only 4 of the 22 sites in this area are categorised as industrial premises.

5.28 A C2Z is considered appropriate as the purpose of this zone is to encourage commercial areas for offices, appropriate manufacturing and industries, bulky goods retailing, other retail uses, and associated business and commercial services. The Industrial Zone provide for manufacturing industry, the storage and distribution of goods and associated uses.

Flooding

5.29 The SMSP acknowledges that parts of South Melbourne are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including rising sea levels, increased storm severity and frequency, and more extreme rainfall. These effects are expected to impact low-lying areas within South Melbourne. Many of these flood prone areas are covered by the Special Building Overlay 1 (SBO1).

5.30 Changes introduced by Amendment VC171 require councils to plan for a 0.2 metre sea level rise by 2040 with a new requirement to plan for a sea level rise of at least 0.8 metres by 2100. Further, State policy provides that at risk areas should be identified using the best available data.

5.31 Council will continue to work with Melbourne Water to address this issue, including through future Amendments to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme to identify land subject to flooding, and to ensure appropriate referrals to Melbourne Water.

Theme 2: Built Form

High Level Summary of Submissions

5.32 The key issues raised under Theme 2 related to accommodating growth; protecting character and the use of mandatory planning controls.

5.33 Many respondents supported removing controls that result in a wedding cake typology, where buildings have a stepped design, along with expressing support for the tailored built form response across the four precincts designated in the SMSP. Shadow controls measured at the spring equinox rather than the winter solstice were generally supported.

5.34 While there was support for strengthening planning controls and policy to preserve heritage, many submitters thought these directions should be further strengthened, particularly at the interface between existing lower-scale neighbourhoods and the activity centre. Some submitters were of the view that mandatory controls could see fewer applications decided by VCAT, in turn providing greater certainty to stakeholders about expected development outcomes. Some submitters believed that building heights should be restricted to five storeys, if not fewer.

5.35 Despite general support for the SMSP’s overarching built form approach, some submitters were of the view that the recommended controls were too conservative and considered that recommended buildings heights and Floor Area Ratios were too low and would unreasonably limit growth and development in South Melbourne.

5.36 Those submissions suggested that all controls should be discretionary, rather than the mix of mandatory and discretionary controls proposed by the SMSP. Wide streets were viewed as having the potential to accommodate significantly taller buildings. Additionally, some submitters believed that heritage protection would stifle activation along Clarendon Street and Park Street, despite other submissions strongly supporting the continued focus on protecting and embracing South Melbourne’s heritage.

Response to Submissions

Accommodating growth

5.37 In response to submissions, further technical analysis was undertaken, and the recommended Floor Area Ratios (FAR) across land in the Structure Plan Area have been increased. This adjustment better calibrates the FARs with the recommended height and setback planning controls and will increase capacity while ensuring that the overall design strategy remains consistent. For most sites this results in an increase in Gross Floor Area (GFA) of around 10-20%.

5.38 Under the existing planning controls in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, the South Melbourne Study Area has capacity for approximately an additional 360,000m² of GFA (SMEELUS 2024). The SMSP recommendations will provide approximately an additional 525,000 m² of GFA (SM BFR 2024). There is further capacity when including additional GFA that will result from the recommended increase to all FARs (raised in paragraph 5.37).

5.39 Implementation of the planning controls in the SMSP would increase potential GFA across the precinct by more than 40%. Importantly the projected demand for office, retail and dwelling GFA will be accommodated within the SMSP recommended planning controls.

Protecting Character

5.40 While State policy sets out the basic principles for Activity Centres, there is no 'one size fits all' solution. Each area is unique and local governments are encouraged to work with their communities to determine exactly how their activity centre should grow, considering regional population trends and economic growth. There is a need for Activity Centres to accommodate growth and deliver great places. The SMSP recommendations respond to a highly varied and established urban context while seeking to ensure good built form outcomes and accommodate projected demand.

5.41 South Melbourne’s heritage, mid-rise scale of buildings, mix of land uses and character create a highly attractive and differentiated business and mixed use location. Nearby precincts such as Southbank, St Kilda Road and Docklands have building heights and employment densities that closely reflect the CBD – South Melbourne is clearly differentiated by its building character, heritage streetscapes and wide streets.

5.42 The SMSP recommends planning controls that enhance South Melbourne’s valued and distinct character, whilst also enabling growth.

5.43 The SMSP does not propose specific changes to the residential precincts in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) within South Melbourne. These areas are already covered by existing planning controls that will continue to manage development.

The use of mandatory planning controls

5.44 The SMSP recommends mandatory heights in locations with significant heritage value. The presence of significant heritage places (of which an extensive number are on the Victorian Heritage Register) across South Melbourne constitutes an exceptional circumstance which justifies the use of mandatory controls.

Theme 3: Access and Movement

High Level Summary of Submissions

5.45 The key issues raised under Theme 3 related to supporting different modes of transport, improving pedestrian safety and movement, parking, bicycles infrastructure and the Park Street tram extension.

5.46 Respondents emphasised the need to improve pedestrian safety, particularly to improve pedestrian crossings, as well as improving connections from South Melbourne to other areas and points of interest. A few suggested building an overpass across Kings Way and more strongly advocate for the delivery of the Park Street tram extension.

5.47 Discussion was mixed about improving bike riding infrastructure. Some respondents suggested that the SMSP should recommend more bike lanes, however others did not support providing bike lanes.

5.48 Likewise, there was support for the SMSP’s recommendations around reconfiguring car parking to facilitate other uses and investment, however others raised the need to provide more parking for residents, shoppers and visitors that is cheap and plentiful.

Response to submissions

Supporting different modes of transport

5.49 As documented in the South Melbourne Transport and Movement Study 2023, the current road network will be able to accommodate the uplift in dwellings and other commercial/retail and employment generating land uses, along with the additional vehicle trips that come with it. This assumes that other sustainable transport improvements will be implemented together, to ensure that vehicle trip generation is suppressed through the active uptake in walking and cycling, and public transport.

Improving Pedestrian access and safety

5.50 To support this, the SMSP identifies opportunities to enhance walkability and accessibility by improving pedestrian crossing infrastructure at several key intersections.

5.51 It also recommends improving the ability to cross barrier roads, namely Ferrars Street, City Road, and Kings Way to enhance safety and walkability, strengthening connections from South Melbourne to neighbouring areas.

Parking

5.52 The SMSP will continue to support car share initiatives in South Melbourne, and the implementation of the City of Port Phillip Parking Management Policy to ensure on street parking spaces are carefully managed and respond to the needs of the community.

5.53 For off street car parking space the SMSP recommends an assessment of the merits of preparing a Parking Precinct Plan and associated Parking Overlay. A Parking Precinct Plan would identify car parking needs and issues and set objectives and development strategies to manage parking at an activity centre wide basis and may be implemented into Port Phillip Planning Scheme through a Parking Overlay.

Bicycle infrastructure

5.54 With more people living, working and visiting South Melbourne, it will be important for South Melbourne to be a safer and more attractive place to ride a bike. The SMSP includes a range of initiatives to improve bike riding in South Melbourne, including:

· Introduction of bike riding infrastructure along Clarendon Street to facilitate safe movement.

· Introduction of safer bike riding infrastructure along Dorcas Street between Ferrars Street and Moray Street, which forms part of Melbourne’s Strategic Cycling Corridor.

· Advocating to DTP for an additional cycling crossing location at the Dorcas Street intersection with Kings Way.

· Integrating and improving existing bike riding infrastructure to and from roundabouts in South Melbourne

Park Street tram extension

5.55 With the completion of Anzac Train Station in 2025, this station will improve access to South Melbourne from Melbourne’s north-western and south-eastern suburbs.

5.56 The Park Street tram extension project to complete 300m of ‘missing track’ will redirect trams from St Kilda Road along Park Street and Clarendon Street into the CBD. This will significantly increase trams and commuters traveling through South Melbourne, potentially encouraging greater visitation into South Melbourne.

5.57 The SMSP reflects Council’s Integrated Transport Strategy 2018-2028, and Domain Precinct Public Realm Masterplan 2019 which shows the delivery of the Park Street tram extension providing direct access to the new Anzac Station and more broadly improving access to South Melbourne from Greater Melbourne.

Theme 4: Public Spaces and Places

5.58 The key issues raised under Theme 4 related to provision of new open space, streetscape improvements and activation, and new event space.

5.59 There was support for creating new parks and green spaces for residents and workers, with some respondents suggesting that recommendations to increase biodiversity, plant more trees to reduce urban heat islands and sustainability should have a greater priority in the SMSP.

5.60 Establishing a piazza, square or event space at the South Melbourne Town Hall was supported.

5.61 Submissions also highlighted the opportunity to plant more street trees and incorporate more greening, improve street safety, and activate Clarendon Street, Park Street and laneways.

5.62 There was a suggestion that there is too much of a reliance on the South Melbourne Market as an attraction and driver of retail activity in South Melbourne.

Response to submissions

5.63 Theme 4 of the SMSP recommends several public realm objectives and actions. Some of the Public Realm actions will be delivered through the implementation of existing ongoing programs (such as the WSUD program) or operational budgets. The larger capital works projects (for example the Clarke Street reconfiguration) will require further feasibility analysis to inform future budget bids.

New open space

5.64 While the community values South Melbourne’s easy access to green and open spaces, consultation highlighted the community’s desire to increase greenery and open space for current and future generations.

5.65 Port Phillip’s Places for People: Public Space Strategy 2022-32 identifies the need for two new open spaces (one in the South Melbourne Activity Centre and one in the South Melbourne Enterprise Precinct). The SMSP identifies opportunities (to be further scoped to assess feasibility) for new open space, including:

· a new linear park on Market Street between Clarendon Street and Moray Street to enhance and increase business activity in the Enterprise Precinct.

· converting parts of Clarke Street between York Street and Chessell Street into a pedestrian priority area.

· as part of new State Government projects (including the Emerald Hill Estate) and transport and services infrastructure upgrades (tram stop upgrades and Market St reserve).

· improving pedestrian amenity in local streets and increase greening and upgrading local open spaces.

· updating the Emerald Hill Master Plan 2012, to guide the precinct’s reinvigoration, and re-establish this area as the cultural and civic heart of South Melbourne.

Streetscape improvements and activation

5.66 The public realm will have a vital role in supporting the South Melbourne Major Activity Centre (MAC) and Enterprise Precinct. Importantly, the public realm contributes to facilitating connections between workers across and within industries, while also encouraging businesses to locate in South Melbourne. This is particularly the case for South Melbourne’s industry specialisations, such as professional services and creative industries, where public realm improvements will support the clustering of similar industries.

5.67 The SMSP recommends preparation of a streetscape management plan to unify public space character in South Melbourne through the consistent use of materials, planting, lighting and street furniture.

New event space

5.68 The SMSP recommends the investigation of a new public space within South Melbourne (proximate to the Town Hall) to accommodate public outdoor events through the revision of the Emerald Hill Master Plan.

6. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

6.1 The SMSP has been informed by 3 phases of community consultation. Outside of these phases, engagement with stakeholders has occurred throughout the lifetime of the project.

6.2 The Phase 3 Engagement program enabled the community and stakeholders to make submissions on the SMSP to be considered by Council before its adoption.

6.3 It included a 5,700 letter mail out to land owners and occupiers, an article in Divercity, social media ads and the Have Your Say (HYS) webpage. Moreover, officers discussed the SMSP with all of Council’s Advisory Committees and held one to one meetings with community members and stakeholders.

6.4 In total, 66 written submissions and 90 respondents to the ‘Have Your Say and Mailout survey’ were received. Attachment 3 contains the Phase 3 Engagement Report which summarises the engagement process and outcomes.

6.5 The City of Port Phillip is on the traditional lands and waters of the people of the Kulin Nations. Their connection to country extends back more than 50,000 years. The South Melbourne Structure Plan recommends ongoing consultation and collaboration with Traditional Custodians to provide opportunities to embed Caring for Country principles in the design and management of open spaces.

7. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

7.1 The SMSP seeks to update the land use and development framework and planning controls for the SMSP area.

7.2 The draft AmC219port amendment documents have been prepared to ensure planning controls for the area are appropriate and up to date, mitigating the risks associated with outdated controls.

8. FINANCIAL IMPACT

8.1 The finalisation of the SMSP has been funded through the South Melbourne Structure Plan 23/24 budget.

8.2 The SMSP contains an implementation strategy which lists all the actions, each with an implementation timeframe and an allocated Council department responsible for implementation.

8.3 The implementation of Planning Scheme Amendment C219port will be funded through the 24/25 and 25/26 Planning Scheme Amendment program.

8.4 Most of the Public Realm actions will be delivered through the implementation of existing ongoing programs (such as the WSUD program), or through BAU budgets. Capital works projects (for example, the Clarke Street reconfiguration), would require further feasibility analysis before budget bids can be prepared. Some actions around advocacy (for the Ferrars Street Footbridge) do not require budget allocations.

8.5 Transport and Movement Actions will be delivered through a combination of existing ongoing program implementation, BAU and advocacy. Larger projects will require further feasibility analysis before budget bids can be prepared.

9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

9.1 The SMSP seeks to highlight and address key environmental issues in the area, including flood management and urban heat island effect. Delivering more sustainable buildings is also a key outcome of the draft SMSP.

10. COMMUNITY IMPACT

10.1 The SMSP seeks to guide future change and growth in ways that protect and enhance community values and character, and ensure it remains a great place to live, work and play.

