Agenda of Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

15 May 2024

9.1

Response to Notice of Motion - Councillor Baxter - Safe Delivery of LGBTIQA+ Programs, Events and Recognition

Executive Member:

Tarnya McKenzie, Interim General Manager, Community Wellbeing and Inclusion

PREPARED BY:

Thomas Sutherland, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Advisor

Teneille Summers, Coordinator Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To provide a report back to Council on the 21 June 2023 Notice of Motion, regarding the continuation of work with key bodies on the safe delivery of LGBTIQA+ programs, community events and recognition.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 This report provides an update to Council on items 3 and 4 of the Notice of Motion 21 June 2023, following deferral of the item on 6 December 2023 to a future Council meeting.

2.2 Across Victoria, including City of Port Phillip, events for the LGBTIQA+ community have been targeted by extremist groups, resulting in cancellations due to safety and security concerns.

2.3 Council is committed to welcoming and supporting all its diverse communities, including the LGBTIQA+ community. This is affirmed in the LGBTIQA+ Action Plan 2023-26, with a vision for an inclusive city where diverse LGBTIQA+ communities are safe, connected and celebrated.

2.4 Collaboration and consultation with key bodies are ongoing to strengthen relationships, draw on their expertise, and increase organisational capacity for the safe delivery of LGBTIQA+ programs, community events, and recognition.

2.5 Strategies, tools, and controls have been investigated and developed to enable Council to confidently plan, host and support safe events for the LGBTIQA+ community, as well as other diverse communities.

2.6 Council is determined to ensure that diversity is celebrated in the city and that events central to this commitment are not jeopardised by extreme behaviours and targeted disruption. To achieve this commitment and ensure the delivery of safe events, Council must duly assess social and political considerations and address any potential threats to public, performers and staff.

2.7 Attachment 1,the Information Pack – Guidance for Planning Safe and Inclusive Council Events, provides some insight into the advice Council officers use in order to effectively plan for an event that may have social and political considerations. Such considerations enable Council to meet all its obligations in ensuring public safety and adherence to Child Safe Standards and Occupational Health and Safety requirements.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Notes the update on the safe delivery of LGBTIQA+ programs, community events and recognition.

3.2 Notes that consultation with Council’s LGBTIQA+ Advisory Committee, the Victorian Pride Centre, Municipal Association of Victoria, Victoria Police, and other key bodies has been undertaken to draw on their knowledge and increase organisational capacity to safely deliver LGBTIQA+ programs, community events and recognition in future.

3.3 Notes consultation and collaboration with Council’s LGBTIQA+ Advisory Committee, the Victorian Pride Centre, Municipal Association of Victoria, Victoria Police, and other key bodies is ongoing to ensure advice and expertise are up to date according to the changing landscape and latest recommendations.

3.4 Notes that strategies, tools, and controls as outlined in the Information Pack – Guidance for Planning Safe and Inclusive Council Events (as provided in attachment 1) have been investigated and developed to enable Council to confidently plan, host and support safe events for the LGBTIQA+ community, as well as other diverse communities.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 At its meeting on 19 July 2023, Council endorsed the LGBTIQA+ Action Plan 2023-26, committing Council to its vision for an Inclusive City where diverse LGBTIQA+ communities are safe, connected and celebrated.

4.2 At its meeting on 21 June 2023, Council moved a Notice of Motion:

That Council

1. Publicly reaffirms its commitment to the inclusion of LGBTIQA+ people in our community.

2. Condemns far right terrorism and hate speech perpetuated against the LGBTIQA+ community, their allies and supporters.

3. Continue to work with the LGBTIQA+ Advisory Committee, Victorian Pride Centre, Municipal Association of Victoria, Victoria Police and other key bodies on the safe delivery of LGBTIQA+ programs, community events and recognition moving forward.

4. Report back to Council on item 3 above within six months.

4.3 At its meeting on 6 December 2023, Council voted to defer the item to a future Council meeting.

4.4 Since 2022, events for the LGBTIQA+ community have come with challenges due to hate speech and threats to the safety of staff, attendees, and performers. Council is committed to addressing these challenges to ensure it can continue to deliver LGBTIQA+ events safely.

4.5 Consultation with Council’s LGBTIQA+ Advisory Committee, the Victorian Pride Centre, Municipal Association of Victoria, Victoria Police and other key bodies has been undertaken to draw on their knowledge and increase organisational capacity to safely deliver LGBTIQA+ programs, community events and recognition in future.

4.6 This consultation has produced key findings related to the current political climate, Council’s role in this space and strategies to ensure the success of LGBTIQA+ events.

Continuing Council’s commitment to safe and inclusive events

4.7 Council is firm in its commitment to supporting the LGBTIQA+ community and rainbow families through providing, facilitating, and hosting LGBTIQA+ events and programs.

4.8 Strategies, tools and measures (detailed in the following section) have been developed to address the ‘how’ of Council’s ongoing approach to event and program planning. These aspects are designed to lead to the safe delivery of inclusive events and ensure that there is an appropriate balance between meeting community needs and addressing any concerns about public and/or staff safety.

4.9 It is recognised that Council has a responsibility to create and contribute to a safe environment for the community. This includes supporting diverse communities such as the LGBTIQA+ community.

4.10 While this report is in response to the 21 June 2023 Notice of Motion, Council’s commitment to implementing this work and responding to community needs is ongoing, as affirmed in Council’s LGBTIQA+ Action Plan and its strategic direction of an Inclusive Port Phillip.

4.11 It is recognised that avoiding, cancelling, not participating in, or hosting LGBTIQA+ events can potentially have adverse effects on the community.

4.12 Event planning needs to be detailed, robust and well thought out to ensure the successful delivery of LGBTIQA+ events.

Strategies for safe and inclusive events

4.13 Strategies, methods and tools have been investigated and developed to strengthen Council’s event planning and processes, particularly for events intended for diverse groups or events that may be considered contentious or controversial.

4.14 A range of strategies have been identified for the delivery of safe and inclusive events through the application of learnings from previous events, feedback from stakeholders and good practice from local and state governments. Some aspects of these strategies have not been included in this report or the information pack due to their operational nature.

4.15 These strategies are summarised in attachment 1 – Information Pack – Guidance for Planning Safe and Inclusive Events, and include:

4.15.1 Early Planning and Consultation: Planning well in advance is critical to the success of events and should consider key factors such as options for safe delivery, suitable location and venue, coordinated planning with partners and consultation with stakeholders.

4.15.2 Strategic Promotion of Events: The messaging and language used in promoting an event, as well as the methods used to convey these communications, should be carefully considered according to the specific event and relevant context.

4.15.3 Security or Police Involvement: Notifying Victoria Police ahead of time about an upcoming event is recommended. Greater involvement with local police or extra security measures could be deemed necessary according to whether the situation or event requires it. The Victoria Police Multicultural Liaison Unit, which has a dedicated LGBTIQA+ Liaison Officer role, is available for advice.

4.15.4 Partnering with Internal Stakeholders: Consulting with a variety of teams within Council can assist in ensuring that the nuances of an event have been well considered and multiple lenses and organisational needs have been addressed.

4.16 It is recognised that whilst this report and related work is in response to the Notice of Motion for LGBTIQA+ events and programs, the consideration of a broader social and political lens allows Council to be prepared for other events that may involve all diverse communities, or events that may be considered contentious or controversial.

4.17 In addition to considering strategies and measures to safely hold events, the Social and Political Risk Checklist (referenced in attachment 1) has been developed. This is an operational tool for Council officers to use in effectively preparing for events that have social and political elements.

4.18 The Social and Political Risk Checklist includes considerations such as:

· Are diverse communities involved or the target group of the event?

· Does this event relate to a wider social or political theme, topic or issue?

· Have other councils or organisations run similar events that have encountered any issues?

· Does this event involve participation or attendance of children?

· Could the nature of this event and any potential issues create a reputational risk or communications impact for Council?

· Has a risk assessment been completed that considers the context of social and political risk for this event?

· Have controls or processes been put in place to mitigate identified risks?

· Have Victoria Police been notified of the event well in advance of it taking place?

· Have any other relevant external or internal stakeholders been consulted with as appropriate?

· Does the nature of this event create any concerns for the safety and wellbeing of the public or Council staff?

4.19 The Social and Political Risk Checklist provides a mechanism for Council to ensure it is meeting its wide variety of obligations in running an event. This includes meeting community needs, ensuring public safety and adhering to Child Safe Standards and Occupational Health and Safety requirements.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 Since June 2023, consultation has been undertaken in the development of this report and response to the Notice of Motion, with a focus on key local peak bodies and representatives of the LGBTIQA+ community, including:

· City of Port Phillip’s LGBTIQA+ Advisory Committee

· Victorian Pride Centre

· Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV)

· Victoria Police

· Minus18

· Rainbow Community Angels

· Victorian State Government.

5.2 This consultation has informed the previous strategies, measures and processes detailed in 4.15 and attachment 1.

5.3 Consultation and collaboration are ongoing to ensure advice and expertise are up to date according to the changing landscape and latest recommendations.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Legal and risk implications pertaining to the safe delivery of LGBTIQA+ programs have been considered in this report and its associated attachment.

6.2 Council has a responsibility to ensure duty of care for officers and the community in the planning for and delivery of events. Occupational Health and Safety, as well as community safety, are key considerations in the risk management of events.

6.3 The strategies and tools developed to manage risk and support the delivery of safe and inclusive events have been aligned to and connected with Council’s existing Risk Management Framework.

6.4 Within attachment 1, controls and strategies are detailed for officers to consider implementing to manage risk and any potential for issues.

6.5 Attachment 1 references the Social and Political Risk Checklist, which is an operational tool for Council officers to use in effectively preparing for events that may have social and political elements.

6.6 The Social and Political Risk Checklist has been developed to respond to what is considered a changing political climate, and to streamline the approach for officers to ensure appropriate and necessary risk management processes are undertaken.

6.7 The draft Social and Political Risk Checklist was pilot tested in preparation for two key Council events in January 2024 – the We-Akon Dilinja (Mourning Reflection) dawn ceremony and the Pride Flag Raising Ceremony. As a result of the checklist being completed in both instances, the relevant risk assessments were strengthened in order for those events to proceed safely without disturbances and ensure sufficient security measures.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 There are no financial implications pertaining to the Social and Political Risk Checklist.

7.2 Most strategies and controls are considered cost neutral and will be delivered within existing event budgets however on occasion there may be additional costs (e.g. security guards).

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 There are no environmental impacts pertaining to this report.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 Hosting events and programs for the LGBTIQA+ community, including those recognising days of significance, assist in creating a more welcoming and inclusive City.

9.2 Through the endorsement of the LGBTIQA+ Action Plan, Council commits to supporting its LGBTIQA+ community, which includes safely delivering inclusive programs, events and recognition.

9.3 There is an increasing understanding across tiers of government, primarily local government, of the need to strengthen event planning to consider security concerns in the delivery of LGBTIQA+ and other events for diverse communities, to create a safe environment for attendees.

9.4 Hosting events and programs for all diverse communities, including the LGBTIQA+ community, assists in creating social cohesion and inclusion. It can also attract residents and visitors to participate in the local economy.

9.5 It is recognised that avoiding, cancelling or not participating in or hosting LGBTIQA+ events can potentially have an adverse impact on the community.

10. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

10.1 The safe delivery of LGBTIQA+ programs, community events and recognition align with Council Plan 2021-32 Strategic Direction 1: Inclusive Port Phillip. This direction has the objective of ‘a city that is a place for all members of our community, where people feel supported and comfortable being themselves and expressing their identities’.

10.2 Council’s LGBTIQA+ Action Plan 2023-2026, sets out the needs and aspirations of LGBTIQA+ people in the municipality, establishing desired outcomes and guiding Council in its role of embedding LGBTIQA+ inclusion across Council activities. It provides the pathway to achieving its vision of ‘an inclusive City where diverse LGBTIQA+ communities are safe, connected and celebrated’.

11. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

11.1 TIMELINE

11.1.1 Ongoing: Council is committed to supporting its diverse communities, including the LGBTIQA+ community and rainbow families through providing, facilitating, hosting and partnering LGBTIQA+ events and programs. This includes the implementation of the LGBTIQA+ Action Plan 2023-2026.