11. Gender Impact Assessment

11.1 A Gender Impact Assessment was undertaken for this strategy early in the process and has informed standards and implementation.

12. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

12.1 Subject to Council’s adoption of the SMSP and endorsement to commence Planning Scheme Amendment C219port, Officers will finalise the amendment documentation and request authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the planning scheme amendment.

12.2 Should the Minister for Planning grant Council’s request for Authorisation, Council will commence formal Exhibition of the Amendment, pursuant to the statutory notification requirements contained in the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

13. OFFICER MATERIAL OR GENERAL INTEREST

13.1 A Strategic Planner involved in the South Melbourne Structure Plan, was previously employed by a submitter to the project. The officer had no involvement in responding to their submissions, nor attended any meetings which involved the previous employer.

ATTACHMENTS

1. SMSP Phase 3 Submissions and associated Officer Responses⇩

2. SMSP and list of changes⇩

3. Phase 3 Engagement Report⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 August 2024

11.1

Urban Forest Strategy for Adoption

Executive Member:

Tarnya McKenzie, Interim General Manager, Community Wellbeing and Inclusion

PREPARED BY:

Jennifer Witheridge, Urban Forest Planner

Dana Pritchard, Manager Open Space Recreation and Community Resilience

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To present the draft Urban Forest Strategy for adoption.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 We have developed a new Urban Forest Strategy, which will replace the Greening Port Phillip: An Urban Forest Approach Strategy 2010. Attachment 1: Draft Urban Forest Strategy (UFS)

2.2 The UFS has been developed through benchmarking, research, and community feedback.

2.3 The draft vision is - In the City of Port Phillip, urban greening is healthy and abundant, biodiversity is valued and supported, and nature connects community.

2.4 The engagement response included over 1200 unique visitors to the HYS page, with over 1700 views. A total of 49 participants provided feedback through the online survey (34), face to face meetings (11 – including 4 members of PECAN in one meeting) and four (4) written submissions from individuals and stakeholder groups. (Attachment 2)

2.5 From the engagement, the overall view of the strategy is:

· Between 90.3% and 93.8% of survey participants Strongly agree or Agree with Objectives 1 to 5.

· Measures and Targets for the five Objectives: between 79.4% and 90.3% of survey participants Support them all or Support most of the measures and targets.

· Actions proposed for the five Objectives: between 84.8% and 94.1% of survey participants support all or most of the actions.

2.6 Main themes of feedback included greening on private property, faster planting, more aggressive targets, equity across neighbourhoods, water management and permeability, biodiversity and indigenous species, Traditional Owner involvement, maintenance, community information about tree planting schedules.

2.7 It is expected that we will plant 1,500 trees and 50,000 biodiverse vegetation annually as part of the delivery of this strategy. This includes greening in capital projects.

2.8 Most actions can be delivered within current budget envelopes including – Greening Port Phillip Capital Program, Parks, Maintenance, Minor Capital works and Urban Forest Planning Team.

2.9 There is currently $7m in the adopted budget for 2024/25 allocated to greening the municipality. This is a combination of different council budget areas including capital programs, urban forest planning and parks services.

2.10 Each of our objectives are partnered with measures, baselines, targets and actions. Which will be used to set workplans and to measure success. Some baselines and targets will be finalised once further information is collected.

2.11 The draft UFS includes actions underway and new actions. It also recognises that continuing to deliver our everyday operational programs of work are essential to building a greener city.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Endorses and adopts the Urban Forest Strategy 2024-2040 (Attachment 1).

3.2 Notes that Greening Port Phillip: An Urban Forest Approach 2010 is now superseded by the adopted Urban Forest Strategy 2024-2040

3.3 Thanks the community for providing feedback on the draft Strategy.

3.4 Authorises the Chief Executive Officer, or their delegate, to make minor editorial updates to the adopted Strategy, if required.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

Background

4.1 The City of Port Phillip was one of the first Councils to develop its existing Greening Port Phillip: An Urban Forest Approach Strategy 2010 (GPP).

4.2 Since that time, urban forestry and urban greening have been recognised globally as a means to manage Urban Heat Island (UHI), water quality, improve health outcomes and as an important contributor for biodiversity, ecosystems and habitat.

4.3 The new UFS will deliver an integrated, long-term framework to guide the planning, provision, protection, integration, and management of the urban forest across Port Phillip. The new UFS will have a timeframe out to 2040 with regular review and evaluation periods.

4.4 On 1 November 2023 Council adopted the following Strategic Directions, which have formed the basis for the UFS development.

4.5 The UFS vision and principles are as follows:

Our 2040 Vision

In the City of Port Phillip, urban greening is healthy and abundant, biodiversity is valued and supported, and nature connects community.

Our shared principles

Collectively with Council, community, and industry partners:

1. We retain first, respecting established character, and adapt by adding more resilient plant species where they are most needed to reduce heat and flood vulnerabilities.

2. We invest in thriving integrated urban greening in streetscapes, buildings, parks, and gardens.

3. We work together to value, protect, grow and care for healthy and sustainable greening in streets, parks, gardens and private land.

4. We prioritise biodiversity, supporting healthy ecosystems and creating habitat.

5. We value the urban forest as a long-term asset that is critical to the health and wellbeing of our community and to our City’s character and function, through quality design, construction and maintenance.

4.6 On 5 June Council endorsed the draft UFS to go out to community engagement. The engagement was held between 10 June and 7 July 2024.

4.7 The feedback received through this process has been used to inform the final UFS, which has been finalised for Council to consider for adoption.

Engagement

4.8 The final round of community engagement on the draft UFS was open in June/July 2024.

4.9 During this engagement, the Draft UFS was made available on Council’s Have Your Say engagement platform and the consultation promoted widely through Council’s communications channels (e-newsletters, social media, signage, website) and via direct email to all those who had participated in prior rounds of engagement. Community members could provide feedback via an online survey, booking a direct meeting with Council officers and written submissions.

4.10 Participants were invited to indicate whether they agreed with the objectives, supported the measures and targets, supported the actions, and advise if anything is unclear or missing from the draft strategy. Participants were also asked which resources or supports encourage them to get more involved in greening Port Phillip.

4.11 Response to Communications social media strategy included 865 link clicks and a reach of 19,532. The video performed very well compared to other recent City of Port Phillip ads.

4.12 The engagement strategy resulted in a high number of visitors (over 1700) but a low number of people providing feedback (49). This is interpreted as people being generally satisfied with the project.

4.13 Based on the available demographic information overall, the consultation engaged a small albeit broad cross-section of community members. Participants represented most suburbs, all genders, all of the prescribed connections to Port Phillip, most age groupings, and some identified with diverse personal characteristics.

4.14 A majority of participants strongly agreed or agreed with each of the five (5) objectives, supported all or supported most measures and targets, and supported all or supported most actions.

4.15 From the engagement, the overall view of the strategy is:

· Between 90.3% and 93.8% of survey participants Strongly agree or Agree with Objectives 1 to 5.

· Measures and Targets for the five Objectives: between 79.4% and 90.3% of survey participants Support them all or Support most of the measures and targets.

· Actions proposed for the five Objectives: between 84.8% and 94.1% of survey participants support all or most of the actions.

4.16 Main themes of feedback included greening on private property, faster planting, more aggressive targets, equity across neighbourhoods, water management and permeability, biodiversity and indigenous species, Traditional Owner involvement, maintenance, community information about tree planting schedules.

Updates to the UFS

4.17 In response to the feedback on the draft UFS the following updates have been made:

· Created executive summary version of strategy

· Increased emphasis on equitable greening prioritisation throughout

· Reduced repetition and word length in full strategy.

· Provided updates in these areas:

o Intersection priorities with public space strategy

o Added reference to other Government agencies to action 8.

o Protection of existing trees – including separating action 15 around significant trees.

o How footpath renewal can increase permeability (action 19)

o $ value for trees added to section 6.2

o Retaining trees for habitat (action 30)

o Comment added about linking with adjacent Councils

o Added remnant vegetation term to glossary

· Changed phrasing of target on biodiversity to avoid mis-interpretation as reduction.

· Strengthened Traditional Owner engagement/involvement

· Included more detail on how Council currently supports community greening

· Changed engagement community targets to be more impactful, eg around type as well as number.

· Included incentives to action 23

· Included case studies to showcase community greening to action 26

· Share weed information as community resourced added to action 41

· Bringing forward implementation of action 27 - Investigate a public facing portal with tree and vegetation data

· Updating the implementation plan

4.18 Further details on how the feedback was used to inform the draft UFS are included in Attachment 3.

Measures and targets

4.19 Each of our objectives are partnered with baselines, measures, targets and actions.

4.20 There are a total of 18 measures with targets.

4.21 Some of the measures and targets require additional information to set, these have been incorporated into year 1 actions to deliver. The key gaps are outlined below:

· It is difficult to set a 2040 overall canopy target without a better understanding of what is happening on private land (which makes up 49% of our municipality). A big influence on private canopy cover will come through the ESD Planning Scheme amendment which is yet to be approved by the State Government, a favourable outcome will give improved certainty to be able to model canopy cover of private land.

· Some long-term targets will also be set once the precinct plans are developed, and biodiversity mapping has occurred. These plans will identify all planting locations/opportunities and areas where trees/vegetation cannot be planted (middle of roads, sports grounds, over services, under powerlines, near street corners etc).

· There are also some gaps in data, without which a baseline cannot be set, this includes the overall health of our trees and survival rate of new trees. While we work towards the baseline data for these areas, we are able to set the target of where we need to be in 2029 (85% healthy and surviving).

Actions

4.22 The strategy includes actions underway and new actions. It also recognises that continuing to deliver our everyday operational programs of work are essential to building a greener city.

4.23 Actions are a combination of direct on-ground greening actions (e.g. expand habitat corridors), enabling (support for planting on private land), advocacy (aerial powerline bundling), policy, supportive (e.g. review & improve establishment process of new vegetation planting) and strategic (e.g. develop precinct plans which will improve outcome of an existing core function street tree planting).

4.24 The UFS outlines the key actions to be delivered over the next five years. A review will be undertaken in 2028/29 financial year and a new five-year action plan set.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 Community engagement to inform this strategy included community workshops in May and October 2023, and broader engagement in July and August 2023. Participants directly contributed to the vision, principles and actions in this Strategy.

5.2 A further final broad community engagement was held in June and July 2024 to gain final feedback on the draft strategy.

5.3 Engagement has included:

· Have Your Say Surveys

· Precinct Community Workshops

· Mayors Round Table

· Neighbourhood conversations

· On-Site Pop Ups

· One on one conversations

· The Bunurong Land Council

5.4 Engagement reports can be found on the Have Your Say Page - Urban Forest Strategy Engagement

5.5 The engagement report has been published on the council website - Urban Forest Strategy | Have Your Say Port Phillip

5.6 The response to the engagement feedback and how we have incorporated the feedback into the final strategy has been published on the council website - Urban Forest Strategy | Have Your Say Port Phillip

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 No significant legal implications identified.

6.2 The UFS will include measurable outcomes and timeframes for Council to monitor the progress of the delivery of each action in the strategy. 

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 Most actions can be delivered within current budget envelopes including – Greening Port Phillip Capital Program, Parks, Maintenance, Minor Capital works and Urban Forest Planning Team.

7.2 It is estimated that $7m in funding is currently in the Council Budget to directly and indirectly deliver the Urban Forest Strategy in 24/25, with similar budget allocations annually for the life of the strategy.

7.3 Table 1: Budget allocated to Urban Forest Strategy Deliverables

7.4 Greening Port Phillip (GPP) capital program (within portfolio) is dedicated to delivering the Urban Forest Strategy. In 2024/25 there is $640k allocated. The budget breaks down into:

· planning (35%) - precinct plans, biodiversity mapping, infill list, expert advice, citizen science projects.

· planting (65%) - trees, vegetation, biodiverse planting, community planting days/programs.

7.5 The budget for GPP in years 1 and 4 have an increased spend towards planning. Years 2, 3 and 5 have over 80% allocation directly to planting.

7.6 In 24/25 increased planting will also occur within the Danks Street BioLink Project and Gasworks Park Upgrade, with over 13,000 plants and 220 trees planted across the two projects.

7.7 The budget includes a number of capital projects, the budget shows a drop in green funding allocation after the first two years. As designs progress for current and new projects the portfolio budgets will be updated accordingly. We expect similar funding allocation to Years 1 and 2 to occur in future years.

7.8 Any requests for other additional funding will be considered through future annual budget processes and will be linked to any future targets set.

7.9 The implementation of this strategy will increase tree numbers and areas of vegetation which will likely require increases in maintenance budgets over time.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 The UFS aims to:

· Increase canopy cover on streets to 30%

· Plant 1500 trees annually

· Plant 50,000 biodiverse vegetation per annum that support biodiversity

· De-pave 19,000sqm of non-permeable surfaces

8.2 Habitat loss and fragmentation is a main factor in the decline and disappearance of many species in Port Phillip and throughout Australia. Protecting and enhancing the biodiversity throughout Port Phillip benefits local plants and wildlife and encourages our urban forest to become more balanced, resilient and vibrant. The UFS will ensure that Council can protect and enhance our urban forest in the face of these challenges.

8.3 In Port Phillip, our urban forest is made up of all the trees and plants on public and private land and this is vital to maintaining comfortable urban environments for humans and non-humans alike. The UFS will ensure that Port Phillip has an urban forest that provides shade and cooling benefits, helping to mitigate the Urban Heat Island effect; supports biodiversity and wildlife with a diverse range of vegetation that helps support local wildlife and maintain our local ecosystems; and cleans our air and waterways.

8.4 The shared principles will ensure that the UFS has positive environmental impacts for Port Phillip, by protecting established trees, strengthening our City’s climate resilience, strengthening food security, encouraging a variety of plant species and reclaiming space for greening.

8.5 The new UFS will build upon the positive environmental impacts that Greening Port Phillip (GPP) has achieved, including an increase in tree canopy on public land, a decrease in loss of tree canopy on private land and the expansion of the concept of the ‘urban forest’ to include all vegetation on public and private land.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 The Urban Forest Strategy aims to create benefits across the community including:

· Reduction in Urban Heat Island Effect (cooling communities)

· Improving biodiversity and ecosystems

· Greening outcomes to mitigate against flooding

· Education programs to improve greening and outcomes for plants, birds, animals and insects

· Improve amenity, sense of place and opportunities for community connections

· Improved health and wellbeing outcomes

· Increased opportunities for community-led greening

10. Gender Impact Assessment

10.1 A GIA assessment was conducted at the commencement of the Urban Forest Strategy development. In addition, gender was considered as a part of all engagement activities and gender was recorded and reported on as appropriate during community engagements.

10.2 All related capital projects will undertake a gender impact assessment prior to design.

11. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

11.1 Council Plan 2021-31

Sustainable Port Phillip - Port Phillip has a sustainable future, where our environmentally aware and active community benefits from living in a bayside city that is greener, cooler, cleaner and climate resilient. 

We will provide - Urban forests to increase tree canopy, vegetation, greening and biodiversity and reduce urban heat, in line with Council’s Greening Port Phillip and Act and Adapt Strategies prioritised within available budgets each year 

11.2 Delivery of the UFS is a short-term action within the Places for People Public Space Strategy 2022-32.

11.3 The UFS aligns with the Act and Adapt: Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2028 (A&A). Council have recently reviewed the A&A and to ensure that there are matching targets in each strategy, the UFS targets will be added to A&A post adoption.

11.4 The UFS aligns to the Draft Housing Strategy in relation to actions for greening on private property and neighbourhood character.

12. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

12.1 TIMELINE

12.1.1 The accountability for implementing this strategy is assigned across the City of Port Phillip’s resources. The primary responsibility sits with the Open Space, Recreation and Community Resilience department through Council’s Annual Business Plan and Budget over the next five years.

12.1.2 The strategy has a 5-year action plan. For adaptive management every five years there will be a detailed review of progress and update for the next five years of actions and targets to match the ongoing commitment to 2040. This cyclic, stepped process will include 5 yearly monitoring updates of canopy cover change detection and biodiversity monitoring. Actions required for this monitoring and reporting have been included within the action and implementation plan.

12.2 COMMUNICATION

12.2.1 The website will be updated.

12.2.2 All stakeholders involved in the development of the strategy will be notified of the outcome of this Council meeting.

12.2.3 Actions requiring community engagement will have community engagement developed as a part of the project.

13. OFFICER MATERIAL OR GENERAL INTEREST

13.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Urban Forest Strategy Final Draft Aug 24⇩

2. Stage 2B Consultation Findings Report⇩

3. Response to Community Engagement Draft Urban Forest Strategy July 24⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 August 2024

11.2

Environmentally Sustainable Development Strategy

Executive Member:

Brian Tee, General Manager, City Growth and Development

PREPARED BY:

Shivani Desai, Principal Environmentally Sustainable Design

Beth McLachlan, Head of Sustainability and Climate Change

Helen Pritchard, Sustainable Design Planner

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To seek council endorsement of the Environmentally Sustainable Development Strategy 2024.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 As City of Port Phillip is the most densely populated municipality in Victoria, embedding ESD across the municipality has the potential for significant benefit. 

2.2 The existing Sustainable Design Strategy dated 2013 expired in 2020. The aim of the strategy was to ensure that buildings in Port Phillip are well designed to minimise environmental impact. 

2.3 In recent years, Council’s strategic context has evolved with the development of the Act and Adapt: Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2028, a declaration of a Climate Emergency in 2019 and the development of a Climate Emergency Action Plan in 2023.

2.4 On 1 November 2023, Council endorsed the Act and Adapt Sustainable Environment Strategy 2023-2028, which included a commitment to ‘update our Sustainable Design Strategy to highlight the minimum standards for new building and tenants in renter buildings’.

2.5 The updated Sustainable Design Strategy is renamed Environmentally Sustainable Development Strategy 2024 (included in Attachment 1) for clarity of scope and it:

2.5.1 Set standards for all new buildings and provides guidance on retrofitting existing buildings for Council building and provides guidance for private buildings.

2.5.2 Provides a central point of reference for matters relating to ESD in buildings in the municipality, consolidating and expanding existing commitments and resources. 

2.6 The Environmentally Sustainable Development Strategy 2024 (ESD Strategy) applies to Council buildings where Council maintains operational control. If a property is tenanted and Council’s responsibility is limited to the structural integrity of the building, then the ESD strategy is not applicable and the Green Tenancy Guidelines apply. 

2.7 The new ESD Strategy aligns with the ESD Elevating Targets Planning scheme amendment, which is with Minister for Planning and awaiting authorisation. The proposed planning scheme amendment, endorsed by Council on 15 June 2022, is a collaboration between CASBE, City of Port Phillip and 23 other councils.

2.8 A review of a selection of current council projects against the standards demonstrates that council projects currently provide good ESD outcomes. It also showed that the cost impact to meet the Strategy requirements is generally less than 1% of total project cost in each case.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Endorse the Environmentally Sustainable Development Strategy 2024 (Attachment 1).

3.2 Endorse Part B of the strategy concerning Private Developments for guidance only until the Elevating Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) planning scheme amendment is approved by the Minister for Planning.

3.3 Notes Part B will be consulted on and updated as part of the ESD planning scheme amendment process once approved by the Minister for Planning and gazetted.  

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 There are approximately 63,000 dwellings within Port Phillip and the recently released Victorian Government draft housing target is for an additional 56,000 dwellings by 2051. Commercial development and redevelopment of existing properties will also continue to grow.

4.2 Typically, developments constructed now will still be in use in 2050 and beyond, impacting the municipality’s sustainability for many decades to come. The provision of sustainable design outcomes now will benefit current and future generations.

Background - Elevating ESD targets project

4.3 The Elevating Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Targets Project (ESD Project) is led by the Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment (CASBE). The project builds on existing ESD Policies of numerous councils to deliver revised and elevated ESD targets for developments, including targets for zero carbon development.

4.4 In June 2021, the City of Port Phillip signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to collaborate with CASBE on the ESD Project, in partnership with 31 Victorian councils. Council officers participate in the ESD Project working group.

4.5 Stage 1 of the project involved developing revised objectives and standards to update ESD requirements for new developments. This included:

· analysis and strategic justification to support updated objectives and standards

· independent review of the draft ESD objectives and standards

· 15 case studies from the participating councils to test the technical and development feasibility and economic implications of the revised standards.

4.6 Stage 2 pursued a collective planning scheme amendment (PSA) that introduces the objectives and standards for zero carbon development and elevates ESD targets within planning schemes. On 15 June 2022 CoPP endorsed participation in the planning scheme amendment. The Planning Scheme Amendment is with the Minister for Planning. There are 24 Victorian Councils participating in this amendment process.

4.7 The changes in the Planning Scheme Amendment underpin this review of the Environmental Sustainability Development Strategy and seeks that new developments:

· Operate with net zero carbon emissions.

· Reduce household bills by making buildings more energy efficient.

· Provide a healthier and more comfortable environment for building occupants.

· Better manage water quality, use and collection.

· Protect and enhance greening and biodiversity.

· Be more resilient to changing climate impacts.

Background - Environmentally Sustainable Development

4.8 The City of Port Phillip first developed a Sustainable Design Strategy in 2006 to establish minimum ESD standards for Council buildings.

4.9 The current Sustainable Design Strategy , adopted by Council on 13 August 2013, aims to ensure that buildings in Port Phillip are environmentally sustainable developments (ESD) and to minimise their environmental impact.

4.10 In November 2015 Port Phillip had our first ESD Policy gazetted as a part of the Planning Scheme. Prior to 2015 the existing strategy was used by council’s statutory planners and the development community to guide strong ESD outcomes.

4.11 The current Sustainable Design Strategy is due for an update:

· As it expired in 2020

· To reflect Council’s 15 June 2022 decision to seek elevated ESD targets in a Planning Scheme Amendment (PSA)

· To meet Council’s commitment in the Act and Adapt Sustainable Environment Strategy 2023-2028, to ‘update our Sustainable Design Strategy to highlight the minimum standards for new building and tenants in renter buildings’.

4.12 Council committed $100k in the 23/24 budget to review and update the Sustainable Desing Strategy and undertake an audit of Council’s buildings to identify opportunities to enhance ESD performance.

Development of Environmentally Sustainable Development Strategy 2024

4.13 The purpose of updating the Strategy is to:

· Better align with the content in the elevating ESD Targets PSA project and identify and address gaps.

· Ensure clear guidance for Council buildings is available to Project Managers.

· Provide guidance for private development not covered by the planning scheme ESD requirements (for example single dwellings and large extensions)

· Provide guidance material to prepare the community for the upcoming changes once the planning scheme amendment is finalised.

4.14 In this strategy the ESD requirements are dependent on size of the development.

4.15 The Strategy is separated into two parts:

4.15.1 Part A- Sets Council Buildings ESD Standards. The ESD Strategy’s only applies to Council buildings where Council maintains operational control. If a property is tenanted and Council’s responsibility is limited to the structural integrity of the building, the ESD strategy is not applicable and Green Tenancy Guidelines apply. 

4.15.2 Part B- Provides ESD guidance for private developments to support achievement of planning controls, and advice on best practice where ESD planning controls do not exist.

4.16 Part A and Part B strategy will be accompanied by supporting documents (see below). The strategy is to be reviewed every 4 years, but as reforms occur, the supporting documents can be updated more regularly.

4.17 This strategy does not propose higher ESD requirements (in Part B) for private development than those approved by Council in June 2022 through the Elevating ESD Targets Planning Scheme Amendment, being considered by the Minister for Planning. The strategy provides private developments guidance on how to achieve the PSA requirements and guidance for those not covered by the planning controls. (refer to Table 9 in Attachment 1).

4.18 The ESD requirements proposed for council’s building projects are generally aligned with those for private development set through the PSA. This includes achieving net-zero emissions from building operations and ensuring high standards of energy and water efficiency (refer to Table 2 in Attachment 1 for full list). Table below outlines and explains where the requirements for new Council buildings (and new additions) are more explicit than the PSA.

4.19 Table One- Requirements for Council Buildings – New and Additions, that are more specific than the PSA

ESD Focus Area	Applies to Small-Moderate / Standard Projects (100-1000sqm GFA) & Major / Complex Projects (>1000sqm GFA)	Justification
Certification/Rating	Achieve a BESS 'Excellence' overall score of 70% or greater	This is a tool to achieve the PSA standards. Most Council projects already achieve this score.
Building fabric efficiency	Thermal fabric reduces heating and cooling energy consumption to achieve at least a 10% improvement compared to the reference case (NCC Section J)	The PSA has a standard to ‘prioritise passive design to reduce energy consumption’. This requirement is to ‘prioritise the passive design’. This requirement is consistent with Council’s best practice standards for private developments – as included on Council’s webpage.
No refrigerant emissions	Minimise all refrigerants’ emissions. Refrigerants with Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 10 or less are specified where feasible.	The PSA has a standard to ‘achieve net zero carbon emissions’. This requirement is a measure to reduce carbon emissions and is only applicable to projects renewing the HVAC systems or installing new ones.
Construction waste minimisation	A minimum of 80% of construction and demolition waste is diverted from landfill.	The PSA has a standard to ‘increase consideration for construction waste streams’. This requirement provides a specific measure to divert waste from landfill. Most CoPP projects and private developments already achieve this requirement.
	Additional ESD Standards and Targets for Major / Complex Projects (>1000sqm GFA)	Justification
Certification/Rating	Consider 5 Star Green Star Buildings rating or Passivhaus certification for significant building projects where Council seeks to lead by example.	To be considered only for exemplary council projects. This will need to be evaluated for each project and the decision will be documented by the Project Manager.
Stormwater Quality	Improve the quality of stormwater discharging from the site. For major developments the following targets will be explored: · Suspended solids: 85 per cent reduction · Phosphorus: 65 per cent reduction · Nitrogen: 45 per cent reduction · Litter: 90 per cent reduction	Higher requirement encouraged for major developments to contribute to achieving the initiatives set in Act and Adapt Strategy 2023-28 Priority 1 – A Water Sensitive City.

4.20 The requirements for Council buildings - Upgrade and Renewal Projects are the same as for new buildings however they recognise that there may be limitations achieving the requirement due to the scope of what is being upgraded / renewed (refer to Table 3 in Attachment 1 for full list).

4.21 Council’s building projects already factor ESD into their key design considerations. However, there is no ‘up to date’ strategic framework to guide project managers to deliver ESD to a consistent standard.