11.1.2 Ongoing: Council continues to support, facilitate or host events for the LGBTIQA+ community year-round. These events can be delivered through various Council areas or services, such as library programming, youth events, the Midsumma Festival, or partnerships with organisations like Minus18.

11.1.3 Ongoing: Council officers conduct effective, robust and considered event planning, using the Information Pack – Guidance for Planning Safe and Inclusive Events (attachment 1) for advice and the Social and Political Risk Checklist as an operational tool.

11.1.4 The tool will be incorporated into future events planning including the annual Midsumma Festival which takes place in the City of Port Phillip, celebrating LGBTIQA+ pride and culture. Council’s involvement in the festival includes a stall at Midsumma Carnival, hosting the Pride Flag Raising Ceremony and hosting and participating in the Midsumma Pride March.

11.2 COMMUNICATION

11.2.1 Council will continue to work with the LGBTIQA+ community and relevant stakeholders previously mentioned, to support the delivery of safe and inclusive events.

11.2.2 A revised set of strategies, tools, and controls have been investigated and developed to enable Council to confidently plan and promote safe events for the LGBTIQA+ community, as well as other diverse communities.

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

1. Information Pack - Guidance for Planning Safe and Inclusive Events⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

15 May 2024

10.1

Inkerman Safety Improvement Project - Project Recommendations

Executive Member:

Brian Tee, General Manager, City Growth and Development

PREPARED BY:

David MacNish, Head Major Transport Projects - Domain Precinct

Chris Tsiafidis, Senior Transport Engineer

Jack McGuane, Transport Planner

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To consider design options following community engagement for the Inkerman Safety Improvement Project and seek Council endorsement to proceed to detailed design and construction of a preferred design option.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 Council’s Creative and Prosperous City Strategy 2023-26 outlines Council’s commitment to create a thriving social, cultural and economic future for the City of Port Phillip. The strategy seeks to deliver a prosperous City that attracts and grows businesses.

2.2 The Inkerman Safe Travel Corridor project was identified as the highest priority bike corridor in Council’s Move Connect Live: Integrated Transport Strategy 2018-28. The strategy identified Inkerman Street as a protected bike lane from St Kilda Road to Hotham Street.

2.3 At the 5 May 2021 Council Meeting, Council endorsed the development of three concept designs.

2.4 Following a request from Councillors, in March 2023, Officers investigated a fourth ‘do minimum’ option and explored ways to reduce parking impacts in each design option. Design iterations have resulted in reduced parking impacts.

2.5 At the 18 October 2023 Council meeting Council agreed to release two concept designs for community engagement:

Option A: Safety improvements including a kerbside protected bike lanes.

Option B: Safety improvements including on-road buffered bike lanes

2.6 Both option A and B provide increased safety for all road users compared to existing conditions and allow for:

· Re-sheeting of Inkerman Street between St Kilda Road and Hotham Street

· Three new mid-block, accessible pedestrian priority crossing locations with flashing lights

· Implementation of signalised ‘early start’ for pedestrians and bike riders at traffic lights and flashing ‘Give Way to Pedestrians’ signage

· Bike lane marking on approach to and through signalised intersections, with green treatments and intersection marking

· Installation of green treatments and line-marking at unsignalised intersections, to provide awareness for bikes crossing

· Dedicated right turn signal phase at Chapel Street

· Installation of kerb extensions at two unsignalised intersections where crashes have occurred

· Introduction of a 40km/h speed limit

· Increase the width of parking bays to align with recommended widths and to accommodate parking of a broader range of vehicles on Inkerman Street

2.7 The primary differences between option A and B are:

· Option A is a kerbside protected bike lane with elevated concrete barriers between cyclists and vehicles, Option B is a painted on-road bike lane with painted buffers between cyclists and moving vehicles and between cyclists and parked vehicles (to reduce car dooring).

· Option A results in the loss of 114 parking spaces on Inkerman Street, Option B results in the loss of 14 parking spaces on Inkerman Street (assuming design changes proposed in this report)

· The total estimated cost for Option A is $9,378,750, for Option B is $6,893,000 (including the road resurfacing costs and a 40% contingency).

· While both options improve safety outcomes compared to existing road configurations, Option A has better safety outcomes and better alignment with Council policy.

2.8 Community engagement took place over 7 weeks (19 October to 7 December 2023). (inclusive of a two-week extension).

2.9 There was significant community participation with 1,742 responses received during the engagement period inclusive of 1,579 Have Your Say respondents as well as emailed and written submissions. The responses were from a diverse cross section of the community with most respondents living in suburbs where the project is located.

2.10 The below table outlines the percentage and total number of responses in support of each option.

Overall Responses
Design Option	Total No.	Total %
Option A	772	44.3%
Option B	739	42.4%
Other / neither	231	13.3%
Total	1,742	100%

2.11 The Engagement Summary Report was presented to Council at the 20 March 2024 Council meeting. Key themes from the engagement include support for increasing safety for all road users, providing safer and more inclusive riding options and providing more inclusive crossing options. Concerns focused on loss of on-street parking and negative impacts reduced parking may have on residents and businesses. Other concerns related to access to disabled bays.

2.12 Proposed design changes in response to Council and community feedback include:

· Additional safety measures for each design option including the installation of physical and rollover separators

· Relocation of pedestrian crossing from Blenheim Street to Nelson/Raglan Street

· Dedicated right-hand turn signal phase at Chapel Street

· Review of parking restrictions on Inkerman Street to increase the number of cars able to park on Inkerman Street

· Reduced parking loss for each option on Inkerman Street and opportunities for additional parking in side streets. There are 180 parking spaces on Inkerman Street. After investigating options for additional parking,

o under option A, 114 parking spaces will be removed. This is 2 fewer spaces being removed from that originally proposed during the project engagement.

o Under option B, 14 parking spaces will be removed. This is 6 fewer spaces being removed from that originally proposed during the project engagement.

o Two (2) additional parking spaces have been identified on side street within 100 meters of Inkerman Street.

These are shown in Attachment 3 and 4.

2.13 In summary, while Option A better aligns with the objectives of the project and Council’s Integrated Transport Strategy and generally provides improved safety outcomes, the parking loss and associated impacts particularly on local businesses is significant. Local businesses are concerned that parking loss associated with Option A may adversely impact their business contrary to Council’s Creative and Prosperous City Strategy 2023-26 which seeks to attract and grow businesses. While Option B delivers fewer safety benefits compared with Option A, Option B improves safety outcomes compared to the existing road configuration and has significantly less parking loss. This report recommends that Council proceed with option B.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Thanks community members who provided feedback on the Inkerman Streetscape Improvement Project.

3.2 Endorses proceeding to detailed design and construction of Option B: Safety improvements including on-road buffered bike lanes, and changes set out in Attachment 3.

3.3 Notes the total estimated construction cost of $6,893,000, inclusive of road resurfacing works, with funding from Council’s Sustainable Transport Reserve Fund and Asset Renewal budgets.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 The Inkerman Safe Travel Corridor project proposes treatments to Inkerman Street between St Kilda Road and Hotham Street (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Map of Inkerman Safe Travel Corridor site

4.2 Inkerman Street is at the end of life and is due for re-sheeting. This will result in the removal of all road line-marking including the existing painted bike lanes.

4.3 Inkerman Street has a high number of recorded crashes compared to other Council-managed roads. The updated crash data obtained in December 2023 for the 5-year period ending in June 2022, showed a total of 31 crashes were recorded where road users obtained with serious or non-serious injuries.

· 10 bike rider crashes were recorded (2 serious)

· 10 pedestrian crashes were recorded (7 serious)

· 5 motorcyclist crashes were recorded (2 serious)

· 30 crashes involved cars and, mostly, involved two road users (3 serious car only crashes)

4.4 At the 5 May 2021 Council Meeting, Council endorsed the following project objectives:

· Improve safety for all road users and attract a broader range of people of all ages and abilities to ride a bike,

· Increase travel choices by providing a safe alternative to public transport and cars, and

· Minimise and mitigate parking loss and maximise tree retention.

4.5 At the 18 October 2023 Council meeting Council agreed to release two options for community engagement. The two options aim to address repetitive crash history and identified safety risks and increase safety for all road users (including vulnerable users: pedestrians, bike riders, drivers and motorcyclists). They also aim to ensure waste collection, maintenance operations, emergency vehicles, vehicle turning requirements and sightlines and pedestrian accessibility is not impeded.

4.6 Each of the options:

· Provide increased safety for all road users to varying degrees (vehicles, pedestrians, riders, and motorcycles)

· Utilise the existing road footprint (kerb to kerb)

· Reduce on-street parking availability (to differing degrees)

4.7 Community engagement occurred over a seven-week period (19 October – 7 December ’23).

4.8 At the 21 February 2023 Council meeting, Council resolved to amend the Action 18a of the Integrated Transport Strategy as follow:

Action 18a: “Deliver a range of interventions to build a network of connected, safe riding options, ensuring safety for people of all ages and abilities, and continue to explore opportunities for the provision of protected bike lanes in the City of Port Phillip.”

4.9 At the 20 March ‘24 Council meeting the results of the community engagement and the Engagement Summary Report were presented to Council.

4.10 The results of the community engagement, associated Council report and meeting minutes can be found on the Council meeting website (2024 Meetings and Agendas - City of Port Phillip). The key themes and proposed design responses are outlined in Attachments 2, 3 & 4.

4.11 An independent Road Safety Audit (Attachment 1) was undertaken to ensure design options addressed the key risks from the risk safety audit including:

· Separation of riders from parked vehicles to reduce car dooring risks

· Bike lane marking on approach to and through signalised intersections, with green treatments and intersection marking

· Installation of green treatments and line-marking at unsignalised intersections, to provide awareness for bikes crossing

· Dedicated right turn arrows at Chapel Street

· Implementation of signalised ‘early start’ for pedestrians and bike riders at traffic lights and flashing ‘Give Way to Pedestrians’ signage

· Three mid-block, accessible pedestrian priority crossing locations

· Installation of kerb extensions at two unsignalised intersections where crashes have occurred

· Introduction of a safer 40km/h speed limit

4.12 Other design features are outlined below:

Option A: Safety improvements including a kerbside protected bike lanes
Physically protected, 2.2m wide kerbside bike lanes with buffered parking on one side of the road, three dedicated pedestrian crossings with flashing lights and kerb outstands at side streets.

Figure 4. Option A. Road layout

Figure 5. Wellington Street Collingwood – similar road layout and dimensions to Option A.

4.13 Summary

· Design features: This option provides space for various bike types and speeds, providing less confident riders with the greatest level of comfort and will facilitate the highest uptake of riding. Drivers have clear space to exit vehicles. Pedestrians have priority crossing locations at mid-block locations and clear sightlines to bikes and vehicles.

· Safety outcome: Based on the Safe System Analysis considering all road users, this option provides the highest safety increase from existing conditions.

· Strategic outcome: This option aligns with some project objectives and aligns with Council’s Integrated Transport Strategy ensuring rider safety for people of all ages and abilities. The objective not adequately satisfied is minimising impact on parking.

· Financial elements that have the highest cost impact for this option in order are as follows:

o Re-sheeting

o Separator kerbs for bike lanes

o Pedestrian crossings with flashing lights

o Early starts for pedestrians and riders at signalised intersections and relocation of detector loops

o Kerb outstands

· Impacts: This option has the highest impact on parking (loss of 116 bays over the 1.2km length – reduced to 114 through design changes).

Parking on Inkerman Street: On average, during peak occupancy times, parking bays on Inkerman Street would be at 100% capacity requiring use of parking in side streets.

Parking on and within 100m of Inkerman Street: On average, during peak occupancy times, parking bays on and with 100m of Inkerman Street will be at 96% capacity (detailed below the heading Parking Impacts).

Some ‘unrestricted’ parking bays on Inkerman Street may be used for all day parking. To increase parking availability new parking controls could be considered to increase turn over and free up parking spaces. Parking controls could also encourage off street parking where available and could help in prioritise bays for residents with a parking permit.

· The option provides the safest overall outcome for road users, aligns with Council’s endorsed strategies and is a similar approach to the St Kilda Road bike corridor.

4.14 Option B: Safety improvements including a on-road buffered bike lanes
On-road 1.2m bike lanes located between parking and traffic lanes, with painted buffers on either side, parking on both sides of the road, three dedicated pedestrian crossings with flashing lights and kerb outstands.