4.22 The strategy addresses implementation, roles and responsibilities, monitoring and evaluation.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 Internal consultation was undertaken with the Buildings and Assets and Project Delivery teams.

5.2 CoPP has worked with CASBE and 23 other councils to develop the ESD elevating targets and to prepare the planning scheme amendment currently with the Minister for Planning for authorisation.

5.3 Part B of this strategy, relating to private development, will be made available for public consultation along with the planning scheme amendment exhibition. That way Council can align the Strategy with the amended Planning Scheme requirements.

5.4 In the interim the Strategy will be made available on the ESD web page of CoPP.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 This project addresses Council’s obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 to:

· Promote sustainability of the municipal district, including mitigation and planning for climate change risks; and

· Give priority to achieving the best outcomes for the municipal community, including future generations.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 The ESD Strategy Development Project has budget allocated in 24/25, 25/26, 26/27 and 27/28.

7.2 Greener buildings, built with higher energy and water efficiency, have lower operational costs.

7.3 The cost of implementation of the Strategy’s requirements will not be significant because Council currently incorporates ESD into most of its building projects. This has been tested by an assessment of the proposed Strategy requirements in relation to five current Council building projects across each of the Strategy’s project categories.

ESD Strategy Project Category

Category 1

New and Additions (Major / Complex Projects) >1000sqm GFA

Category 1

New and Additions (Major / Complex Projects) >1000sqm GFA

Category 2

New and Additions (Small-Moderate / Standard Projects) 100-1000sqm GFA

Category 3

Upgrade and Renewal (Major / Complex Projects) >70% GFA

Category 4

Upgrade and Renewal (Small-Moderate / Standard Projects) <70% GFA

7.4 The assessment highlighted that our current projects are providing good ESD outcomes in relation to the following requirements of the Strategy:

· Building electrification

· Building fabric efficiency

· Provision of on-site renewable energy

· Water efficiency & stormwater quality

· Construction waste minimisation.

7.5 For some requirements of the Strategy, such as urban heat mitigation and the use of low emissions refrigerants, our projects are close to achieving a good outcome but greater consistency in applying these requirements is necessary. The updated ESD Strategy, which will provide clear and consistent guidance to our project managers.

7.6 Urban heat mitigation is also an example of where relatively minor changes that do not have significant cost impacts are required to achieve compliance. It can be achieved via appropriate material colour selection (light-coloured materials for roofing and other surfaces) at the design stage and by ensuring that the specification is documented.

7.7 The assessment demonstrated that for the following requirements of the Strategy, some change to our routine practice would be required:

· Upfront Embodied Carbon Reduction: Some projects include commitments to use materials with lower embodied carbon but this is not consistently applied. For this requirement, Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) are necessary to provide an evidence base for embodied carbon reduction.

· Climate Change Risk and Adaptation Assessment: This requirement will enable project managers to properly understand site-specific or local risks, thereby resulting in a design that responds appropriately. This will enhance the resilience of the asset, reducing future climate-related impact costs.

· Enabling Inclusive Construction: Several projects achieved this requirement, but changes to practice to ensure it is consistently fulfilled will be required. Fulfilling this requirement involves addressing two parts: Provision of gender inclusive bathroom and changing facilities, and implementation of gender inclusive workplace policies during construction. It will be addressed at the procurement stage for construction contractors and is not expected to have a significant cost impact.

· Green Infrastructure: This coverage target requirement varies dependant on the site characteristics. For large sites the green infrastructure requirements can be achieved with existing vegetation that can be retained eg: council projects within existing reserves. On smaller sites, with less vegetation, building-based green infrastructure such as green roofs may be appropriate, along with ground landscaping, to achieve the coverage target.

7.8 The requirements, once implemented, are projected to result in operational cost savings. CASBE’s Sustainability Planning Amendment – Cost Benefit Analysis (07/05/2024 – SGS Economics) found that every $1 spent on ESD upgrades will produce $1.52 worth of benefits.

7.9 The assessment found that the cost impact to meet the Strategy requirements is less than 1% of total project costs.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 Environmentally sustainable development that uses renewable energy and water efficiently will reduce the negative impact of energy and water demands on the natural environment.

8.2 Implementation of enhanced ESD approaches will reduce the use of fossil fuel-based energy by households, businesses and for transport. This will result in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

8.3 The proposed changes could increase canopy cover from vegetation and landscaping, which has positive ecosystem benefits such as improved biodiversity and mitigation of urban heat impacts.

8.4 Improved onsite management of stormwater quantity and quality prior to discharge from development sites will reduce the impact on the bay and waterways.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 Increased efficiency of buildings will decrease operating costs of new buildings and help realise a lower cost of living for tenants and owners.

9.2 Improving ESD outcomes at a building scale will benefit health and liveability by providing healthy indoor environments, greener and cooler outdoor environments where natural elements are preserved and enhanced.

9.3 The addition of a community resilience objective will mean that developments will be designed to support a future community to adapt to the impact of climate change, including heat, flooding, and sea level rise.

SOCIAL IMPACT

9.4 When surveyed in 2023 about which selected issues Council should focus on, 78% of our community stated that ‘encouraging sustainable buildings and home’ was ‘very important’.

9.5 The private building (Part B) section of the Strategy aims to support the community to meet their obligations under the proposed Elevating ESD Targets Planning Scheme Amendment or for those buildings not covered it provides best practice guidance.

10. Gender Impact Assessment

10.1 Gender Impact assessment was undertaken and has informed standards and implementation as detailed below.

10.2 Gender Impact Assessment for the ESD Strategy outlines the people lens to be applied to the design approach for council buildings to be delivered through project specific GIAs. The Strategy objective includes – ‘Create healthy and liveable indoor environments for people of all genders, ages, backgrounds and abilities' by considering thermal comfort, air quality and daylight access.’

10.3 Strategy Standards include –

· Climate Change Risk and Adaptation Assessment - Development of a project-specific Climate Change Risk and Adaptation Assessment for the building informed by a project-specific site investigation using Council's climate risk datasets, with 'High' and 'Extreme' risks addressed through specific design responses. This assessment must account for people of all genders, ages, backgrounds, and abilities.

· Inclusive construction enabled - During the construction phase require provision of inclusive facilities for workers with supporting workplace policies to enable gender-inclusive construction work sites.

· Roles and responsibilities for PMs - Undertake Gender Impact Assessment (GIA) for each project.

· Monitoring and Evaluation - Commission a literature review and analysis of research into the gender-related impacts of ESD. This will then inform specific people-centred design considerations when we incorporate ESD principles into council building projects.

11. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

11.1 The strategy aligns with the Council Plan Strategic Direction 3- Sustainable Port Phillip.

11.2 This Strategy update addresses the Act and Adapt Strategy Action 27 – ‘Update our Sustainable Design Strategy to highlight the minimum standards for new buildings and tenants in rented buildings.’. It also helps achieve many other Act and Adapt actions directly and indirectly.

12. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

12.1 TIMELINE

12.1.1 Officer will continue delivery of the actions listed in the strategy, to improve council processes and increase awareness in the community.

12.1.2 All council buildings will be built to the standards set by the strategy.

12.1.3 Once the planning scheme amendment is gazetted, officers will assess if the strategy needs to be updated to reflect any major changes to the planning scheme through its approval processes.

12.2 COMMUNICATION

12.2.1 The strategy will be available on our website for community to access.

12.2.2 Once authorisation is received by the Minister for Planning, for the Elevating ESD Targets Planning Scheme Amendment, community consultation (exhibition) on the amendment will commence. Community will be informed about the impact on this strategy at this exhibition.

13. OFFICER MATERIAL OR GENERAL INTEREST

13.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Environmentally Sustainable Design Strategy 2024⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 August 2024

13.1

Carlisle Street Car Park and Laneways - Intention to Sell

Executive Member:

Lachlan Johnson, General Manager, Operations and Infrastructure

PREPARED BY:

Vicki Tuchtan, Acting Manager Property and Assets

Anthony Savenkov, Head of Real Estate Portfolio (Development & Transactions)

James Ackroyd, Property Development Associate

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To commence the statutory procedures to prepare the land comprising the public carpark and laneways of the Carlisle Street Carpark to be sold to Coles Group Property Developments Ltd (“the Applicant”) for no less than market value by private treaty to undertake a major redevelopment of the precinct.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 Council owns several land parcels and roads in the block bordered by Carlisle, Nelson, Alfred, and Camden Streets, Balaclava (‘the Precinct’):

2.2 The land parcels and roads are:

2.2.1 Land parcel known as 2-8 Alfred Street, Balaclava.

2.2.2 Land parcel known as 49-53 Nelson Street, Balaclava.

2.2.3 Laneway R3743 that is part of the land which is contained in Memorial No 975 Book 539.

2.2.4 Laneway R3979 that comprises land Title Vol 8945 Fol 006 Title Plan 438679C.

2.2.5 Laneways R3977 and R4141 that comprise Title Vol 00268 Fol 542 Title Plan 923236K.

2.3 The Applicant intends to undertake a mixed-use development of significant scale in the Precinct.

2.4 Council has been approached by the Applicant to purchase several land parcels and roads in the Precinct.

2.5 The development proposes replacing the existing neighbourhood Coles supermarket with a major “full line” supermarket, as well as supporting retail, basement car parking and including housing and public open space.

2.6 Such development would help realise the vision set out in Council’s 2009 Carlisle Street Retail Renewal Precinct Structure Plan.

2.7 The area of land parcels and roads they are interested in is approximately 2,240m².

2.8 The land parcels they are interested in are shown shaded yellow in the plan below.

2.9 The roads they are interested in are shown shaded yellow in the plan below.

2.10 Officers propose that Council consider selling the Roads and Land to the Applicant for no less than market value, and with an obligation to:

i) Retain access and egress from Nelson Street to the rear of the Carlisle Street shops in the Precinct.

ii) Retain access and egress to the existing at-grade car parks until the substantial commencement of development.

iii) Undertake a major mixed-use development, including residential component, to include: a full-line supermarket, public toilet facilities, and replacement of the existing at-grade parking spaces with basement car parking.

2.11 Council is required to carry out statutory procedures where it intends to sell land or to discontinue and transfer roads, including giving public notice of the intention, and hear any submissions received in this regard, prior to a decision to discontinue any road.

2.12 Any future sale of land in discontinued roads involves Council resolving to remove the Roads from the Register, following a statutory consultation process.

2.13 The Land comprising the car parks at 2-8 Alfred Street and 49-53 Nelson Street which is proposed to be sold to the Applicant also needs to be the subject of statutory “Intention to Sell” public consultation process.

2.14 Council is requested to endorse the commencement of statutory public consultation in relation to these matters.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

In respect of Roads:

3.1 Acting under section 17(4) of the Road Management Act 2004 (Vic), resolves that Laneways R3743, R3979, R3977, and R4141 be removed from Council’s Register of Public Roads on the basis that the Roads are no longer reasonably required for general public use;

3.2 Acting under clause 3 of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Vic) (‘the 1989 Act’):

3.2.1 Resolves that the statutory procedures be commenced to discontinue the Roads;

3.2.2 Directs that under sections 207A and 223 of the 1989 Act, public notice of the proposed discontinuance of the Roads be given in The Age newspaper;

3.2.3 Resolves that the public notice required to be given under sections 207A and 223 of the 1989 Act should state that if the Roads are discontinued, Council proposes to sell the land in the Roads to an adjoining property owner, Coles Group Property Developments Ltd (‘the Applicant’), for no less than market value;

3.2.4 Authorises the Chief Executive Officer, or their delegate, to undertake the administrative procedures necessary to enable Council to carry out its functions under section 223 of the 1989 Act in relation to this matter; and

3.2.5 Resolves to hear and consider any submissions received pursuant to section 223 of the 1989 Act at a future Council meeting.

In respect of Land parcels:

3.3 Acting under S114 of the Local Government Act 2020 (Vic) (‘the 2020 Act’) resolves to commence the statutory processes required to sell land parcels known as 2-8 Alfred Street and 49-53 Nelson Street, Balaclava, by private treaty, to the Applicant, for no less than market value;

3.4 Advertises the Public Notice of Intention to Sell land parcels on Council’s website in accordance with Section 114 (2) (b) of the 2020 Act;

3.5 Authorises the Chief Executive Officer, or their delegate, to enter a S173 Agreement with the Applicant that will deliver transaction objectives and transaction terms;

3.6 Authorises Officers to undertake the administrative procedures necessary to enable Council to carry out its functions under section 114 of the Act in relation to the sale proposal and in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Policy 2021; and

3.7 Following the consideration of any submissions, receives a further report at an Ordinary Meeting of Council.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

The land location and areas

4.1 City of Port Phillip owns property within the Balaclava Retail Renewal Precinct at 2-8 Alfred Street and 49-53 Nelson Street Balaclava.

4.2 City of Port Phillip also owns land which forms roads in the Renewal Precinct.

4.3 The title references for the land and roads are noted in the table below:

4.4 On 20 November 2019, Council resolved to commence the process of negotiating and transacting its properties to foster staged renewal of the Balaclava Retail Renewal Precinct.

4.5 Officers sought public submissions under S114 of the 2020 Act, including public notices of its intention to sell or exchange the Properties, seeking submissions from the community on its intention.

4.6 Officers sought public submissions on the intended sale of a parcel at 39-47 Camden Street that was later sold to Woolworths for the future redevelopment of an expanded supermarket.

4.7 The remaining Council properties which are listed in 4.3 above, lie to the north and east in an area bounded by Carlisle, Camden, Alfred, and Nelson Streets, Balaclava.

Neighbouring land ownership and recent activity

4.8 The land adjacent to the remaining Council properties was owned until 2023 by Blue Chip Property Holdings, with Coles Supermarkets as the anchor tenant.

4.9 Discussions took place in 2021 and 2022 between Blue Chip, their development partner and manager GLG Properties, and Council officers in relation to a potential sale of the remaining Council properties, subject to Agreement.

4.10 Terms were not formally agreed.

4.11 In March 2023, Blue Chip sold its entire interest to its major tenant, Coles Group Property Developments Ltd.

4.12 Since its acquisition, Coles have appointed a consultant team comprising Rothe Lowman (Architect), Planning and Property Partners (Town Planning), and Pomeroy Pacific (Development Advisors) to commence master-planning.

4.13 Coles have presented a concept development masterplan that seeks to benefit and rejuvenate the precinct via a major mixed-use development.

4.14 A development application has not yet been made.

4.15 Following an unsolicited approach, officers requested that Coles demonstrate how via development a disposal of Council properties could meet Council’s objectives.

4.16 Coles have expressed a willingness to engage with Council on the delivery of its objectives.

Strategic opportunity

4.17 The use of Council’s strategic land holdings (at-grade car parks and roads) within the precinct to facilitate development in partnership with other landowners and business operators has the aspirations of:

i) Contemporary “full line” supermarket facilities.

ii) Additional speciality retail floor space at street level.

iii) Potential for additional commercial and / or community space, including public open space.

iv) Capacity for new higher density affordable housing on upper levels with a focus on dwelling diversity.

v) High level of physical integration with the Carlisle Street retail strip and re-establishment of active retail edges along Camden and Nelson Streets and laneways.

vi) Replacement of the existing at-grade car parks with basement level parking.

vii) Replacement of existing public toilet within the proposed new development.

4.18 Coles’ concept and proposal seeks to unlock the higher and better use for the land and create a legacy project for the precinct.

4.19 The aspirations listed are proposed to be met as a condition of sale.

Securing the transaction objectives

4.20 Officers propose that transaction objectives are secured by enforceable conditions of sale being the inclusion of a S173 Agreement addressing the following commitments:

i) Undertake a significant development including a new Full Line Supermarket and residential component.

ii) Replacement of existing surface level public car parks with at least the same number of publicly accessible basement spaces, with equivalent time permissions, and no obligation to shop.

iii) New public toilet facilities within the development.

iv) Public open space contribution.

v) Retention of existing at-grade service access and egress to the rear of Carlisle Street shops via Nelson Street.

Unrealised value

4.21 The land’s zoning suggests that it has higher value than current use.

4.22 The properties have been identified as potential development opportunities in Council’s 2009 Carlisle Street Retail Renewal Precinct Structure Plan.

4.23 The Structure Plan’s directions have subsequently been incorporated into the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, further entrenching the City’s expectations for future development.

4.24 The 2018 Carlisle Street Carparks Strategy, part of the Carlisle Street Activity Centre Structure Plan and City of Port Phillip Planning scheme, establishes the vision and strategies that reflect how Council would like to see the area develop.

4.25 The value inherent in the development potential of the land could be realised by selling the site.

4.26 Proceeds of a sale would be allocated to the Strategic Property Reserve, to be reinvested by buying new Council property, or improving Council’s existing properties.

4.27 To ensure transparency and best value, sale of Council land is ordinarily by competitive public process.

4.28 Due to the configuration of the land, and the extensive neighbouring land holdings by Coles which surround the site, it is proposed to sell the land by private treaty to the Applicant.

4.29 It is judged the synergistic value and benefits that could be realised by transacting the Council’s land to a single neighbouring party who has a proven track record of large scale, mixed-use development makes the case for private treaty sale compelling.

4.30 Prior to making a final decision on whether to sell the land, it is required by section 114 of the 2020 Act to publish a notice of its intention to sell, and to engage the community on this intention.

Road discontinuances

4.31 As part of the road network, rights of way and laneways were developed to satisfy a historical need and were documented in early plans of subdivision.

4.32 In most cases a road is still required for access or other strategic purposes and should remain open to the public, however Council may support its discontinuance (permanent closure) of a road within its municipality if it is considered in the bests interest of the community.

4.33 Unless the subject road is on Crown land, the land vests in Council and Council can subsequently sell the land from the discontinued road or retain it for other municipal purposes.

4.34 If the land is subsequently sold, it is generally sold at current market value for the land unless exceptional circumstances deem a different basis of value is appropriate.

4.35 Any discontinuance and sale of a road is to be carried out according to provisions of clause 3, Schedule 10 of the 1989 Act, and Council’s Discontinuance and Sale of Roads Policy (Policy).

4.36 As an adjoining owner to Roads R3743, R3977, R3979 and R4141, the Applicant has requested that Council discontinues and sells the Roads to them (Proposal).

Road R3743 - North / south road off Alfred St / rear 49-53 Nelson Street, Balaclava

4.37 The Road is show below on the locality plan (highlighted red). There are three titled properties abutting this laneway namely 49-53 Nelson Street (Council owned and managed public car park), 2-8 Alfred Street Balaclava (Council owned and managed public car park) and 55-57 Nelson Street Balaclava (car park owned by the Applicant).

R3743 (above)

4.38 The Road is a non-demarcated strip within a public car park and comprises approximately 44sqm.

4.39 The land is dedicated as a “road” on title, noting the name on title is that of the Original Subdivider) and is also noted as a “road” on title of the abutting properties at part 2-8 Alfred Street and part 49-53 Nelson Street Balaclava (both Council owned). Title ref is Memorial No 975 Book 539 (Original Subdivider).

4.40 The road in not encumbered by any Easements on title.

4.41 A site inspection of the Road was conducted by James Ackroyd on 21 June 2024.

4.42 The site inspection notes that:

4.42.1 The Road is constructed as part of an asphalt car park surface.

4.42.2 The Road is used by vehicles parking within the existing at-grade car park.

4.42.3 The Road can be accessed by pedestrians and vehicles. It is too narrow for vehicles to use it as an exclusive access route to other roads.

4.42.4 The discontinuance and sale of this road in the context of consolidating other land parcels within the Precinct with requirement to retain access is proposed.

4.43 Council is the registered proprietor of the adjoining properties at 2-8 Alfred Street and 49-53 Nelson Street Balaclava.

4.44 The only other directly adjoining owner is the Applicant who owns property used as a car park, immediately to the South, at 55-57 Nelson Street Balaclava.

4.45 Feedback has been sought from various Council teams who are supportive of its discontinuance and consolidation as this will facilitate the car parks’ strategic redevelopment in this important central activity centre location.

Road R3979 - North / south road Rear 54 Camden St & 10-18 Alfred St, Balaclava

4.46 The Road is show below on the locality plan (highlighted red). There are several titled properties abutting this Road namely 54 Camden Street, a Coles supermarket, and 10-18 Alfred Street, a car park, and Roads R3977 and R4141 to the immediate south.

R3979 (above)

4.47 The Road comprises a concrete pavement of approximately 269sqm.

4.48 The Road is not dedicated as a “road” on title and is not noted as a “road” on title to the abutting properties. Rather it is a freehold parcel of land owned by Council.

4.49 The name on title is City of Port Phillip, Title Plan No TP438679C.

4.50 There are two titled properties abutting this road namely 54 Camden Street, a Coles Supermarket to the west and 10-18 Alfred Street, a car park, to the east, both owned by the Applicant.

4.51 To the south are Roads R3979 and R4141.

4.52 The Road is available for pedestrians and vehicles accessing Council owned and managed car parks in the Precinct and circulation of traffic in the Precinct.

4.53 The Road is considered to be a public highway for the purposes of common law, under the RMA.

4.54 The road in not encumbered by any Easements on title.

4.55 A site inspection of the Roads was conducted by James Ackroyd on 21 June 2024.

4.56 The site inspection notes that:

4.56.1 The Road is constructed as part of an asphalt car park roadway.

4.56.2 The Road can be accessed by pedestrians and vehicles.

4.56.3 The Road is used by vehicles to access the neighbouring at-grade car park.

4.56.4 The Road facilitates access to abutting properties and Road R3977.

4.56.5 The discontinuance and sale of this road in the context of consolidating other land parcels within the Precinct with requirement to retain access is proposed.

4.57 The Applicant is the registered proprietor of the adjoining properties at 10-18 Alfred Street, which is used as a car park, and 54 Camden Street, which is used as a supermarket.

4.58 Feedback has been sought from various Council teams who are supportive of its discontinuance and consolidation as this will facilitate the car parks’ strategic redevelopment in this important central activity centre location.

Roads R3977 and R4141 - East / west road rear 234 to 260 Carlisle St, Balaclava

4.59 The Roads are shown below on the locality plan (highlighted red). There are several titled properties abutting these Roads namely (rear of) properties between 234 and 260 Carlisle Street, Council properties comprising car parks at 2-8 Alfred Street, a property at 54 Camden Street occupied by the existing Coles Supermarket, and a Council owned Road R3979 which runs north to Alfred Street.

R4141 (above)

R3977 (above)

4.60 R4141 is constructed in bluestone paving. R3977 is asphalt pavement. The Roads have a combined area of around 260sqm.

4.61 The Roads are dedicated as “road” on title and noted as a “road” on title to the abutting properties.

4.62 The name on title is that of the Original Subdivider. Title ref is Vol. 00268 Fol 542.

4.63 The roads abut the rear of 234 to 260 Carlisle Street Balaclava. The Roads form part of the Precinct.

4.64 Both Roads are available for pedestrians and vehicles.

4.65 Road R4141 connects with Road R3977 to the east and is a dead end to the west terminating at the rear of 54 Camden Street.

4.66 Road R3977 connects with Roads R4141 to the west and R3979 to the north. On title, the eastern end terminates at the boundary of land in the ownership of the Applicant which forms part of the Council managed car park. Physically, the road connects with the east-west thoroughfare within the council managed car park across the Applicant’s land, leading to and from Nelson Street.

4.67 The Roads are considered to be a public highway for the purposes of common law, under the RMA.

4.68 The roads are not encumbered by any Easements on title.

4.69 A site inspection of the Roads was conducted by James Ackroyd on 21 June 2024.

4.70 The site inspection notes that:

4.70.1 The Roads are constructed as part of an asphalt car park roadway.

4.70.2 The Roads can be accessed by pedestrians and vehicles.

4.70.3 The Roads are used by vehicles to access the existing at-grade car park.

4.70.4 The Roads facilitate access over the Applicant’s land to entry and egress Nelson Street.

4.70.5 The discontinuance and sale of this road in the context of consolidating other land parcels within the Precinct with requirement to retain access is proposed.

4.71 Council is the registered proprietor of the adjoining property at 2-8 Alfred Street, which is used as a car park. It also owns neighbouring Road R3979 which is used as an entry point for vehicles accessing the at-grade car parks in the Precinct.

4.72 The Applicant owns various adjoining properties, primarily 54 Nelson Street (Coles Supermarket) and several retail shops in Carlisle Street. It also owns land at 55-57 Nelson Street Balaclava, and 10-18 Alfred Street, both of which are used as car parks.

4.73 Feedback has been sought from various Council teams who are supportive of its discontinuance and consolidation as this will facilitate the car parks’ strategic redevelopment in this important central activity centre location.

Application

4.74 The Applicant has agreed to pay Council’s costs and disbursements associated with the proposed discontinuances, together with the synergistic value, being no less than market value, for the transfer of the discontinued Roads to the Applicant.

4.75 If the Roads are discontinued and sold to the Applicant, Council will require the Applicant to consolidate the title to the discontinued Roads within the Title to the Applicant’s Property within 12 months of the date of transfer of the Roads to the Applicant, at the Applicant’s expense.

4.76 Conditions of any sale of discontinued roads to the Applicant will include:

4.76.1 That Roads continue to be open and available for use and access to the existing at-grade car parking until such time as substantial commencement development of replacement basement parking commences.

4.76.2 That vehicle access for retail shops to the rear of Carlisle Street from Nelson Street will be retained.

Analysis

4.77 It is considered that the Roads may be discontinued because:

4.77.1 Discontinuance would facilitate the enablement of a wider community benefit by facilitating future redevelopment of the adjoining land and Precinct and associated regeneration.

4.77.2 The proposed discontinuances of the roads would form part of a wider sale of land in the Precinct to the Applicant that would facilitate the neighbouring car park site’s strategic redevelopment and regeneration.

4.77.3 They can be consolidated within the neighbouring Council owned car park titles without impeding access for current car park users.

4.78 The Proposal has been referred internally within Council and no objections have been received. This the Roads have been deemed to have no strategic purpose for Council other than in context of a sale.

4.79 Council is now able to consider whether to:

4.79.1 Commence the statutory procedure to discontinue and sell the Roads.

4.79.2 Consider removal of the Roads from Council’s Register of Public Roads.

4.80 Officers propose that Council commence the statutory procedures to discontinue the Roads. Should the Roads be subsequently approved for discontinuance, Council will need to remove the Roads from Council’s Register of Public Roads for the reasons set out above.

4.81 If the Roads are subsequently discontinued, it is proposed the land in the Roads be sold to the Applicant based on its synergistic value, to a wider development of the Precinct, being no less than market value.