Figure 7. Option B. Road Layout

Figure 8. Moray Street, South Melbourne – buffer treatment similar to Option B

4.15 Summary:

· Design features: This option provides a buffer on each side to protect bike riders. It provides wider parking bays and a buffer between parked cars and the bike lane for drivers to exit the vehicle. While existing riders would feel safer, it may not encourage less confident riders to start riding. Pedestrians have priority crossing locations at mid-block locations and clear sightlines to bikes and vehicles.

· Safety outcome: Based on the Safe System Analysis considering all road users, this option has a lower safety increase than Option A but is safer than existing conditions. The option provides increased safety for existing riders and riders who are comfortable using buffered bike lanes.

It is noted that the buffer adjacent the parking bays does not fully accommodate the car-dooring zone, which means that, when car doors open, a car door will partially encroach into the cycle lane. As part of the detailed design officers have proposed the investigation of opportunities to adjust the buffers on either side of the bike lane to increase separation from parked vehicles and reduce the risk of car dooring. Adjustments would result in a bike lane similar to the Moray Street on-road bike lanes (see Figure 8 above).

· Strategic outcome: This option aligns with the project objectives of reducing parking impacts but does not align with the objective to increase ridership or with Council’s Integrated Transport Strategy as it does not provide rider safety for people of all ages and abilities.

· Financial elements that have the highest cost impact for this option in order are as follows:

o Re-sheeting

o Pedestrian crossings with flashing lights

o Early starts for pedestrians and riders at signalised intersections and relocation of detector loops

o Kerb outstands

4.16 Impacts: This option has minimal impact on parking (loss of 20 bays over the 1.2km length – reduced to 14 through design changes).

4.17 Parking on Inkerman Street: On average, during peak occupancy times, (based on a 20 bay reduction of parking on Inkerman Street) parking bays on Inkerman Street would be at 82% capacity and not requiring use of parking in side streets.

4.18 Parking on and within 100m of Inkerman Street: On average, during peak occupancy times, parking bays on and with 100m of Inkerman Street will also be at 82 %capacity (detailed below the heading Parking Impacts.

As per option A, restrictions to currently unrestricted parking bays on Inkerman Street would provide additional parking availability.

Parking impacts

4.19 An independent parking assessment was undertaken using February 2022 parking occupancy data.

4.20 ‘Occupancy’ includes available parking on side streets within 100m (less than a 3-minute walk) of Inkerman Street. There are 6 number of bays within this catchment is 633 car bays with 180 bays on Inkerman Street.

4.21 Below is a summary of the impact on parking. It does not take into account the additional bays identified during recent reviews (2 additional bays for Option A and 6 additional bays for Option B).

4.22 Based on parking survey the designs have the following parking impacts for the 100m catchment area:

· Existing 78% parking occupancy during peak times

· Option A 96% parking occupancy during peak times

· Option B 82% parking occupancy during peak times

4.23 Parking on Inkerman Street (excluding the catchment area), peak occupancy (highest recorded) occurs around lunch time:

· Existing 65% average parking occupancy

73% average parking occupancy during peak times

· Option A >100% average parking occupancy,

> 100% average parking occupancy during peak times

· Option B 73% average parking occupancy,

82% average parking occupancy during peak times

4.24 Additional parking bays identified and changes to parking restrictions would increase available parking for each option on Inkerman Street.

4.25 The following table summarises the above information by section:

Inkerman St sections:	Section 1 St Kilda Rd to Chapel St	Section 2 Chapel St to Westbury St	Section 3 Westbury St to Hotham St	Totals
Parking Supply Existing parking supply on Inkerman St and side streets within each section up to 100m	172	301	160	633
Occupancy Peak Occupancy Observed	143	229	124	496
(%)	83%	76%	78%	78%

Option A
Parking Reduction	46	43	27	*116*
Parking Supply	126	258	133	517
Resulting Peak Occupancy	113%	89%	93%	96%

Option B Parking Reduction	8	6	6	20
Parking Supply	164	295	154	613
Resulting Peak Occupancy	87%	78%	81%	82%

Design Response to community feeback / Key themes

4.26 Key themes and commentary were identified from the 1,579 Have Your Say (HYS) survey responses, pop-up sessions and 61 project emails.

4.27 There was a total of 396 free text survey comments that selected Option A and 366 free text survey comments that selected Option B and 142 comments from those who selected neither option.

4.28 Key themes from the text survey relating to the proposed project and design options were outlined in the 20 March 2024 Council report.

4.29 Attachment 2 includes a summary of the key themes with associated officer responses and Attachment 3 includes a diagram showing locations of proposed design changes for consideration for both Option A and Option B.

4.30 Responses to the key themes, including proposed mitigation measures are subject to detailed design, technical review and will be reviewed using Road Safety Audits during detailed design.

Proposed Design Changes

4.31 Both Options (A and B)

These changes are applicable to both design options and recommended for incorporation:

· Relocation of the proposed zebra crossing proposed between Young Street and Blenheim Street to between Raglan Street and Nelson Street

· Modification to signal phasing at Chapel Street and Inkerman Street to provide a dedicated right turn phase for north bound vehicles

· Parking adjustments to Inkerman Street and side streets to allow for additional parking bays identified through the Parking Opportunity Investigation (see following section)

· Incorporate a physical separator (concrete kerbing) between bike lane and traffic lane, on approach and departure to signalised intersections where there is adequate room with no impact to traffic lanes or parking

· Provide concrete kerb on approach to sides street intersections where there is adequate room with no impact to traffic lanes or parking

· Increase gradient of raised threshold treatments at side streets to help reduce speeds at conflict points

· Investigate ‘intermittent rollover separator’ (low profile riley kerb) at crossovers with high vehicle volumes and/or access is provided to multiple parking spaces

· To increase parking supply and in response to concerns by business investigate changes to parking restrictions, (separate to this project) to consider:

o Short-term Parking Restrictions to replace unrestricted parking bays

o Saturday restrictions

o Dedicated DDA bays on Inkerman Street or side streets

Note: High turnover parking is not generally recommended for Option B other than in some locations where safe. This is due to safety issues arising from frequent vehicle movements for parking conflicting with riders.

4.32 Option A specific design changes

Proposed design changes to Option A (should this option proceed):

· Investigate an increase the kerb separation (between bike lane and traffic lane) on the northern side to provide a refuge space.

· Investigate pedestrian priority crossings over the bike lane (such as raised bike lane zebra crossings) with supporting signage and line marking, at key locations where businesses cater to older or disabled customers.

4.33 Option B specific design changes

Proposed design changes to Option B (should this option proceed):

· Incorporate ‘rumble strip’ to outer edge of traffic lane (edge of bike lane buffer) to increase driver and rider awareness and reduce vehicle drifting

· Investigate adjustments to the buffers on either side of the bike lane to increase separation from parked vehicles.

· Investigate buffers for parking adjacent to intersections where no buffer between parking and bike lane is provided, where there is adequate room and no impact to traffic lanes or parking

Parking Opportunity Investigations

4.34 As per the 18 October ’23 Council resolution, investigations have occurred to identify increased parking on Inkerman Street and on side streets within 100m of Inkerman Steet.

4.35 The design changes considered:

· Removal of redundant crossovers

· Introduction of new kerb extensions / outstands

· Changes to no-parking restrictions where bays could be safely provided

4.36 Additional bays are subject to detailed design, vehicle swept-path testing, road safety audits and, for restriction changes, consultation with adjacent landowners.

4.37 Officers have provided high level cost estimates for the additional works. The estimates include a 50% contingency as there is currently no concept design for the changes. This aligns with Council’s Project Contingency Framework.

4.38 Adjustments to incorporate additional parking are as follows:

4.39 Side Streets

Officers have identified an additional 2 parking bays on side roads in both options A and B, these are recommended for inclusion. This would be achieved by changing restrictions from “No Parking” (on Malakoff St). The cost of changing the signage would be funded through existing BAU budget.

Two additional parking bays located approximately 100m from Inkerman Street were also identified. These have not been recommended for inclusion due to the proximity to Inkerman Street (100m from Inkerman Street) and would be at an indicative cost of 90k including GST for kerb outstands required to enable appropriate sightlines.

4.40 Option A

Potential to increase the parking by two bays on Inkerman Street with adjustments to Option A. The indicative cost is $150k including contingency.

· Two additional parking bays on Inkerman Street:

o One bay associated with kerb outstands (South side: adjacent to Chusan St)

o One bay associated with removal of a redundant crossover inclusive of kerb and channel adjustments (305 Inkerman Street, St Kilda)

· Indicative cost: $150k incl. 50% contingency.

· Note: Two bays on Inkerman Street were identified and included prior to engagement.

4.41 Option B

Potential to increase the parking by a total of six bays on Inkerman Street with adjustments to Option B. The indicative cost is $315k including contingency.

o 5 bays associated with kerb outstands (South side: adjacent Camden St, Balston St and Chusan St. North side: adjacent Queen St & Sebastopol St)

o 1 bay associated with removal of a redundant crossover inclusive of kerb and channel adjustments (305 Inkerman Street, St Kilda)

If the above was adopted, the impacts on each design inclusive of changes on side streets would be as follows:

Parking Reduction along Inkerman St

Parking On Side Roads

Additional Parking Identified

Net Parking Loss
(if additional parking options are adopted)

Option A

-116
(64 bays remaining)

453

On Inkerman Street: +2

On Side Roads: +2

-112 (100m catchment)

(-114 bays on Inkerman Street)

Option B

-20
(160 bays remaining)

453

On Inkerman Street: +6

On Side Roads: +2

-12 (100m catchment)

(-14 bays on Inkerman Street)

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 Community engagement occurred over a seven-week period (19 October – 7 December ’23). At the 20 March ‘24 Council meeting the results of the community engagement and the Engagement Summary Report were presented to Council.

5.2 The results of the community engagement (including business specific feedback), associated Council report and associated meeting minutes can be found on the Council meeting website (2024 Meetings and Agendas - City of Port Phillip).

5.3 Council received 1,579 Have Your Say (HYS) survey responses (online or hard copy) which is high compared to other Council projects.

5.4 Of the 1,579 survey participants the majority (1,048) identified as living on Inkerman Street or surrounding streets. Where respondents identified their suburb, the top three suburbs represented were St. Kilda East (511), Balaclava (364) and St. Kilda (350), making up 77.6% of all respondents. The project area is contained within these three suburbs.

business specific feedback SUMMARY

5.5 An overview of business specific feedback was outlined in the 20 March ‘24 Council meeting report.

5.6 Council records indicate that 43 businesses with a commercial tenancy are located along Inkerman Street between St Kilda Road and Hotham Street. In 42 individual HYS survey responses the respondent identified themselves as running a business on Inkerman Street. Officers interviewed 36 businesses.

5.7 HYS survey responses from businesses showed a clear preference for Option B over Option A. Results were as follows; 9 (21.4%) selected a preference for Option A, 26 (61.9%) selected a preference for Option B and 7 (16.7%) preferred neither design option.

5.8 Most businesses interviewed commented that parking reduction would have an adverse impact on their business.

5.9 Several businesses identified that disabled access was critical to their business and customer base. Some businesses identified that they provide a specialist service to parts of the community, and that some customers need to drive to Inkerman Street as they do not have alternate service choices available. Option A or B will not remove DDA parking bays.

Community engagement - Key findings

5.10 A summary of the key findings from the Engagement Summary Report tabled at the 20 March ’24 Council meeting is outlined below.

5.11 The survey responses showed that there is a variety of views within the community in relation to the project and support for both options. The below table outlined the percentage and total number of responses in support of each option.

The data includes responses received during the engagement period including, HYS, pop-up surveys, project emails (excluding those who provided a HYS response) and a bulk email-submission.

Overall Responses
Design Option	Total No.	Total %
Option A	772	44.3%
Option B	739	42.4%
Other / neither	231	13.3%
Total	1,742	100%

Note: the bulk email-submission (55 people) identified Neither Option or Option B on behalf of the represented parties. The submission also noted a preference for several changes for inclusion that are also included in Option B. The submission has been in included as 'Other/Neither’ in the above table.

5.12 Survey participants living on Inkerman Street and the surrounding streets who provided feedback through Have Your Say responded as follows:

HYS Survey Respondents that live on Inkerman or surrounding streets
Design Option	Total No.	Total %
Option A	442	42.2%
Option B	506	48.3%
Other /neither	100	9.5%
Total	1,048	100%

5.13 The project area is contained wholly within St Kilda East, Balaclava and St Kilda. The majority of HYS survey respondents, 1,226 of the 1,579, were from these three suburbs equating to 77.6% of HYS respondents (or 70% of all respondents).

Participants from these suburbs, inclusive of businesses, responded as follows:

HYS and Pop-up Surveys Respondents from suburbs that the project is wholly within.
Design Option	Total No.	Total %
Option A	531	43%
Option B	577	47%
Other / neither	118	10%
Total	1,226	100%

5.14 Businesses on Inkerman Street that provided feedback through Have Your Say responded as follows:

HYS Survey Respondents that run a business on Inkerman Street
Design Option	Total No.	Total %
Option A	9	21.4%
Option B	26	61.9%
Other / neither	7	16.7%
Total	42	100%

5.15 Prioritising project outcomes was included in the HYS survey, 90.7% of respondents completed this question. Irrespective of the design option selected, participants identified the following two options in their ‘top-three’ priorities:

· Providing increased safety for all road users

· Providing safer more inclusive crossings

5.16 Younger survey participants (aged under 35) were more likely to select Option A. Older survey participants (aged over 50) were more likely to select Option B. Those between 35-49 were evenly split.

Resident Petitions

5.17 Council has received two petitions related to the project.

5.18 On 10 April Council received a petition on the Inkerman Street project containing 1,306 signatures requesting that Council not endorse, recommend, or proceed to implement Option A. The petition was received about 18 weeks after the closure of the community engagement period.

The petition was tabled at the 17 April 2024 Council meeting where Council resolved to:

· receive and note the petition,

· thank the petitioners for their petition, and

· note that a report on the Inkerman Safety Improvement Project would be considered by Council at an upcoming Council meeting to determine how to proceed with the project and, that the petition will be noted within the report.

5.19 Following the above Council meeting, 24 April Council received a joint petition on the Inkerman Street project containing 524 signatures (166 hard copy and 358 online signatures). The petition requests that Council not remove any parking on Inkerman Street.

The petition was tabled at the 1 May 2024 Council meeting where Council resolved to:

· receive and note the petition,

· thank the petitioners for their petition, and

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Council has an obligation to mitigate high-risk environments that impact the local community, particularly where the asset is owned and managed by Council, as is the case with Inkerman Street. Given the corridor’s crash history, addressing safety risks helps Council discharge its liability.

6.2 Council requires approval from the Department of Transport and Planning for any works that are major traffic control items. The following safety treatments proposed in both project options are considered major traffic control items: speed limit reduction, modification to signals, installation of pedestrian zebra crossings with flashing lights and modifications to clearway signage. Whilst officers have received ‘in principal support’ from DTP, formal support will be sought as part the next phase of the project.

6.3 The project will require Council to work with the utility companies where their assets need to be relocated. Permits from utility companies will be applied for as part of the detailed design process.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 The Inkerman Safe Travel Corridor has funding allocated in the Council Budget.

7.2 Inkerman Street’s road-surface is in average/poor condition and requires re-sheeting. The re-sheeting works are part of Council’s Asset Renewal Program and budget.

7.3 Given the crash history, Council will seek funding through the Federal Blackspot Program and the Transport Accident Commission’s Safe Local Roads and Streets Program to reduce budgetary impact on Council.

7.4 A cost estimate, prepared by the project consultant for the concept designs is detailed below (officers have applied a 40% contingency).

Description	Option A	Option B
Project cost
St Kilda Road to Hotham	$ 4,736,250	$ 2,800,000
40% Contingency	$ 1,894,500	$ 1,120,000
Hydraulic Modelling allowance (cost TBD)	$ 100,000	n/a
Sub-total	$ 6,730,750	$ 3,920,000
Re-sheeting costs
St Kilda Road to Westbury	$ 1,280,000	$ 1,280,000
Westbury to Hotham	$ 440,000	$ 440,000
40% Contingency	$ 688,000	$ 688,000
Sub-total	$ 2,408,000	$ 2,408,000
Total	$ 9,138,750	$ 6,328,000

Melbourne Water has indicated that hydraulic modelling, to understand if there is any impacts on water flow paths resulting from the project, will be necessary for Option 1 (a) at an estimated cost of between $40,000 to $100,000. This has been included above.

7.5 Should Council adopt the changes to parking and the proposed additional safety measures (included in Attachments 3 and 4) the associated costings would be as follows:

Description	Option A	Option B
Project cost
St Kilda Road to Hotham	$ 4,736,250	$ 2,800,000
40% Contingency	$ 1,894,500	$ 1,120,000
Adoption of Parking Changes
On Inkerman Street	$ 100,000	$ 210,000
50% Contingency	$ 50,000	$ 105,000
Allowance for adoption of additional safety measures	$ 60,000	$ 100,000
50% Contingency	$ 30,000	$ 50,000
Hydraulic Modelling allowance (cost TBD)	$ 100,000	$ 100,000
Sub-total	$ 6,970,750	$ 4,485,000
Re-sheeting costs
St Kilda Road to Westbury	$ 1,280,000	$ 1,280,000
Westbury to Hotham	$ 440,000	$ 440,000
40% Contingency	$ 688,000	$ 688,000
Sub-total	$ 2,408,000	$ 2,408,000
Total	$ 9,378,750	$ 6,893,000

Hydraulic / flood modelling (outlined in item 7.4) will be necessary for both options at an estimated cost of between $40,000 to $100,000. For Option B, this is due to proposed design changes and new kerb outstands to enable additional parking. This has been included in the above costs.

7.6 Design changes proposed in response to the engagement process have been included.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 Prioritising the delivery of comfortable, safe, continuous, and connected protected bike lanes will encourage increased bike riding. Providing a streetscape amenable to walking and riding allows car journeys to be avoided, with an associated decrease in community greenhouse gas emissions in Port Phillip. Private vehicle use presently accounts for 14 per cent of the City’s emissions. This is expected to increase to nearly 50 per cent of local emissions by 2040.

8.2 Opportunities have been investigated to provide new tree planting and water-sensitive urban design features. Option A but not Option B would increase tree canopy cover and support biodiversity, providing shade, passive irrigation, and improved water quality.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 The project responds to ongoing safety issues and personal injury risks and seeks to increase transport choices and provide healthier lifestyles. It supports local connectivity, giving people the choice to safely walk or cycle to nearby destinations including shops, parks and services.

9.2 Removal of on-street parking is a concern for some residents and particularly local businesses. Changes to mitigate parking loss include changes to existing parking restrictions to increase turnover and increase availability.

SOCIAL IMPACT

9.3 The project responds to existing safety issues and aims to addresses challenges of growth in our city and the precinct by improving travel choices.

9.4 The project aims to reduce the need for car travel improving physical health and wellbeing.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

9.5 Loss of on-street parking outside commercial space could adversely impact business. Changes to existing parking restrictions could increase parking access.

10. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

10.1 The Inkerman Safety Improvement Project aligns to Strategic Direction 2 of the adopted Council Plan 2021-31:

Liveable: Port Phillip 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.

11. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

11.1 TIMELINE

11.1.1 Indicative timeline for works is as follows;

· May 2024 – Community update

· May 2025 - Detailed Design Completion

· April 2026 - Lighting design and service relocations

· Late 2026 - Completion of procurement

· Late 2027 - Completion of construction

11.2 COMMUNICATION

11.2.1 Community Update – emailing community members that have subscribed to the project via Council’s Have Your Say on Council’s decision.

12. OFFICER MATERIAL OR GENERAL INTEREST

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Inkerman Street - Existing Conditions RSA⇩

2. Key themes and officer responses⇩

3. Option A Design Changes⇩

4. Option B Design Changes⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

15 May 2024

10.2

Domain Precinct Parking Review

Executive Member:

Brian Tee, General Manager, City Growth and Development

PREPARED BY:

David MacNish, Head Major Transport Projects - Domain Precinct

Ingrid Perronnet, Senior Project Manager Domain

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To present the Domain Precinct Parking Review report and outline recommendations for Council consideration and adoption.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 The Domain Parking Precinct (‘the Precinct’) is bounded by Kings Way, St Kilda Road, and Dorcas Street. The area is undergoing significant residential and commercial redevelopment which is generating greater demand for on-street parking. Combined with the reduction in the supply of on-street parking because of the construction of ANZAC Station and other projects, the pressure on remaining on-street parking is significant.

2.2 Council’s Domain Precinct Public Realm Masterplan 2019 includes an action to review on-street parking controls. When consulting on the draft Master plan, addressing parking pressures was a key concern for the local community.

2.3 The Domain Precinct Parking Study Data Summary (GTA, 2019) and Domain Precinct Parking & Loading Study (Phillip Boyle & Associates, 2018) were completed to assist Council in responding to concerns about loss of parking and insufficient loading and servicing facilities within new residential buildings.

2.4 The local resident’s group G12+ lodged a joint letter at the ordinary Council meeting in September 2020 requesting that Council replace on-street car parking spaces being removed as part of the Anzac Station final design.

2.5 At the September 2020 Council meeting, Council resolved to undertake a parking review to:

· Identify opportunities to increase parking supply in the area,

· better manage existing parking supply, and

· Investigate opportunities to enable buildings to better utilise off-street parking.

2.6 In May 2023, following the ending of Covid-19 restrictions and allowing time for vehicle use to ‘normalise’, O’Brien Traffic was appointed to undertake the Domain Precinct Parking Review (‘the Study’), included in Attachment 1.

2.7 The Study report was finalised in March 2024 with proposed recommendations considering how usage may vary once Anzac Station is open.

2.8 The parking review report identifies and recommends that Council:

· Explore the reconfiguration of parking layouts on Palmerston Street and Bowen Crescent from parallel to angled parking

· Changes existing parking restrictions across the study area

· Consider more flexible arrangements for permit holders where access to permit bays are limited

· Continue advocacy to the State Government and negotiate with developers for new buildings to provide onsite loading and visitor spaces.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Notes the challenges associated with parking in the Domain Precinct and the role that parking management has in enabling access to parking.

3.2 Notes the findings and recommendations in the O’Brien Domain Precinct Parking Review report (Attachment 1).

3.3 Requests that officers further assess and brief Council on the reconfiguration of road-space in Palmerston Crescent and Bowen Crescent, including:

· reconfiguration to provide additional parking

· opportunities for streetscape improvements including planting, and

· an assessment of probable costs.

3.4 Notes that projects in paragraph 3.3 would be subject to the Council budget process with community engagement undertaken as part of any project.

3.5 Requests that officers implement proposed changes to locations of loading bays and timed on-street parking restrictions, outlined in the O’Brien report (Attachment 1).

3.5.1 Delegates officers to adjust recommended changes to ensure changes are consistent with Council’s Parking Management Policy.

3.6 Notes that changes to parking restrictions would be undertaken as part of Council’s operating budget.

3.7 Notes that access to permit parking in Area 1 is limited, particularly south of Albert Road, and delegates officers to identify and provide changes to parking bays, where appropriate, to offer greater flexibility for parking permit holders in this area.

3.8 Notes that officers continue to negotiate with developers to provide onsite loading facilities and visitor parking in new developments.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

Background and Context

The City of Port Phillip is growing, and future projections indicate the City will be faced with a 20% increase in road congestion by 2027 compared to today if no changes are made. This will contribute to increased competition for on-street carparks, which is particularly relevant to the Precinct bounded by St Kilda Road, Dorcas Street and Kings Way (refer Figure 1).

Figure 1 Domain Precinct and Project Study Area

4.1 To address this, Council’s Parking Management Policy was developed a framework for managing existing on-street spaces with the objective of managing the impact of growth and promote more equitable access to parking by optimising parking efficiency. Increasing parking pressures are being experienced in the Precinct due to growing residential and workforce population from new developments. In addition, on-street parking places are being re-purposed with the construction of ANZAC Station.

4.2 The construction of the ANZAC Station and related public space and transport enhancements are reducing the supply of on-street car parking by approximately 160 on-street car parking spaces in the Precinct, primarily along Albert Road.