4.82 A valuation will be obtained prior to disposing of the land.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 The following statutory authorities will be consulted on the proposed discontinuance of the Roads and will be asked to respond to the question of whether they have any existing assets in the Road, which should be saved under section 207C of the 1989 Act:

5.1.1 Port Phillip City Council.

5.1.2 South East Water.

5.1.3 CitiPower.

5.1.4 Multinet Gas.

5.1.5 Telstra.

5.1.6 Optus.

5.2 Council’s Asset Management Team has advised that Council has no assets in or above Road R3743 and R3979. Council assets in Roads R4141 and R3979 comprise public lighting, drainage services and signage.

5.3 Specific details of affected assets owned by other public service authorities and requirements for any easements are to be confirmed as part of the relevant statutory authority enquiries. Preliminary enquiries have ascertained there are water, electricity, telecoms, and gas assets in the vicinity of the Roads and Land.

5.4 Should Council adopt the recommendation of this report, Officers will seek community feedback concerning the sale of the subject land.

5.5 Before proceeding with the discontinuances, Council must give public notice of the Proposal in accordance with S223 of the 1989 Act. The 1989 Act provides that a person may, within 28 days of the date of publishing the public notice, lodge a written submission regarding the Proposal.

5.6 Where a person has made a written submission to Council requesting to be heard in support of the written submission, Council must permit that person to be heard before a meeting of Council or the Committee which has delegated authority to hear those submissions, giving reasonable notice of the day, time, and place of the meeting.

5.7 After hearing any submissions made, Council must determine whether the Road is not reasonably required as a road for public use, to decide whether the Road should be discontinued.

5.8 In relation to the Sale of Land parcels, the objective of the engagement is to present the community with the outline terms of the proposed sale, the reasons for the sale, and to receive written submission from any person concerning that sale.

5.9 The fundamental question of the engagement is: “Are there any reasons why a sale should or should not proceed?”.

5.10 The engagement activities Officers propose to undertake are:

· Publishing a notice on Council’s website for four weeks.

· Publishing a notice in The Age newspaper.

· Writing to adjoining owners and residents, attaching a copy of the notice, to support awareness of the proposed sale and highlighting the opportunity to make comment.

· Carrying out an online Have Your Say survey, to enable members of the community to register comments concerning the proposed sale for Council’s consideration prior to a decision.

5.11 Any written submissions received by the closing date will be considered in a further report which will be presented to Council to enable the consideration of such submissions, prior to making a final decision to sell the land.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Under S114 of the 2020 Act, Council is required to give public notice of its intention to sell the subject land, inviting submissions from the community.

6.2 Under clause 3 of Schedule 10 of the 1989 Act, Council has the power to discontinue roads located within its municipality and sell the land from that road or retain the land for itself. Council must first give notices in accordance with sections 207A and 223 of that 1989 Act.

6.3 Council Policy enables roads to be discontinued and sold to adjoining owners. It ensures that roads which are reasonably required for public access remain open to the public.

6.4 As noted, if the Roads are discontinued and sold, Council will require as a condition of sale upon Coles Group Property Development Ltd granting a legal right of carriageway over its land to the East, to enable continued access to and from Nelson Street in favour of the properties at 256,258 and 260 Carlisle Street.

6.5 As noted, if the Roads are discontinued and sold, Council will require as a condition of sale upon Coles Group Property Developments Ltd to continue to permit access over the land formerly comprising the Roads until such time as substantial commencement of development of replacement basement car parks.

6.6 It will also be a requirement that public access to the at-grade car parks will continue until substantial commencement of the development to replace the car parks with basement facilities.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 The Applicant has agreed to acquire the Land based on synergistic value (plus GST), or no less than market value. If Council proposes to transfer the Land, to comply with its statutory obligations Council will need to obtain a valuation of the land. This is in accordance with Council’s Policy.

7.2 The Applicant has agreed to pay Council’s costs and disbursements associated with the proposed discontinuance of the Roads, together with the synergistic value, or no less than market value, for the transfer of the discontinued Roads to the Applicant. A valuation will need to be obtained.

7.3 In accordance with the Policy and previous sales of roads, the value attributed to the land in the Road is based on the following assumptions:

7.3.1 Full value of the land is applicable to the Roads as though it is consolidated with the Applicant’s property.

7.3.2 No discount is applicable to the full land value due to the limited purchasing market for the Roads.

7.3.3 Reflecting the strategic redevelopment potential enabled by the sale, considering the Applicant’s other land holdings in the Precinct.

7.4 Sale of the property is anticipated to release community funds. It will also avoid ongoing maintenance costs.

7.5 The car parks are currently time restricted (2 hours). There is no paid parking. It is not anticipated there would be revenue lost through their redevelopment except from infringements during the period of development /replacement of the car parks during construction.

7.6 Council’s approach is to place the proceeds of such sales into the Strategic Property Reserve for use in the acquisition or upgrade of Council property.

7.7 If Councillors endorse selling the land, Officers will obtain a valuation from a certified practising value to assess the market value of the parcels, considering the highest and best use of the property, the synergistic (and no less than market) value of the parcels in the context of the concept development, and any obligations pertaining to the proposed transaction. This will form a reference point to finalise negotiations.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 The recommendation of this report has no identified environmental implications.

8.2 Dealing with Coles on an exclusive basis would be more likely to deliver Council’s objectives consistent with the Carlisle Street Activity Centre Structure Plan 2009.

8.3 The disposal of the Roads and Land will assist in facilitating the objectives of Council, which is for a future owner to provide car parking for the additional development on the site that generally meets future demand, considering sustainable car parking and traffic objectives.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 Council will facilitate the discontinuance and sale of roads where appropriate consultation has occurred, legislative requirements have been met and it is considered that road discontinuance and sale is in the best interest of the wider community.

9.2 The proposed discontinuance and sale of the Roads and land will enable the land to be repurposed.

9.3 The recommendation, if adopted, provides the community a formal opportunity to consider and provide feedback on the proposal to sell the land, including community impact.

9.4 The recommendation, if adopted, also provides the opportunity for the community to consider and provide feedback on the proposal to discontinue and sell the Roads, including community impact.

9.5 The discontinuance and sale of Council Roads poses a potential risk in relation to continued access for retailers in Carlisle Street who currently service their properties. It also poses a risk for the public who currently use the Roads to transit the existing at-grade car parks.

9.6 It is proposed to deal with Carlisle Street retailers’ access risk by ensuring that as a condition of sale, access and egress is maintained from Nelson Street for them through a (permanent) covenant over the adjacent land.

9.7 It is proposed to deal with the risk for the public who currently use the Roads to transit the existing at-grade car parks through a condition of sale which requires them to be maintained for access following discontinuance, until such time as substantial development of new, replacement, basement car parking facilities commences.

9.8 This report supports transparent governance and an actively engaged community, and thereby direction 5 “Well Governed Port Phillip”.

9.9 A transaction of Council land to facilitate development aligns with direction 2: “Liveable Port Phillip”.

9.10 If Council resolves to discontinue and sell the Roads, proceeds from the sale will go into Council’s Strategic Property Reserves used to support the acquisition and development of the property portfolio.

10. Social impact

10.1 The subject land is considered to have social importance as a catalyst for unlocking social value in the precinct.

10.2 Council disposal of the land will enable a significant redevelopment to be delivered with opportunities to capture social benefit to local stakeholders.

10.3 Disposal of the land will enable upgrades and contributions to public realm, improved pedestrian links within the site and high-quality design outcomes.

10.4 A large scale, mixed-use development as anticipated by the Applicant will support the concentration and diversity of retail activity in the Centre and maintain core retailing at the street frontage including redevelopment of the existing supermarket anchor.

11. ECONOMIC IMPACT

11.1 The Intention to Sell process does not have any immediate economic impact but future development enabled by a sale is expected to facilitate economic benefits.

11.2 Disposal of the land increases the prospect of increased residential density on the site by consolidating land holdings.

11.3 Increased future employment opportunities.

11.4 Increased capture of the overall retail expenditure pool in the surrounding catchment.

12. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

12.1 The recommendation of this report supports transparent governance and an actively engaged community.

12.2 The recommendation thereby aligns with Council Plan strategic direction Well Governed in the “Council Plan 2021-31: A City that is a leading government authority, where our community and our organisation are in a better place as a result of our collective efforts”.

13. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

13.1 TIMELINE

13.1.1 For the discontinuances, before proceeding with the Proposal, Council must give public notice of the Proposal and invite submissions from interested persons allowing at least 28 days to make a submission. The notice will be published online, and in The Age newspaper.

13.1.2 Any submissions may be heard and considered at a future Council meeting.

13.1.3 After hearing any submissions made, Council must determine whether the Roads are not reasonably required for public use, to decide whether the Roads should be discontinued.

13.1.4 The consultation activities outlined in section 5 of this report are anticipated to commence in November and December 2024, with the outcomes reported to Council in February 2025.

13.1.5 For the sale of land, recommence the statutory processes under section 114 of the 2020 Act, including providing public notices of its Intention to Sell or exchange the properties for a market price, by way of private negotiation, and seek submissions from the community on this intention.

13.1.6 Once we have received public feedback from the Intention to Sell process, we will report this feedback to a future Council meeting.

13.1.7 Once the feedback has been considered, a recommendation will be made on whether to proceed with the transaction.

14. OFFICER material OR general INTEREST

14.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 August 2024

13.2	Council Policy - Revised Child Safe Policy
Executive Member:	Joanne McNeill, Executive Manager, Governance and Organisational Performance
PREPARED BY:	Julie Snowden, Coordinator Risk and Assurance

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To seek Council’s endorsement of the revised Child Safe Policy

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 The Victorian Child Safe Standards were introduced in 2017 in response to the Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and other Non-Government Organisations and apply to organisations that provide services to children and young people. In response, Council endorsed a comprehensive and robust Child Safety Policy in 2018.

2.2 In 2022, eleven (11) new updated Standards (replacing the previous seven) were introduced to provide a more robust framework to assist organisations, including Council, to keep children and young people safe.

2.3 The revised Child Safe Policy, developed under the Victorian Child Safe Standards (2022) and the National Principles, outlines the City of Port Phillip’s strong commitment to the care, safety, inclusion and wellbeing of children and young people and provides procedures for continuing to develop and strengthen Child Safety.

2.4 As a Child Safe Organisation, all employees, volunteers, contractors, and community representatives have a legal and moral responsibility to understand and activate their role in preventing, detecting, responding and reporting any child safety concerns, in a way that is culturally appropriate and considerate.

2.5 Additionally, the Reportable Conduct Scheme requires some organisations, including Councils, to respond to allegations of child abuse (and other child-related misconduct) made against their workers and volunteers. Council is required to respond to these allegations even when the conduct is unrelated to the workforce members role at Council. Council must also inform the Commission for Children and Young People that Reportable Conduct is being investigated.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Endorses the revised Child Safe policy.

3.2 Authorises the Chief Executive Officer, or their delegate, to make minor editorial amendments to the policy that does not materially effect the intent of the policy.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 Council’s Child Safe Framework comprises a suite of Child Safe related policies and practices that demonstrate compliance with the legislative requirements, including but not limited to:

· A Child Safe Steering Committee

· A Child Safe Incident Response team

· Child Safe Champions

· Child Safe Policy and Child Safe Reporting Procedure

· Dedicated Child Safety and Compliance Officer

· Working with Children Check Procedure and Assessment Tool

· Codes of Conduct

· Recruitment and Section Practices

· Ongoing awareness and education

4.2 The Child Safe Steering Committee (CSSC) provides governance and oversight to ensure ongoing compliance with the Child Safe Standards. It reports through to the Strategic Risk and Internal Audit (SRIA) Committee and the Executive Leadership Team (ELT).

4.3 The revised Child Safe Policy, developed under the Victorina Child Sae Standards (2022) and National Principles, outlines our commitment to child safety, our priorities, and procedures to protect and empower children and our zero-tolerance approach towards child abuse in everything we do.

4.4 In addition to those staff legally required to hold a WWWC under the Worker Screening Act 2020, the following has also been mandated:

· all members of the Leadership Network are required to hold a valid WWCC due to the child safety organisational leadership role requirements and the broad remit of a Leadership Network position.

· all emergency relief centre staff are required to hold a valid WWCC due to the nature of the tasks / roles they may need to perform with a high probability of interactions with children.

4.5 On 6 December 2023, as part of the appointments of Councillors to Committees report, Council agreed that members of the following advisory committees would be required to hold a Working with Children Check:

Committees whose independent members are remunerated by Council:

· Audit and Risk Committee

· South Melbourne Market Advisory Committee

Committees whose members work in contact with, or make decisions affecting young people:

· LGBTQIA+ Advisory Committee

· Youth Advisory Committee

4.6 Additionally, to create an empowering child safe culture, and in accordance with Child Safe Standard 3 – incorporating the voices of children and young people in the decisions that impact them, we consulted with our youth through the refreshed Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) in February 2024. We sought feedback to ensure the revised policy reflects what safety means to our youth and that they were confident there is a clear process for reporting allegations of child abuse by sharing our Child Friendly Compliant handling poster.

4.7 All feedback received from the YAC has been considered in preparing the revised Policy and used to inform the implementation of the Child Safe Standards across our programs and services.

4.8 A high-level summary of the key changes are:

· Strengthening the Purpose, Scope and separating out Council’s Statement of Commitment to Child Safety.

· Enhancing the Definitions.