4.3 Council commissioned the Domain Precinct Parking Study Data Summary (GTA, 2019) and Domain Precinct Parking & Loading Study (Phillip Boyle & Associates, 2018) to assist Council to respond to concerns about loss of parking and insufficient loading and servicing facilities within new residential builds.

4.4 When consulting on the draft Domain Precinct Public Realm Masterplan 2019, parking pressures was a key concern for the local community, accordingly, the Masterplan includes an action to review on-street parking controls.

4.5 Council has received complaints that on-street parking spaces are being used for deliveries including removalists and that these would be better accommodated by loading facilities in buildings.

4.6 In September 2020, local residents (G12+) lodged a joint letter asking Council to replace the on-street car parking spaces proposed to be removed as part of ANZAC Station development.

4.7 At the September 2020 Council Meeting, in response to the G12+ joint letter, Council resolved to undertake a parking review to:

· Identify opportunities to increase parking supply in the area,

· better manage existing parking supply and,

· investigate opportunities to enable buildings to better utilise off-street private parking.

4.8 Commencement of the parking review was delayed until there was clarity around the full impact of Anzac Station on on-street parking and by Covid-19 which impacted traffic movements through the Precinct and meant that any traffic surveys undertaken during and in the following months COVID pandemic restrictions would be inaccurate.

4.9 O’Brien Traffic was appointed undertake a Study in May 2023:

· Identify specific opportunities to increase the supply of on-street parking to partly offset the removal of on-street parking spaces in the Precinct resulting from the Metro Tunnel Project (MTP) and other developments in the precinct.

· Review current parking controls in the Precinct in accordance with Council’s Parking Management Policy, to ensure the available spaces are used as fairly and effectively as possible.

· Identify specific changes to on-street parking controls in the Precinct to improve the turnover of parking spaces and ensure access to loading and short-term passenger pick up and drop off spaces.

· Identify options so underutilised parking in existing buildings and developments within the Precinct can be accessed by visitors and trades people.

· Identify existing statutory mechanisms that could enable sharing of off-street parking spaces (servicing, visitor parking and loading zones) by owners’ corporations within existing buildings and developments in the Precinct and;

· Identify long term strategies to limit on-street loading/service spaces by new developments within the Precinct.

4.10 Discussions with the G12+ during the Study identified key challenges that faced by the local community, notably:

· Developments reducing on-street parking levels, increasing demand on remaining parking.

· Multi-storey public off-street parking car parks being lost to development.

· Lack of dedicated on-street parking for visitors, service providers & tradespeople.

· New residential developments not providing on-site loading and visitor parking.

· Limited access to parking resulting in poor driver behaviour such as double parking and using driveways as delivery or pick-up areas creating inconvenience and poor safety.

On-street Parking

4.11 The Study identified that the total number of on-street parking spaces within Precinct will drop from 556 (2019 levels) to 482 once Anzac Station works are complete.

4.12 Current parking restrictions (see Figure 2) are typically short to median term with restrictions limited to weekdays. It is noted that, at the time of the review, there was significant construction within the precinct restricting access to parking in some areas, these have been noted as ‘Unavailable’.

Figure 2: Existing parking restrictions

4.13 Assessment of the current parking restrictions broadly indicate an uneven spread of loading zones trough the Precinct with the bulk to the south of the Precinct, gaps in the availability of disabled parking bays and limited parking opportunities for residential permit holders to the south.

4.14 Spot parking surveys undertaken on 17 and 20 June 2023 as part of the Study indicate that the highest parking demand occurred during the weekday and Saturday lunchtime peak, consistent with 2018 data recorded by GTA. Parking at these times was generally at capacity.

Figure 3: On-street parking occupancy Tuesday 20 June 2023 12pm

Figure 4: On-street parking occupancy Tuesday 20 June 2023 5pm

Figure 5: On-street parking occupancy Saturday 17 June 2023 12pm

Permit Parking

4.15 Currently, permit holders only have unrestricted parking in front of fully residential buildings. Accordingly, approximately 100 bays are available for permit holders throughout the Precinct, located largely at the northern end of Area 1 either on, or north of Park Street.

4.16 Approximately 971 properties in Area 1 are entitled to residential parking permits (resident, combined, visitor), with 73 parking permits presently issued to 58 properties in Area 1

4.17 Anzac Station has removed approximately 8-9 parking permit eligible bays on St Kilda Road between Bowen Cres and Kings Way, impacting the availability of permit spaces to the south of the Precinct.

Off-street Parking

4.18 There are limited ways that Council can influence how parking is used in private developments / buildings.

4.19 Council resolved on 28 March 2018 to seek the discretionary requirements for onsite loading facilities to be converted into mandatory built form controls in the Design and Development Overlay (DDO26) for the Domain Precinct. This was not supported by the Minister for Planning.

4.20 The current statutory parking rates for developments are specified in Clause 52.06-5 of the Victorian Planning Scheme. There is requirement for visitor parking for dwellings within a Public Transport Network area, this is particularly notable within the Precinct given the construction of Anzac Station and the existing St Kilda Road tram links.

4.21 Council has successfully negotiated the provision of visitor car parking/car share spaces in several recently approved developments within the precinct. These negotiations occur on a case-by-case basis and the outcomes vary.

O’BRIEN STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

4.22 The following is a summary of the recommendations outlined within the O’Brian report.

On-Street Parking Supply

4.23 The consultant identified Palmerston and Bowen Crescents as having the potential to increase on-street parking supply in the Precinct.

4.24 Changes to the configuration of Palmerston Crescent could provide 9 additional bays (see Figure 6) to the current supply of 22 spaces. This would require parking on the northern side of Palmerston Crescent to be removed, and parking on the southern side to be converted from parallel to 60deg parking, if current road arrangements are maintained. This could increase the number of additional bays available and address the difficulty of manoeuvring into 60 degree bays from the west.

Figure 6: Potential reconfiguration of Palmerston Crescent

4.25 Potential reconfiguration of parking on Bowen Crescent could provide an additional 7 parking bays, yielding a total of 27 spaces at this location. Parking on the northern side would be removed and parallel spaces on the southern side would be converted to 90deg parking.

Figure 7: Potential reconfiguration of Bowen Crescent

Parking Restrictions

4.26 The consultant has identified potential changes to parking restrictions to provide more equitable access, increasing turn-over availability and enhanced opportunities to meet the specific parking needs of the community.

4.27 Parking restriction changes proposed include (see Figure 8):

· Dorcas Street: convert unrestricted to 1P\Bank Street: convert 4P to 2P

· Bowens Lane & Queens Lane: convert Loading Zones to 1P

· Provide additional 1/4P and disabled parking throughout the Precinct

· Provide additional Loading Zones in the northern half of the Precinct

· Extend restrictions to apply to Saturdays

Figure 8: Proposed Parking Restrictions

Permit Parking

4.28 The consultant identified potential changes to permit parking restrictions to improve access for permit holders.

4.29 Changes proposed include the application of flexible restrictions in some locations such as:

· Permits Accepted between 4pm-10am

· Loading Zones only during certain hours

4.30 In view of the limited eligible parking spaces available to the south of the Precinct, giving greater flexibility for parking permit holders by allowing parking permits to be used along the frontages of buildings that are not 100% residential is being considered.

Off-street Parking

4.31 Given the limitations of the current statutory provisions for the area, ad-hoc negotiations by Council for the provision of loading and visitor parking in new developments is a key mechanism to implement change and lessen the burden on on-street parking supply. Further, continued advocacy through the State Government’s review of parking provisions, which has the potential to change current Planning Scheme requirements, is crucial.

4.32 The consultant has identified parking apps that have the potential to increase the use of vacant onsite spaces for use by guests to buildings which could partially address concerns about the lack of visitor and service spaces.

4.33 One app identified in the Study, Parkable Parking Management app, allows residents to self-manage spaces without the need for a concierge or property manager input. The app can be used to reserve spaces for visitors and tradespeople.

4.34 Discussion with the G12+ have shown interest in using these apps in individual buildings. Uptake would be discretionary and Council’s role is limited to provision of app information.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 Council officers and its consultant have met with members of the G12+ resident group on two occasions during the preparation of this report, both at its inception to ensure their concerns were being considered by the project, and later to present the recommendations of the study. The G12+ have responded positively to the report recommendations and, while acknowledging the impossible task of finding solutions to parking in a highly developed area, have noted that the recommendations address in part, some of the concerns they have raised.

5.2 Engagement related to any proposed works for Palmerston Crescent or Bowen Crescent would be undertaken as part of any future project.

5.3 Impacted properties will be notification of any changes to parking restrictions.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 There are no legal implications from the issues considered in this report.

6.2 There is a reputational risk to Council issuing Residential permits in an area with limited spaces. While Council does not guarantee that spaces will be available, the existence of a permit implies that some spaces exist within a reasonable distance of the addresses to which the permits are attached. Recently, Council officers been asked to refund the cost of permits. Implementing recommendations of the Study that increase the number of spaces eligible for use with residential permits, may, in a minor way, mitigate against this risk.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 Implementation of some of the recommendations of the Study will have a direct impact on parking restrictions and paid parking spaces with a consequent impact on Council’s paid parking revenue. The quantum of the impact will be determined once Council decides which recommendations should be adopted.

7.2 The cost of reconfiguration of parking layout identified by the Study to increase on-street parking numbers is unfunded. Officers will cost these works for Council consideration.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 There are no environmental impacts from the issues considered in this report.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 The Study delivers Outcome 4 of Council’s Move Connect Live: Integrated Transport Strategy, “Our community understand that parking is a limited and shared resource and works with Council to ensure fairest access”, with the Study’s key objective being for access to on-street parking to be fair and equitable.

9.2 Consultation conducted as part of the draft Domain Precinct Public Realm Masterplan 2019, and through discussions with G12+ conducted during the Study, highlighted that parking pressures is a key concern.

10. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

10.1 The Study aligns with Strategic Direction 2 of the adopted Council Plan 2021-31:

“Liveable: 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”

10.2 The Study particularly aligns with one of the identified provisions of this strategy “parking controls and management that encourage fair and equitable use for residents, businesses and visitors to out City”.

10.3 The Study fits within the four-year strategy:” Port Phillip is safer with liveable streets and public spaces for people of all ages and abilities to enjoy”. As part of the initiative, Council will provide “enhancements to our public realm including local area traffic management, pedestrian and bike riding safety projects, improved lighting and management of vehicle access to improve safety for everyone throughout our City”.

10.4 The Study is further expressly identified in the list of projects to be completed for the St Kilda Road neighbourhood in “Investing in our neighbourhoods” within the adopted Council Plan 2021-31.

11. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

11.1 TIMELINE

11.1.1 2024/25 - Officer review of the viability of reconfiguration of Palmerston and Bowen Crescents and brief Councillors

11.1.2 2024/25 – Investigate and implement time-based parking restriction changes.

11.1.3 2024/25 – Investigate and implement permit parking changes.

11.2 COMMUNICATION

11.2.1 Community consultation plans will be delivered for the separate projects that arise from the Study where significant on-ground changes are proposed.

11.2.2 Engagement related to any proposed works for Palmerston Crescent or Bowen Crescent would be undertaken as part of any future project.

11.2.3 Impacted properties will be notification of any changes to parking restrictions.

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

1. Domain Precinct Parking Review April 24⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

15 May 2024

12.2	South Melbourne Market Project Connect Scope Endorsement
Executive Member:	Claire Stevens, General Manager, Organisational Capability and Experience
PREPARED BY:	Sophie McCarthy, Executive Director South Melbourne Market

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To provide Councillors with details of the South Melbourne Market Project Connect scope for endorsement.

1.2 To provide Councillors with findings from the South Melbourne Market Community Consultation program seeking feedback on Project Connect and Market trading days and hours.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 Part 1: South Melbourne Market Project Connect

2.2 As South Melbourne Market (“the Market”) moves into the future, an overarching program of capital works is being developed to ensure it continues to deliver a sustainable, safe, and inclusive market experience for years to come. This program of capital works incorporates two key areas of focus.

2.2.1 Compliance and renewal: The Market requires significant upgrades to bring it into compliance with National Construction Code (NCC). The identified upgrades have triggered a program of capital works to address non-compliances. Funding was allocated to this program of works in the 10-year Council Budget in 2019, with some of the requirements already addressed and the balance of remaining works to form part of this Project Connect program.