· Inclusion of Child Safe Standards Background and summary of the 11 Child Safe Standards.

· Roles and Responsibilities enhanced with clarifying detail.

· Inclusion of new Working with Children Checks section.

· Inclusion of new sections on Cultural Safety and Diversity and Inclusion as required by the new Standards.

· Updated Councillor references.

4.9 The revised policy has been reviewed and had input by Maddocks to ensure legal compliance as well as the Child Safe Steering Committee membership, and other key organisational stakeholders.

4.10 The revised policy was shared with the Staff Consultative Committee (the Committee) for review in June 2024. The Committee were comfortable with the changes with no feedback received.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 All key stakeholders have been included in the review of the policy, with the policy reviewed in accordance with Councils Policy and Procedure Guidelines.

5.2 The revised policy was shared with the staff consultative committee for feedback. No feedback was received.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Council acknowledges it has legal responsibilities it must meet in relation to the Child Safe Standards. These include responsibility to protect, to be inclusive, to disclose and for mandatory reporting. The Child Safe Policy outlines these responsibilities.

6.2 The implementation of this Policy will reduce legal and compliance risks to Council by providing clear guidelines, and necessary awareness for Council representatives who work both directly and indirectly with children or young people.

7. COMMUNITY IMPACT

7.1 Prioritizing child safety will help Council build trust and enhance our reputation within the community. Parents and guardians seek organisations that prioritize the safety and well-being of their children. By demonstrating a proactive approach to child safety, Council is creating an environment that fosters trust, attracting more families to enrol their children and establishing a positive reputation in the community.

8. Gender Impact Assessment

8.1 The policy provides protections to all children, including children with disabilities or with different cultural identities, ages, gender identities, sexual orientations, or religions and by providing the child safe environment addresses specific needs.

9. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

9.1 Inclusive Port Phillip - Delivery of services and programs for children, young people and their families and caregivers in our city that meet the aspirations of our Every Child, Our Future: Children’s Services Policy.

9.2 Well Governed Port Phillip - High-quality governance, risk, and assurance services over the operations of Council including implementation of legislative requirements.

10. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

10.1 TIMELINE

10.1.1 Following endorsement, we will continue our ongoing internal awareness campaign about the role we all have in keeping children and young people safe.

10.1.2 Ongoing training and awareness sessions will be held across the organisation to continue to create a culture of child safety.

10.1.3 Council will also inform and educate all committee members about the Child Safe Policy, and related policies and procedures to ensure all committee members are aware of the role they play in keeping children and young people safe.

10.2 COMMUNICATION

10.2.1 The revised policy will be published on the Council’s website (internal and public facing) along with relevant supporting procedures.

10.2.2 Ongoing consultation and feedback will be welcomed from employees and the community, with a key focus on engaging with children and young people, to ensure the policy and procedures remain relevant and accessible.

11. OFFICER MATERIAL OR GENERAL INTEREST

11.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Child Safe Policy V2.0⇩

2. WWCC Procedure June 2024⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 August 2024

13.3	Audit and Risk Committee Biannual Report AND Annual Review of the Audit and Risk Committee Charter
Executive Member:	Joanne McNeill, Executive Manager, Governance and Organisational Performance
PREPARED BY:	Julie Snowden, Coordinator Risk and Assurance

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To adopt the updated Audit and Risk Committee Charter 2024.

1.2 To present the Audit and Risk Committee Biannual Report as of 30 June 2024.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 Council is required by the Local Government Act (LGA) 2020 to establish an Audit and Risk Committee (the Committee) as an advisory committee of Council.

2.2 Under the LGA, the Audit and Risk Committee must prepare a biannual report on activities to Council and must prepare and approve an Audit and Risk Committee Charter (the Charter) which sets out the Committee’s objective, authority, tenure, role, and responsibilities, reporting and administrative arrangements, with the Charter to be reviewed annually.

2.3 This paper satisfies this reporting requirement and the annual review of the Charter for adoption by Council.

2.4 The last update provided to Council was the presentation of the Audit and Risk Committee Biannual report as of 31 December 2023.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Adopts the updated Audit and Risk Committee Charter (Attachment 1).

3.2 Notes that the updated Audit and Risk Committee Charter will be published on Council’s website.

3.3 Notes the Audit and Risk Committee Biannual Report as of 30 June 2024, which details activities of the Committee covering scheduled meetings held 15 February 2024, 21 May 2024 (annual workshop) and 25 June 2024 and one impromptu meeting held 21 February 2024.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 The Committee Charter

The Charter sets out the Committee’s objective, authority, composition and tenure, roles and responsibilities and reporting and administrative arrangements. The Charter is adopted by Council and was last reviewed and approved by Council on 6 March 2024 pending a decision being made on working with children checks (WWCC) for Councillors on the Audit and Risk Committee. The Charter is reviewed annually by the Committee.

4.2 Proposed changes to the Charter

4.2.1 The major changes to the Committee Charter in 2024 include:

· Utilised new template.

· Terms of Appointment – added clarifying wording.

· Meetings – expanded wording for annual work plan.

· Updated date Charter was approved by Council.

· Amended wording for fraud and corruption responsibilities to align with revised fraud policy.

· Aligning the Charter and the Annual Work Plan / Calendar.

· Updated next review date.

4.2.2 The Audit and Risk Committee adopted the proposed changes to the Charter for subsequent Council endorsement at its meeting on 25 June 2024.

4.3 Reporting Period for this Report

This report covers the Committee’s work for scheduled meetings held 15 February 2024, 21 May 2024 (annual workshop) and 25 June 2024 and one impromptu meeting held 21 February 2024.

4.4 Meeting Attendance

Name	Role	Meetings
Name	Role	15 February 2024 (Scheduled meeting)	21 February 2024 (Impromptu meeting)	21 May 2024 (Scheduled Workshop)	25 June 2024 (Scheduled meeting)
Brian Densem	Independent Member (Chair)	Attended	Attended	Attended	Attended
Helen Lanyon	Independent Member	Attended	Attended	Attended	Attended
Kylie Maher	Independent Member	Attended	Attended	Attended	Attended
Cr. Heather Cunsolo	Councillor (Mayor)	Attended	Attended	Attended	Attended
Cr. Christina Sirakoff	Councillor	Attended	Attended	Attended	Attended

4.5 Leadership Network

The CEO, Executive Manager Organisational Performance and Governance, CFO and Coordinator Risk and Assurance attend all meetings. Other members of the Leadership Network attend to provide detailed updates to the Committee on the applicable activities of their respective divisions / areas within Council. This has enabled the Committee to gain a better appreciation of City of Port Phillip specific matters.

4.6 External Service Providers

The internal audit team (Pitcher Partners) attended all scheduled meetings with the external audit team BDO (the agent appointed by the Victorian Auditor General Office VAGO) attending when they have specific items to discuss.

4.7 Committee Business

The agendas for the Committee meetings are driven by the Committee’s Annual Work Plan.

4.8 Annual Work Plan

Under Section 54(3) of the Act, a Committee must adopt an annual work program.

Each year the Committee collaborate with Council’s CEO, Executive Manager, Governance and Organisational Performance and Coordinator Risk and Assurance to ensure that the responsibilities of the Committee are scheduled and will be carried out.

The Annual Work Plan is reviewed at the same time as the Charter to ensure alignment. The work of the Committee over the reporting period is summarised below in each of the key areas.

4.9 Matters considered by the Committee at its 15 February 2024 meeting were:

4.9.1 Committee only time

The Committee met with Executive Manager Governance and Organisational Performance for an impromptu discussion on the independent waste review.

4.9.2 Chief Executive Officer’s Report

The Committee noted the overview from the CEO on key activities, including an update on the following organisational priorities: Finance and Assets; Contractor Performance; Governance and Risk – move from 3 x 3 Councillors wards to 9 single Councillor wards and preparation for the election and onboarding a new Council as well as the new Council Plan and Budget.

4.9.3 Strategic Risk and Internal Audit (SRIA)

The Committee noted the regular SRIA update, six monthly update on DTS internal controls – showcasing the effectiveness of internal controls surrounding the Digital Technology Services environment (including Governance, Cybersecurity, Compliance and Disaster Recovery), deep dive into Strategic Risk relating to Information Technology Systems and Data Security and the Internal Audit Recommendations Tracking Status Report.

4.9.4 Assurance Activities Update

The Committee discussed the audit findings from the Revenue Assurance Internal Audit and the Recent Issues Brief as prepared by the Internal Auditor which provides a brief overview of issues relevant to the organisations and sectors they service. The Committee also endorsed the scopes for the Road Management Plan compliance testing and the Contract Management Internal Audit and noted the Internal Audit Plan status report 2022/23 paying particular attention to the root cause section of the report.

4.9.5 External Audit

There were no items for this meeting.

4.9.6 Compliance Monitoring

The Committee noted the regular Compliance update, the most recent OHS monthly ELT report and Annual Safety Plan Update and acknowledged the work being done to ensure Council’s continued compliance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards.

4.9.7 Financial Monitoring

The Committee noted the financial sustainability standing report.

4.9.8 Supplementary Reports

The Committee noted an update on 2 confidential reportable conduct scheme allegations.

4.10 Matters considered by the Committee at its 21 February 2024 meeting were:

The Committee discussed the proposed Contract Management Internal Audit from the agreed Internal Audit Plan and agreed to put on hold until the key findings of the independent waste review have been fully considered.

4.11 Matters considered by the Committee at its 21 May 2024 Annual Workshop were:

4.11.1 Formal Item

The Committee discussed the audit findings from the Building Essential Safety Measures (ESM) Compliance core compliance audit report.

4.11.2 Workshop Discussion

The Committee discussed the business, risk and assurance landscapes, the themes from the staff survey and the Business Function Risk Assurance Map (BFRAM) to help inform the input into the strategic three-year internal audit plan 2024/25 – 2026/27 and focus for the 2024/25 internal audit plan.

A general update was provided at the meeting on the independent waste review management action plan, followed by a confidential discussion on the waste review contractual matters between Committee members and essential Council attendees after the formal workshop closed.

4.12 Matters considered by the Committee at its 25 June 2024 meeting were:

4.12.1 Committee only time

General discussion of the agenda items and key discussion topics.

4.12.2 Chief Executive Officer’s Report

The Committee noted the overview from the CEO on key activities, including an update on the budget – to be adopted by Council 26 June 2024 noting a communications strategy was in train to explain the large increase in the Fire Services Levy, Community safety, and increased occupational violence trends.

4.12.3 Strategic Risk and Internal Audit (SRIA)

The Committee noted the regular SRIA update, a further update on the revised Strategic Risk relating to Information, Communications Technology and Cyber Security, a verbal update on the status of the waste review management actions and the Internal Audit Recommendations Tracking Status Report.

4.12.4 Assurance Activities Update

The Committee noted the Internal Audit Plan status report 2022/23, endorsed the first year of the three-year rolling Internal Audit Plan, discussed the audit findings from the Parking Management Internal Audit and the Customer Complaints Policy Core Compliance, the Recent Issues Brief and noted Council’s response to the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission’s (IBAC) Operation Sandon and the Victorian Government’s response to its recommendations.

4.12.5 External Audit

External Auditor BDO provided the Committee with an overview of the VAGO Audit Strategy Memorandum and the Interim Management Letter for the year ending 30 June 2024.

4.12.6 Compliance Monitoring

The Committee noted the regular Compliance update and the most recent OHS Monthly ELT Report and Annual Safety Plan Update.

4.12.7 Financial Monitoring

The Committee noted the financial sustainability standing reports, an update on the expected Asset Valuation movements, endorsed the Fixed Asset Accounting Policy and provided feedback on the updated Investment Policy.

4.12.8 Supplementary Reports

There were no items for this meeting.

4.12.9 Audit and Risk Committee Charter Review

The Committee discussed the proposed changes to the Audit and Risk Committee Charter, endorsing for adoption by Council at the next available meeting.

5. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

5.1 Strategic Direction 5 - Well Governed Port Phillip: Supporting sound decision-making through transparency, accountability, community participation, risk management and compliance.

6. OFFICER MATERIAL OR GENERAL INTEREST

6.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Revised Audit and Risk Committee Charter 2024⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 August 2024

13.4

Update to the Procurement Policy

Executive Member:

Lachlan Johnson, General Manager, Operations and Infrastructure

PREPARED BY:

Peter Liu, Chief Financial Officer

Wayne Moore, Coordinator Procurement, Contracts & Fleet

Ben McLaughlin, Procurement Contracts Management Best Practice Lead

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To present changes to the Procurement Policy (Policy) that introduce requirements for high-risk, high-value procurements and the establishment of the Procurement & Contract Management Steering Committee to govern procurement and contract management.

1.2 This report presents the amended Policy for Council’s consideration and formal endorsement.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 Council adopted Version 6.2.3 of the Policy on April 17, 2024.

2.2 The current version, Version 6.2.4, was updated under the CEO's delegation to clarify the evaluation report requirements to the Council.

2.3 As part of the agreed management actions arising from the 2024 waste review, Council committed to review and update the Policy to ensure that procurement governance and assurance was appropriate for procurements that carried considerable risk associated with them.

2.4 This update to the Policy introduces the concept of high-risk, high-value procurements and, as per Council’s Project Framework, sets out increased governance, assurance and risk management requirements throughout the life-cycle of such procurements.