In addition, an Asset Renewal Improvement program will run alongside these compliance works to deliver an annual program of minor capital works to ensure the safe and successful day to day operations of the Market.

2.2.2 Strategic Vision: In 2018-19 Council initiated the development of a business case (SMM NEXT Project) to shape the future strategic direction and investment in the Market with the outcomes designed to not only address compliance (as above) but to also address the need for more public space; population growth; and the trend for revitalisation of markets worldwide.

The NEXT Project final concepts were presented to Councillors at a Council Briefing on 9 November 2022. Direction was sought on the final program of works to progress, with Councillors supporting a mid-range program of improvements to the Market that would provide a range of value outcomes including improved public realm treatments on all three sides of the Market, and improvements to back of house facilities to improve productivity for traders.

These public realm improvements are aligned to, and supported within, Council’s draft South Melbourne Structure Plan.

Additional funding of $17.2m was endorsed in Council’s 10-year budget commencing 2023-24.

2.3 These works will be combined into one overarching aligned and comprehensive master plan, Project Connect, from 1 July 2024 to ensure all dependencies are managed, disruption is minimised, works are appropriately staged, and efficiencies sought.

2.4 To inform the development of the final scope for Project Connect, the Project Team has sought feedback and undertaken a range of investigative work including Community Consultation via Council’s Have Your Say platform; Traffic Impact Assessment; Structural Integrity Audit; and a Loading Bay and Waste Optimisation review.

2.5 There are two key items of scope for Project Connect that have been informed by the additional information and subsequent review mentioned above. These include:

2.5.1 Potential relocation of rooftop carpark ramp: The Market compliance report recommended investigating the relocation of the ramp to the rooftop carpark to York Street. The Traffic Impact Assessment identified that the congestion would not reduce but instead shift to York / Ferrars Street, and the Community consultation was inconclusive. As such the scope recommends retaining the ramp in the current location.

2.5.2 Closure of Cecil Street – northbound lane: The closure of the citybound lane of Cecil Street was supported by Councillors in the progression of SMM NEXT Project in November 2022, and is recommended to remain in the Project Connect scope. Community feedback on the proposed partial closure of Cecil Street was mixed with those that provided further comment mainly citing concerns about congestion and traffic. However, the Traffic Impact Assessment concluded that the closure of Cecil Street to northbound traffic would simplify the operation of both roundabouts, and, as a result, generally improve overall traffic performance across all time periods.

2.6 This paper outlines the final scope of Project Connect, and details findings from the various investigations that were undertaken to advise and inform this final scope to ensure the desired outcomes are achieved.

2.7 Part 2: South Melbourne Market Days and Hours of operation

2.7.1 This paper also outlines the proposal to retain the current market trading hours at this time following the community, local trader, and Market trader consultation program.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Endorses the scope for the South Melbourne Market’s overarching program of capital works “Project Connect”.

3.2 Notes the feedback from Community Consultation program on Project Connect and the Market’s Days and Hours (provided at Attachment 1).

3.3 Notes there is no proposal to change current Market trading hours and days at this time.

3.4 Authorises the CEO, or their delegate, to make minor adjustments to the Project Connect Scope during concept design as required to ensure alignment with compliance and renewal requirements and strategic vision.

4. BACKGROUND

4.1 Part 1: South Melbourne Market Project Connect Background

South Melbourne Market (” the Market”) was established in 1867 and is the oldest continuing market in Melbourne. Over time, the Market has undergone regular improvement and expansion to accommodate the growing needs of its traders and the local community, as well as to ensure it meets changing regulations.

The Market continues to thrive in the local community with consistently strong visitation, a world leading Net Promoter Score (NPS) of 80, 96% of our visitors rating our offer very good / excellent and 89% of the community agreeing that the availability of the Market is a significant benefit to them. All of this is despite its ageing infrastructure, significant congestion (vehicle and pedestrian), lack of public space and seating, and a limited footprint.

4.1.1 Addressing National Construction Compliance (NCC) requirements

As part of the Market's 2018 Building Compliance Action Works Scoping study and report (BCAWS), a number of National Construction Code (NCC) non-compliances were identified that were required to be rectified to address building compliance at the Market.

Funding was allocated to these projects in the 10-year Council Budget in 2019, with some of the requirements already addressed and others underway as outlined in the table below.

Compliance Project	Status
Emergency access/egress stairs constructed to rooftop carpark from York Street carpark	Underway - to be completed 2024
Smoke extraction fans above Aisle B to manage smoke extraction in the event of a fire	Completed in 2023-24
Waste forecast study to inform Loading Bay and Back of House improvements	Completed 2024
Electrical and structural audit to inform works required – works required will be incorporated into the scope for Project Connect or Asset Renewal program	Completed 2023-24
Underground services mapping to inform future projects	Completed 2024
Central stair compliance works	Completed 2023

The balance of the NCC requirements are major infrastructure improvements including, but not limited to:

· Increased number of amenities (i.e., more bathroom facilities)

· Improved pedestrian gradients via aisle and footpath regrading works

· Two new lift and stair combinations (York and Coventry Streets) providing compliant vertical access to the rooftop carpark.

· Review of vehicle access ramp to the rooftop carpark to address pedestrian ramp non-compliance and safety of carpark ramp.

These projects were identified as being interdependent with the Market’s strategic uplift project (formerly NEXT Project) and will now form part of the Project Connect scope for delivery, resulting in less likelihood of regret spend and ensuring an aligned and coordinated approach to major construction at the Market.

4.1.2 Strategic Market Uplift (formerly SMM NEXT Project)

At 9 November 2022 Council Briefing, SMM Management presented the SMM NEXT Project to Councillors to request additional funding in Council’s 10-year financial plan for the Market to provide critical infrastructure and public realm improvements to futureproof the Market.

Direction was sought, and of the final concepts presented to Councillors, support was given to Option G which was a mid-range program of improvements to the Market, over and above the Compliance and Asset Renewal investment, that would provide uplift and a range of value outcomes to address the needs of the Market in the future.

This includes:

· York Street: Plans to extend the footpath to approx. 11m width and provide loading / parallel parking on the Market side, and a new precinct developed on the York Street façade to best utilise this space. This will include stalls opening into the Market along the façade and introducing natural light and entry points into the Market while activating this currently underutilised north-facing side of the Market. Public Space will be prioritised with greening treatments, public seating, weather protection elements and a connection to the wider precinct, including the new development opposite at 80 Cecil Street.

The York Street public realm will also explore the best connection to the Tram stop with Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) citing a program of works with the objective to build a new ramp towards York Street.

Image 1: Artist impression from York St Masterplan presented in 2016

· Cecil Street: Following the success of the 2021 Cecil Street closure trial, Project Connect plans include the closure of the city bound lane of Cecil Street permanently to vehicles to allow for additional public space and tenanted space, while retaining the bike lane. Restaurants are open 5-6 days/week and into the evening allowing this precinct to be activated when the Market is both open and closed. Restaurants operate up to 77 hours/week and the trial showed this space activated outside of Market trading hours.

In their 2019 Traffic Study Mott McDonald shortlisted their recommendation to close Cecil Street to traffic between York and Coventry Streets, a finding that was then further tested in a TAC funded traffic study conducted by Traffix in 2020. The full and partial road closure was investigated, and it was concluded that the citybound lane closure was the more balanced option to implement and that it would improve the intersection performances of York / Cecil Street and Coventry/Cecil Street when compared to existing conditions. This recommendation was also supported by Council’s Traffic Team to improve congestion around the Market.

The public realm improvements on Cecil Street will allow for more public space, public seating, activation space, and provide a stronger connection to the wider precinct.

Image 2: Activation of Cecil Street January 2021

· Coventry Street: Extending the footpath on Coventry Street to include the existing angle parking spaces and replace this with parallel parking spaces / loading spaces, to provide more public realm for seating and people movement. The Mott McDonald Traffic Study 2019 recommended extending Coventry Street market footprint to incorporate the existing parking and loading spaces, which in turn would increase the amount of useable space on the existing footpath.

· Back-of-house: The Market’s loading bay and back-of-house areas currently exceed capacity, are outdated, and overcrowded in their current format. This project includes a thorough review and audit of the space alongside the compliance uplift required and a redesign of these spaces to maximise efficiency, productivity, storage, and safety to support the future growth of the Market.

Additional funding of $17.2m over 8 years was approved by Council through the 2023-24 Budget process to deliver this program of improvements alongside the existing compliance and capital works program for the Market.

4.2 Part 2: South Melbourne Market trading hours / days background

4.2.1 The Market trading hours and days are often considered and reviewed to determine ensure the continued relevance to the community and municipality.

South Melbourne Market is open for the least number of hours per week (33 hours/week) when compared with other public markets in Australia, however it is also a very popular and busy market with high visitation.

In November 2023 officers asked the community, local traders, and Market traders for feedback to contribute to a review of the South Melbourne Market’s trading hours and days, to understand the need and desire for increased and/or amended trading hours and days.

5. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

5.1 Part 1: South Melbourne Market Project Connect Project

To support and inform the development of the final scope for Project Connect, during Q1 and Q2 2023-24 the Project Team undertook a range of investigations and research. This has included:

· Traffic Impact Assessments to inform the location of the carpark ramp and the public realm improvements including the closure of the city bound lane of Cecil Street (Dec 2023 – Feb 2024). The potential relocation of the carpark ramp to York Street required significant investigation to understand the risks and benefits and inform the final scope.

· Internal Council peer and stakeholder review

· Community consultation via Council’s Have Your Say platform (November 2023)

· Loading Bay and Waste Optimisation review to inform the back of house improvements (November 2023 – March 2024)

5.1.1 Traffic Impact Assessment Outcomes

The Market’s Compliance report recommended investigating the relocation of the ramp to the rooftop carpark to York Street to address non-compliance with the pedestrian ramp, alleviate traffic congestion on Coventry / Cecil Streets and remove the conflict of cars and pedestrians on Coventry Street.

Traffix Group was engaged to undertake a Traffic Impact Assessment to review and report on the impact on traffic flow given the potential relocation of the carpark ramp to York Street, the closure of the city bound lane of Cecil Street, and improved, wider public realm treatments on York and Coventry Streets.

This investigative work was undertaken in Nov-Dec 2023 and is detailed in the below Traffic Impact Assessment.

A number of previous relevant traffic studies undertaken from 2018 through to 2021 were incorporated to reduce rework and utilise existing data and studies.

The Traffic Impact Assessment identified the following:

· As a result of a proposed relocation of the carpark ramp from Coventry Street to York Street, the traffic congestion around the Market shifts, along with traffic volumes, in line with the proposed changes to Cecil Street and the rooftop carpark access point relocation to York Street. That is, traffic conditions on Cecil Street and Coventry Street improve, whilst conditions on York Street and the York/Ferrars Street intersection worsen. (Note relocation no longer recommended in scope)

· The closure of Cecil Street to northbound traffic simplifies the operation of both roundabouts, and, as a result, they both generally improve in overall performance across all time periods.

· Approval would be required through the concept phase from Public Transport Victoria (PTV) and Department of Transport and Planning DTP) to relocate the bus stop on Cecil Street and reroute the bus (northbound only).

· There are two likely detour route options (Ferrars and Clarendon Streets), and it has been assumed that traffic will be evenly distributed between these two alternatives. An earlier study by Traffix on the potential closure of the northbound lane of Cecil Street found the following impacts to the wider network:

o It is expected that the increases in traffic to Ferrars Street and Clarendon Street will be of a noticeable level and will likely result in moderate impacts to intersection performance along these roads.

o It is noted by Traffix that the northbound closure scenario has some impact on the detour networks in question, but without the ramp relocation and those traffic volumes it is certainly not as much of an impact.

· The changes to the York Street and Coventry Street frontages are generally supported with minor changes, noting that the changes to York Street and Coventry Street do not impact traffic volume, function, or capacity. The changes result in an overall net decrease to on street parking supply of 5%.

5.1.2 Stakeholder Review

The Project Team also received advice and feedback from Council Traffic Engineers, the City Design Team, and Council’s Building Surveyors to assess the risks and benefits of the report findings and concluded that:

· The pedestrian ramps on York and Coventry Streets are both non-compliant and would be replaced with a stair and lift as part of Project Connect which would address this issue.