2.5 The Policy outlines how high-risk, high-value procurements are to be managed. The definition and assessment process for determining the high-risk, high-value threshold is outlined in Council’s amended Project Framework, is as follows:

‘A procurement that is likely to exceed $5m (Inc. GST) of total estimated investment (TEI), any procurement exceeding $300k in TEI that achieves a high-risk rating using the assessment tool, or any other procurement determined by the Procurement & Contract Management Steering Committee, shall be considered ‘high risk, high value’ and will be managed and governed in accordance with the Project Framework, unless otherwise deemed so by the Procurement & Contract Management Steering Committee on the basis of an assessment tool finding of being less than a high-risk rating’.

2.6 Other key changes to the Policy include enshrining the establishment of a Procurement and Contract Management Steering Committee (PCMSC) (introduced in April 2024) to govern Council’s procurement and contract management practices, including to provide assurance over high-risk, high-value procurements.

2.7 Additionally, the Policy introduces enhanced assessment of transitional risks, enhances requirements around transition management plans, and mandates readiness assessments to ensure service continuity and delivery.

2.8 The use of probity advisors and auditors is expanded, and the evaluation process is refined to allow for broader information gathering while maintaining probity.

2.9 Overall, these changes aim to strengthen governance, mitigate risks, and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Council's procurement processes.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Adopts the updated changes to the Procurement Policy, as per attachment 2.

3.2 Authorise the Chief Executive Officer, or their delegate, to finalise and make minor changes that do not materially alter the Procurement Policy.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 Council’s Project Framework has been updated to introduce the concept of high-risk, high-value procurements. High-risk, high-value procurements are those that carry significant risk, that if not implemented successfully, of resulting in major financial liabilities, community impact, or service disruptions. The definition is summarised as follows:

4.2 The following sections outline the changes to the Procurement Policy in relation to the implementation of the high-risk, high-value classification and are grouped into the responses to the specific actions in the agreed Management Action Plan.

M1B2: Update Council’s Procurement Policy to include relevant requirements related to governance of high-risk, high-value procurement.

4.3 To ensure effective governance of High-Risk, High-Value (HVHR) procurements, a PCMSC will oversee and strategically guide procurement and contract management activities at Council (refer to Section 14 of the Policy). The PCMSC will endorse and regularly review the Strategic Procurement Plan and approve policies and procedures.

4.4 The PCMSC will foster a culture of excellence by implementing best practices ensuring appropriate systems, and monitoring performance and compliance. It will assess procurements to determine HVHR status, provide assurance through various reviews, and drive timely improvements based on monitoring, compliance, and assurance findings.

M2B1: Update Council’s Procurement Policy to include risk management requirements for high-risk, high-value procurements.

4.5 The Policy (refer to Section 15) has been updated to ensure that all HVHR procurements require a risk management plan developed by a cross-functional team. This plan will outline potential risks and corresponding mitigation strategies.

4.6 The classification of HVHR requires a procurement activity to be managed as a project under Council’s Project Framework (PF). Under the framework, the risk management plan is to be reviewed and updated quarterly (minimum requirement) and monthly reporting on the implementation of mitigations under the project risk management plan.

4.7 Under the PF, the HVHR project provides for continuity of risk management practice across the entire life cycle of the project, from service review, specification development, procurement/tendering, assessment, award, transition, go-live decision, hypercare and handover. This ensures that risks, such as data quality or completeness and the agreed mitigations and controls, that are established in one phase, are carried into subsequent phases in a formal and documented manner. For example, forming part of the readiness assessment, detailing any residual risks that could pose a problem for service commencement, informing the go/no-go decision.

4.8 Under the changes to the Policy, the PCMSC will monitor HVHR project delivery, including the implementation of the risk management requirements.

4.9 Post handover, and during the contract management phase, the risk management plan will be updated by the Contract Manager, with any high and catastrophic risks escalated to the PCMSC for strategic direction as needed.

M4B1: Review Council’s Procurement Policy, Procurement Guidelines & training material to include enhanced stage gate review processes for high-value, high-risk service procurements including enhanced guidance on the use of probity advisors and probity auditors.

4.10 The Policy has been updated to require a HVHR assessment for all goods and services procurements $300,001 and greater (refer to Table 4). The PCMSC will review all assessments to determine if a procurement meets the HVHR threshold.

4.11 All HVHR procurements will be managed through Council’s project framework (refer to Section 15).

4.12 For all HVHR procurements, the involvement of a probity advisor and probity auditor will be required (refer to Section 15) and will be confirmed by the PCMSC through review of the Procurement Plan.

M6A1: Update Council’s Procurement Policy to identify policy requirements for risk management, including data quality management for high-risk, high value procurements.

4.13 The Policy has been updated to ensure data quality management for relevant HVHR procurements. A Data Verification Report will be completed, reviewed by the PCMSC, and approved by the delegate at the first stage of the approach to market. This report, prepared by the relevant service area and Digital Technology Services (DTS), will verify the accuracy, completeness, and consistency of all data included in the specification. The assessment will also require an interrogation of the required data points and a data confidence rating.

M9A: Review Council’s Procurement Policy, Procurement Guidelines and supporting materials in consultation with probity and legal advisors to consider how to appropriately include self-referencing and other relevant information in tender assessment beyond references provided by the tenderer while maintaining probity and process integrity.

4.14 Advice was obtained from probity and legal advisors on how to include self-referencing, past performance, and other relevant information in tender assessments. Both advisors support the ability to maintain probity and include self-referencing and past performance into the procurement process.

4.15 It was noted that accessing extraneous information is common in procurement, such as obtaining financial information, checking OH&S registrations and insurances, conducting company searches, site inspections, demonstrations, and checking references.

4.16 The Victorian Ombudsman has also approved of past contract performance as a ‘valuable criterion to assess future performance and support an assessment based on time frame and price…tenderers should also be given a natural justice opportunity to respond to adverse interim positions or inconsistent information regarding their past performance. The tender interview can provide this opportunity’ criterion for tender assessments’.^{^[1]}

4.17 The information above supports a recent change endorsed by the PCMSC: the inclusion of a new commercial criteria category in assessments.

4.18 Commercial criteria are assessed as either acceptable or not acceptable, providing flexibility to consider elements of a submission that deviate from specific requirements which the Council is open to negotiating or that do not appropriately fall into mandatory or weighted categories. Submissions that fail to achieve an acceptable rating for any of the commercial criteria may be excluded from further consideration.

4.19 For example, while Council may initially request Professional Indemnity Insurance for $20 million, there is flexibility to consider lower coverage amounts. If a supplier can only provide insurance up to $10 million, Council can assess the specific risks of the contract and determine if this lower amount is acceptable. This approach allows for a more balanced consideration of both the supplier's capabilities and the Council's risk mitigation needs.

4.20 The commercial criteria category is an appropriate place to appropriately include self-referencing, past performance, and other relevant information. As recommended by the advisors, this will require Council’s tendering conditions to be updated and setting of commercial criteria in the Evaluation and Probity Plan.

4.21 As such, the Policy has been updated to reflect the commercial criteria inclusion.

M11A1: Review and update Council’s Procurement Policy, Procurement Guidelines, and training materials to provide for enhanced assessment of risk in tender processes including transitional and operational phases (noting that for high-risk and high-value procurements, this will form part of the Project Framework requirements)

4.22 The Policy has been updated (refer to Section 15) to include enhanced assessment of transitional risk, this includes the requirement of a transition management plan (where relevant) and readiness assessment to be developed to ensure continuity and minimise disruptions in service delivery.

4.23 The Procurement Procedure has been updated to include transition as a mandatory evaluation criterion, with a minimum weighting of 10%. A transition management response schedule has been created, which requires tenderers to provide details of their past experience with transitioning contracts. This schedule will be incorporated into the tender response forms for completion by the tenderers.

4.24 The Contract Management Procedure now provides enhanced guidance on transition activities and requires the development and ongoing review of a Transition Management Plan throughout the transition phase. The PCMSC oversees the implementation of the transition phase and the go-live decision with the later aligning to a formal stage gate in the amended Project Framework.

M13A1: Update Council’s Procurement Policy to require development of transition management plans for relevant service procurements.

4.25 The Policy has been updated (refer to Section 15) to include the development of transition management plans for HVHR procurements (where relevant).

M16: In addition to management actions in response to other related recommendations including recommendations 2 (risk management), 3 (gateway reviews), and 13 (transition management), Council’s Procurement Policy will be reviewed to ensure there is increased focus on readiness for service thresholds and checks.

4.26 The Policy has been updated (refer to Section 15) to include the requirement for a readiness assessment to be completed. This correspondences to a formal stage gate in the Project Framework for HVHR projects. Council’s Procurement Procedures and templates have been updated to provide for the structured assessment of readiness of a contractor before launch, ensuring that services meet required standards and are prepared for deployment. It includes sections on governance, plan review, assessment of various critical aspects (such as equipment and infrastructure, personnel, service delivery, systems integration, security, and regulatory compliance), and a final go/no-go decision. Each section requires detailed information and assessments to be completed by the relevant service area and reviewed by the PCMSC as part of the stage gate approval.

4.27 It is important to note that the transition/go-live template outlines the minimum requirements. It is expected that as part of the risk management processes for HVHR projects that additional, and specific, controls will be put in place at the point of go-live assessment.

M21A - Council’s Procurement Policy, Procurement Guidelines, and procurement training program and material will be reviewed and updated to ensure that documentation pertaining to individual and consensus scoring is maintained to an appropriate standard to fully document that a consistent and transparent approach of assessment is applied.

4.28 The Policy (refer to Section 6.9) requires that any report presented to Council recommending to award a contract is to include as a confidential attachment the evaluation report which includes consensus score details. The Procurement Procedure has been updated to ensure comprehensive and accurate records to be created, managed, and retained for all procurement activities including consensus scoring.

M23: Council’s Procurement Policy, Procurement Guidelines and procurement training program and supporting material will be updated to align with the revised Conflicts of Interest Policy and new Integrity Framework.

4.29 Council has developed an Integrity Framework. This document brings together the different elements of Council’s policies, procedures, training, practices, reporting and assurance processes that ensure that Council, Council officers, contractors, suppliers and others act with integrity and meet community expectations.

4.30 Council’s Staff Conflict of Interest Policy has been updated and aligns with the requirements of the Procurement Policy. This includes the requirements, for those participating in a tender evaluation panel (TEP) to declare interests that have the potential to create a perception of a conflict. These changes, made following engagement with the Local Government Inspectorate, seek to enshrine a more conservative approach to identifying, reporting and managing conflicts of interest than those beyond the material and general definitions under Council’s Governance Rules and the Local Government Act 2020.

4.31 Accordingly, the Procurement Policy has been updated to make specific reference to the Staff Conflicts of Interest Policy.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 Consultation has taken place with the key stakeholders across the organisation.

5.2 The updates to the Procurement Policy, are part of a broader suit of updates to templates and procedures.

5.3 The updates to the Procurement Policy align and have been coordinated with the July changes to the Project Framework, the Staff Conflicts of Interest Policy, and Integrity Framework.

5.4 As part of the implementation of the agreed Management Action Plan, the Procurement Policy updates, and broader suit of updated documents will be presented to the Audit and Risk Committee (ARCo) at their next meeting.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 The proposed updates to the Procurement Policy will reduce the risk of high-value and high-risk procurements being undertaken without appropriate governance and assurance and therefore resulting in undesirable outcomes.

6.2 In formulating the proposed changes to requirements for internal reference checking, specialist procurement and legal advice has been sought. This has considered previous findings of the Victorian Ombudsman.

6.3 The recommended approach to internal reference checking as outlined in the updated Policy, through the use of the commercial criterion, is transparent and ensures a legally defensible and fair approach to assessing and contractor’s ability to successfully provide a service.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 The proposed changes have no direct financial impact.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 The proposed changes are unlikely to have any direct impact on environmental outcomes.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 The proposed changes are unlikely to have any direct impact on the community.

10. Gender Impact Assessment

10.1 The proposed change does not have any gender impacts.

11. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

11.1 The Policy supports the Council Plan 2021- 2031.

11.2 Whilst procurement activity supports all of Council’s strategic directions, it most closely aligns with:

Direction 5 Well Governed Port Phillip- a leading local government authority where our community and our organisation are in a better place as a result of our collective efforts.

12. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

12.1 TIMELINE

12.1.1 Subject to Council approval the updated Policy will commence 1 September 2024.

12.1.2 The updated Policy will be made available through Council’s website.

12.2 COMMUNICATION

12.2.1 The updated Policy will be made available on Council’s website and the internal intranet.

12.2.2 Council’s training material and program is being updated to capture the changes across the Procurement Policy, Project Framework and Staff Conflicts of Interest Policy.

13. OFFICER MATERIAL OR GENERAL INTEREST

13.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Procurement Policy - Version 6.3 - Marked Up Amendments⇩

2. Procurement Policy - Version 6.3 - Clean⇩

[1] Investigation in to the Office of Housing s tender process for the Cleaning and Gardening Maintenance Contract – CGM 2007, p33.

13.5	Councillor Expenses Monthly Reporting - July 2024
Executive Member:	Joanne McNeill, Executive Manager, Governance and Organisational Performance
PREPARED BY:	Rebecca Purvis, Senior Council Business Advisor

13.7	Records of Informal Meetings of Council
Executive Member:	Joanne McNeill, Executive Manager, Governance and Organisational Performance
PREPARED BY:	Emily Williams, Council Business Advisor