· Moving the vehicle entry / exit ramp to York Street would shift the congestion and add pressure to other parts of the road network.

· Traffic Engineers have socialised the potential changes with DTP in November who did not see significant issues with the public realm changes, including the closure of the northbound lane of Cecil Street, however, did highlight the need to gain approval from DTP (as mentioned by Traffix) for the relocation of the bus stop and rerouting of the bus that currently travels northbound on Cecil Street.

· The Market is a landmark destination with onsite parking and traffic congestion will always exist as a result.

· Walkability around the precinct is a high priority and needs to be considered when reviewing vehicle movement and improvements.

· There is appetite within the Traffic Team to review the roundabouts on Cecil Street to determine if congestion could be eased by treatments such as relocation of pedestrian crossings.

· The closure of the city bound lane of Cecil Street would have a positive impact on the congestion at the Cecil / Coventry Street roundabout.

· An onsite trial was suggested if the Project team wished to test the recommendations above.

5.1.3 Community Consultation

A Community Consultation program ran from 3 November to 3 December 2023 with the aim to:

· Inform/educate the community about the required (non-negotiable) asset compliance works required at the Market.

· Seek community (including Market traders) feedback on Project Connect, including public realm improvements and proposed initiatives to reduce congestion and improve flow.

· Provide an opportunity for general feedback, ideas, sentiments, and concerns regarding the Market in general.

The survey was completed by 46 SMM traders (32% of traders), 34 local traders and 783 members of the public (majority being Market customers).

Feedback was also sought from focus groups including Council Advisory Committees (five) and pop-up neighbourhood conversations (five).

All respondents were asked to assess the importance of a range of amenities for York Street and Coventry Street:

· Public dining spaces, seating and the use of natural materials were the attributes rated as most important for public realm improvements.

· The least important attributes were children’s play areas and dog-friendly areas. This was consistent with opposition displayed in comments, often voiced by locals, about SMM becoming a destination for activities rather than market/grocery shopping.

· An improved connection to the tram stop also rated highly when respondents were asked about Coventry Street in particular.

All respondents were asked to assess the impact on them of the vehicle entry / exit ramp to the Market’s rooftop carpark being moved from Coventry Street to York Street:

· 44% of respondents anticipated neutral impacts for ramp relocation, with 30% anticipating positive and 26% anticipating negative impacts.

· The most common theme for positive (30%) or negative (26%) sentiment was that it would either improve traffic on Coventry Street or worsen traffic on York Street. Traffic and general congestion in the area was noted in both themes and appeared to be a key concern for both traders and market visitors navigating the area.

All respondents were asked to assess the impact of a partial closure of Cecil Street (northbound lane closure)

· 31% of respondents anticipated a positive impact from the proposed partial closure of Cecil Street, while 30% anticipating a neutral impact and 40% a negative impact.

· Women and both local and SMM traders most anticipated negative impacts. Many respondents who provided further comment expressed that the closure would increase congestion and worsen existing traffic issues*.

· Male respondents most frequently assessed the impact as positive. The most common positive benefit anticipated by those who provided further comment was safety for active transport users when navigating the area.

*Note: The closure of Cecil Street northbound lane has been reviewed in Traffic Impact Assessment as improving the roundabout efficiencies and thus reducing congestion.

Feedback from the community, local traders and SMM traders has helped inform the final scope (along with other data and information) and will inform the concept design. A second wave of Community Consultation will be undertaken in early 2025.

The Community Engagement report can be found in Attachment 1 and a summary will be made available on Council’s Have Your Say website and the South Melbourne Market Website.

5.1.4 Loading bay and waste optimisation study

The objective of this study was to develop a plan to improve efficiency at the Market by reviewing and improving the loading bay and waste pathways, as well as enhancing back-of-house areas. These enhancements are intended to streamline operations and create a smoother experience for vendors and customers and complement the compliance requirements being addressed through Project Connect

It is not expected that the actions or recommendations from the report will significantly impact key elements of the Project Connect Scope and will instead inform the Head Consultant (architect) on challenges in the back-of-house areas around the Market, highlight safety improvements, recommend waste streaming improvements, and recommend non-structural changes within the loading bay and back-of-house areas to improve productivity.

All actions and recommendations from the study will be incorporated in the Project Connect design phase.

5.1.5 Structural Integrity Audit

The Compliance program of works included a Structural Integrity Audit to inform any works required as part of the overall Compliance program. The audit findings required further investigation on the structural integrity of the rooftop carpark slab and the final report is currently underway. Council will be notified if any significant remedial works are required to be included in the final Project Connect scope.

5.2 Project Connect Scope

The Project Connect Scope has been finalised considering remaining Compliance and renewal works and the Market’s Strategic uplift program.

The key elements of the scope are outlined below:

Code	Description
COMPLIANCE WORKS
1A	New Stair and Lift on York Street – incl demolition of current ramp
1B	New Stair and Lift on Coventry Street – removing current pedestrian ramp
2A	Refurbish and new amenities – multiple new toilet facilities
2B	Internal aisle regrading improvements – aisle and footpath regrading
3A	Loading bay / waste area optimisation changes – back-of-house improvements
3B	Loading area optimisation changes – back-of-house improvements
4A-C	Miscellaneous compliance improvements – electrical, structural, accessible.
5A	Roof replacement – end of life – Aisle B
STRATEGIC UPLIFT WORKS
6A	York Street Public Realm	Conversion of Market frontage to open tenancies from Aisle G to York Street
		Extension of York Street footpath including midway crossing to link with Northumberland Street.
		Loading bay / parallel parking on Market side
		Improved connection to Tram Stop aligned to DTP plans
		Conversion of Market frontage to open tenancies from Aisle G to York Street
6B	Cecil Street	Closure of Cecil Street northbound to traffic, extend public and tenanted outdoor space
		Improvements to traffic / pedestrian management at key roundabouts in conjunction with CoPP Traffic Engineers.
6C	Coventry Street /	Public realm improvements including widening of the footpath and additional public space and seating
		Parking and loading changes and regrading works on footpath.

5.3 Part 2: Community Consultation Market trading Hours/Days feedback

The Community was also asked for their feedback on South Melbourne Market’s trading hours and days, to understand the need and desire for increased and/or amended trading hours and days.

Existing trading hours

When asked if they were: Happy with current trading hours; Prefer Market to close later; Prefer Market to open earlier; or Prefer Market to open earlier AND close later, between 60% and 74% of respondents expressed they were happy with the existing trading hours for current market days. Refer to Table 1.

The survey then explored each of these options.

· Table 2 shows data on opening/closing earlier or later and shows the average responses across each Market Day. Current trading hours were preferred across all categories. SMM Traders overwhelmingly preferred current hours with an average of 85% support across the week, with minor support for closing later Saturdays (20%) and Sundays (15%).

· Just over half (54%) of Local Traders were in favour of current trading hours yet had more support than SMM traders for opening later Saturday (18%) and Sunday (26%), and for opening both earlier and later (24%).

· Local traders were more likely to assess neutral (56%) or positive impacts (26%) from the Market opening earlier than SMM traders (33% and 15% respectively).

· Over half of SMM traders assessed the impact of the Market opening earlier as negative (52%), compared to local traders (18%) however the response rate from SMM traders was low and so this may not represent the general view.

Closing earlier Friday

· The survey specifically asked about closing an hour earlier on a Friday as the Market currently closes at 4pm on Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday and 5pm on Friday.

· 67% of SMM traders assessed the impact of closing an hour earlier on a Friday as a positive change, whereas visitors assessed a neutral impact (73%) or negative impact (28%), and most local traders assessed a neutral impact (68%) or negative impact (32%).

Additional Trading Day:

· 53% of visitors and 62% of local traders were in support of the Market opening for an additional day. However, 63% of SMM traders did not support the Market opening an additional day.

· Thursdays were overwhelmingly preferred as an additional market day by SMM traders (85%) if this was to progress, visitors also preferred Thursdays (52%) with local traders preferring Thursday (45%) with Tuesday a second preference at 32%.

Impact of earlier / later hours:

The survey also asked Local and SMM Traders to rate the impact to them should the Market open earlier or later.

· Earlier: Local traders were more likely to assess neutral (52%) or positive (26%) impact than SMM traders, just over half of which assessed the impact as negative (52%).

· Later: Local traders were more likely to assess neutral (53%) or positive (35%) impacts from the Market opening later. Again, just over half of SMM traders (52%) assessed negative impact.

Based on the findings there are no proposed changes to Market trading hours / days in the short to medium term.

The Market officers will further investigate the economic and social benefits of opening an additional day and further review costs associated with opening an additional day to ensure financial sustainability.

Officers will also consider the impact of upcoming construction on trade to determine the best use of non-market day capacity to undertake some of the more disruptive works. Consideration of additional trading days would look to reduce impact on project delivery and support customer experience and trader productivity.

Any future recommendations on changed trading hours and days will be brought back to Council for review and endorsement.

6. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

6.1 Community Consultation Results – refer to results in Attachment 1.

A second phase of Community Consultation is planned for early 2025 to gain feedback on the Concept designs prior to progression to detailed design.

6.2 SMM Committee consultation:

At the SMM Committee briefing on Monday 25 March, the Committee agreed that:

· The Strategic Market Uplift plan has been approved as SMM NEXT Project Option G previously in a Council Briefing in November 2022 followed by endorsement via the Council Budget Process in June 2023.

· The project should prioritise York Street public realm development and compliance works.

· Pedestrian access to the tram stop was important and to continue working with PTV, DTP and CoPP internal stakeholders to incorporate this into the design.

· The majority supported the Cecil Street closure and recommended it be implemented later in the program of works, after York Street public realm improvements.

7. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

7.1 A number of National Construction Code (NCC) non-compliances were identified in the Market's 2018 Building Compliance Action Works Scoping study and report (BCAWS) and are now required to be rectified to address building compliance at the Market. Project Connect will now deliver the balance of works required to achieve compliance with NCC.

7.2 Risks identified in the development of Project Connect scope include, but are not limited to:

· Building Structure: Building structural integrity investigations have recently been conducted with results indicating further detailed scanning is required. The extent of possible impact to future works is currently being determined and Council will be updated as required.

· Community and trader response to Project Connect changes: Community and trader feedback has been considered in the scope development and will again be considered when Concept Designs are presented for further feedback in early 2025.

· Operational impacts to the Market: Whilst the project intent is to minimise operational impacts to the Market where possible, operational impacts will be unavoidable and will be managed accordingly with strong communication and consultation with impacted stakeholders. The Project brief will include the direction to maximise the use of non-market days (currently 3 days/week) for the more disruptive works where possible.

· Scope: All reasonable efforts have been undertaken to assess and review the critical elements of delivering the Project Connect scope, yet until the full concept is designed, the project team may be required to refine the scope to achieve maximum potential for the project.

· Budget and Cost Escalations: Several factors are contributing to cost uncertainty at this early stage of the project including: Compliance project developed in 2019 with anticipated cost escalations not recently evaluated; Staging and minimising disruption to Market operations could impact schedule and increase costs beyond those proposed. With the ramp relocation now removed from scope this may enable some budget capacity to help mitigate cost escalation since last costing.

· External approvals: Uncertainty around external body approvals required and time frames for such approvals, in particular for public realm and vertical access to rooftop carpark elements of scope.

· Seasonal constraints: Delivery of capital works program needs to work within the key trading periods of Christmas and Easter, along with construction industry closures through January.

· Constraints on construction schedule: Heavy construction would most often be required to be done on non-Market days (currently Monday, Tuesday and Thursday) potentially negatively impacting schedule.

7.3 All risks will continue to be monitored and reviewed and mitigating responses actioned as a priority.

8. FINANCIAL IMPACT

8.1 The Project Connect Budget from 1 July 2024 includes the balance of the outstanding Compliance works along with the Strategic Uplift program of works.

The budget for 24/25 relates to design, Head Consultant, and proposed project management costs. The balance of Head Consultant costs, along with finalisation of building permit/s, cost plans, and procurement of contractors and construction follows in 25/26 onwards.

8.2 Draft 10-year budget for Project Connect is based on costings from 2018-20 and there have been significant cost escalations post COVID. This provides some risk until we have the cost plan for the Project Connect design in 2024-25, however with the ramp relocation not progressing, this budget will remain within the project to mitigate against some of the cost escalation.

8.3 The Project Connect 10-year budget information below will be submitted as part of the final draft 2024-25 Council Budget.

SMM Project Connect	‘24-25	‘25-26	‘26-27	‘27-28	‘28-29	‘28-30	‘30-31	‘31-32
Budget ($’000)	$539*	$2,699*	$5,240	$5,236	$5,900	$5,885	$5,493	$1,035

Project Milestones and budget phasing are currently being reviewed and any further phasing changes will be incorporated into the final Council budget process.

* 2024-25 and 2025-26 have been slightly reduced (from first draft budget) with funds rephased to 2031-32 which will be reflected in final Council draft budget along with any final changes to phasing.

9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

9.1 Environmental outcomes will be incorporated into the design scope to align with the Market’s Environmental Sustainability targets, as well as Council’s Act and Adapt Policy.

10. COMMUNITY IMPACT

10.1 Project Connect is in alignment with Council’s draft South Melbourne Structure Plan which outlines:

· the need to capitalise on the popularity of the Market to create a thriving street-based retail precinct,

· supporting the delivery of public realm improvements to the interface between the Market and the footpath.

11. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

11.1 The Market is a key element of Council’s Vibrant Port Phillip strategic direction, supporting Council’s focus on being a city that has a flourishing economy, where our community and local businesses thrive, and we maintain and enhance our reputation as one of Melbourne’s cultural and creative hubs.

11.2 The Council Plan 2021-2031 also outlines the plan for a vibrant Port Phillip which supports South Melbourne Market’s Strategic Plan 2021-2025, which includes prioritising the safety and compliance of the Market, delivered through a planned program of improvements and the development of a risk and safety plan. It also supports the delivery of a vision to futureproof the Market through the development of an Asset and Precinct Master Plan (Project Connect). Project Connect will ensure the Market remains relevant to all its stakeholders.

12. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

12.1 TIMELINE

Following endorsement of the Project Connect scope, the Project next steps include:

· May/June 2024: Finalise additional project Management documentation, including revised business case, resource plan and procurement plan.

· August 2024: Engage Head Consultant to progress Concept design.

· Early 2025: Councillor briefing to present Project Connect concept design including schedule and staging for works.

· Early 2025: Community Consultation (phase 2) on Project Connect Concept design and staged works.

· March/April 2025: Results and final Project Connect Concept presented to Councillors.

· April 2025: Commence Project Connect detailed design.

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. Shaping South Melbourne Market - Engagement Report⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

15 May 2024

13.1

Financial Update 2023-24: Third Quarter

Executive Member:

Lachlan Johnson, General Manager, Operations and Infrastructure

PREPARED BY:

Peter Liu, Chief Financial Officer

Spyros Karamesinis, Head of Financial Business Partnering, Analysis & Compliance

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To provide Council with an overview of the results of the third quarter 2023/24 performance to budget and seek approval for any unbudgeted items.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 The Council Plan 2021-2031 (Year Three) and Budget 2023/24 was adopted at the 20 June 2023 Special Council meeting with a cumulative surplus of $0.87 million for 2023/24. The 2023/24 cash surplus forecast was revised as part of the development of the draft Budget 2024/25 to $0.24 million on 17 April 2024.

2.2 Following the third quarter financial review the 2023/24 cumulative cash surplus was further reduced from $0.24 million to $0.15 million (see Attachment 1).

2.3 The third quarter has posed several financial challenges for Council reflective of broader economic conditions including persistent high inflations and a competitive recruitment market. Key updates for the third quarter include:

2.3.1 A general decline in major building activity across the municipality with a decline in permit and street occupation income. This is coupled with a decline in developer open space contributions due to the increase in build to rent developments in the municipality.

2.3.2 Rising costs associated with delivering Council’s core services including significant cost escalations through delivering major projects including cost escalations for the St Vincent Gardens Playground upgrade.

2.3.3 Delivering services in hard to recruit industries such a Council’s long day care centres, resulting in lower availability of services. Noting also that there has also been a change in service utilisation and demand types with overall declining birthrates and dropping attendance momentum in part associated with a prevalence of work from home.

2.3.4 Declining volumes of parking infringements being issued largely due to impacts in recruiting and retaining parking infringement officers. Noting that this has been partially offset by a reduction in employee costs and an improvement in collections by Fines Victoria for historical lodged infringements.

2.4 Despite these challenges, Council continues its drive for identifying additional savings and ongoing efficiency savings.

2.4.1 Efficiencies occur where Council can deliver the same services for less, generate new revenue opportunities or through portfolio investments that generate positive returns.

2.4.2 As at the end of the third quarter 2023/24, ongoing efficiency savings of $1.5 million were achieved as Council works towards its target for Budget 2024/25 of $1.8 million.

2.4.3 Key savings include lower water and electricity utilisation, favourable tender outcomes, delivery of programs and projects below budget including summer management and various operating projects and broad review for organisational savings.

2.5 Regardless of the reduction in cumulative cash surplus, Council’s financial sustainability risk rating (see section 4) is expected to maintain an overall low risk rating (as budgeted). However, there are external and internal factors that may impact our Council’s financial sustainability including transfer of responsibilities from State Government, persistent inflation and State and Federal Government reforms continue to challenge the way that Council delivers services including planning, aged care, and short stay accommodation (see section 6).

2.6 The Project Portfolio has reduced by net $16.1 million to a 2023/24 forecast of $60.5 million from budget 2023/24 of $76.6 million.

2.6.1 Project portfolio delivery (specifically for capital projects) remains a key risk for Council due to persistent inflation particularly impacting construction costs through tender outcomes, contractor and project manager availability due to State Government projects creating a significantly completive market environment.

2.6.2 As part of the third quarter budget review, a budget request for additional funding for the St Vincent Gardens Playground upgrade has been included for Council consideration (see attachment 2).

2.6.3 While project deferrals and significant movements are published monthly in the CEO Report, those identified in April as part of the third quarter review have been listed in attachment 3.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Notes that full year cumulative cash surplus before the third quarter budget requests is $0.15 million which is $0.72 million unfavourable compared to budget of $0.87 million.

3.2 Notes attachment 1 – Financial Statements with accompanying explanatory notes.

3.3 Notes the updated cost plan for St Vincent’s Garden Playground Upgrade is higher than initial estimates of $1.2 million due to an increase in project costs, feedback from community engagement and greater design detail through design phase (see detail in attachment 2).

3.4 Approves additional funding through project budget re-prioritisation in 2023/24 and 2024/25 with no net impact to the cumulative cash surplus including:

3.4.1 $0.54 million for St Vincent’s Garden Playground Upgrade to proceed with cost escalations associated with the original project scope. The funding of this requires re-prioritisation of project budgets including Sol Green Reserve Upgrade.

3.5 Notes attachment 3 – Portfolio Deferrals and Achievements.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

Overview

4.1 The organisation carries out a monthly review of all operating revenue and expenditure as well as the project portfolio, which is then reported as part of the monthly CEO Report. In addition to this, a detailed quarterly update is presented to Council for the first, second and third quarters, followed by the annual report at year end.

4.2 The results for the third quarter financial review are presented to Council using two sets of performance reporting instruments:

4.2.1 The Comprehensive Income Statement Converted to Cash.

4.2.2 The Victorian Auditor General Office’s (VAGO) Financial Sustainability Indicators.

Comprehensive Income Statement Converted to Cash

4.3 We use the Comprehensive Income Statement Converted to Cash to ensure prudent financial management by maintaining a modest cumulative cash surplus.

4.4 Councils forecast cumulative cash surplus for 2023/24 has been updated in following the third quarter financial review to $0.15 million, which is $0.72 million unfavourable compared to budget of $0.87 million (Attachment 1).

4.5 Council’s forecast operating surplus has also decreased by $4.7 million from $10.4 million to $5.69 million. Full details are contained in Attachment 1 financial statements including commentary on material variances. The following section provides a high-level overview of key movements.

4.6 Net revenue reduction of ($3.7) million mainly due to:

4.6.1 $0.57 million improvement in grant income including additional funding Waste Transformation Program and additional funding in long day care centres due to current demographic profiles.

4.6.2 $0.25 million improvement in other income predominately due to increasing interest income due to favourable cash holdings and increasing investment yields due to improved investment returns projected for full year.

4.6.3 $0.25m increase in supplementary rates billing during July billing predominately due to growth in residential properties.

4.6.4 $0.2m additional income through the Container Deposit Scheme (material recovery facilities sharing scheme). Funds ringfenced in the waste charge reserve.

4.6.5 ($0.35m) reduction in street occupations and planning permits, primarily attributed to increased cost pressures and rising interest rates reducing building activity in the municipality.

4.6.6 ($0.7m) reduction in parking infringement income due to lower volumes of infringement issued over the summer period. This is due to challenges in recruiting parking infringement officers. This has been offset by a reduction in employee costs and an improvement in recovery of doubtful debts.

4.6.7 ($1.0m) reduction in long day care income as the utilisation of the service has declined in early 2024 coupled with rising costs of delivering service / recruitment challenges. Utilisation has been impacted by overall declining birthrates and dropping attendance momentum in part associated with a prevalence of work from home (reducing some need for childcare) coupled with challenges in recruiting staff. This has been partially offset by a reduction in employee costs.

4.6.8 Grant income has also been reduced due to the inclusion of a provision for the partial return of government funding for aged care services, due to service delivery challenges impacting the achievement of contracted performance targets. There are several factors that have impacted Councils ability to deliver service targets including the implementation of the Aged Care Reforms as the Federal Governments moves to a competitive marketplace reducing the volume of service referrals that Council receives, industry resourcing challenges, and the growing cost of delivering services above funding rates.

4.6.9 Council has also seen a significant decrease ($2.36 million) in forecast open space contributions (funds ringfenced in reserves). Primarily due to decreased subdivision activity caused by the increased number of build-to-rent developments. The loss of Open Space Contributions from Build-to-Rent development is negatively impacting on our ability to sustainable fund open space assets.

4.7 Net expenditure increase of ($1.0) million mainly due to:

4.7.1 $0.92 million ongoing efficiency savings archived including utilities through lighting upgrades, tender outcomes and project portfolio delivery and other one-off savings including lower water utilisation for watering due to summer weather and less re-active works required for summer management.

4.7.2 $0.17 million decrease to right of use (financed leased asset) expenditure based on current mix of lease vehicles and equipment. These savings are used to funds the fleet renewal program (purchasing vehicles as opposed to leasing).

4.7.3 $0.71 million increase current year non-capital spend associated with capital projects due to capital program deferrals from 2022/23 after budget adoption (offset against project reserves) and additional feasibility works approved for the Fishermen’s Bend Gymnastics Facility Feasibility Study.

4.7.4 $0.70 million improvement in parking infringement doubtful debt recoveries due to greater collection rates from Fine Victoria and reduction in parking infringement officer employee costs.

4.7.5 $0.3m reduction in long day care employee costs due to lower service utilisation. This partially offsets the loss of income experienced by the service.

4.7.6 ($0.48) million additional approved expenditure including $0.11m for St Kilda Triangle engagement with the market to further clarify the level of interest in investing in a new live music and performance venue and $0.12m for the feasibility work at the Fishermen’s Bend Gymnastic Club and the $0.25m re-instatement of budget for parking ticket machine maintenance contract due to efficiencies not able to be achieved through procurement of new contract.

4.7.7 ($0.60) million additional net cost due to delays in transitioning to fortnightly garbage service. This has been partially offset by delays in Multi Unit Development (MUDs) FOGO rollout.

4.7.8 ($0.63) million increases for 2022/23 operating projects deferred to 2023/24 after budget adoption. Key deferrals including Fishermans Bend and Greening Port Phillip Program (offset against reserves).

4.7.9 ($0.53) million net increase in depreciation, updated due to current mix of assets (actual assets capitalised to date) and also due to impact of 30 June 2023 revaluations.

4.8 Net capital reduction of $13.98 million mainly due to:

4.8.1 $19.1 million capital expenditure deferrals to 2024/25 and future years.

4.8.2 ($1.2) million of expenditure deferred and funded from prior year (updated after final budget adoption).

4.8.3 $1.4 million land purchase under the Public Space Strategy land acquisitions settled in 2022/23 ahead of budget in 2023/24.

4.8.4 ($3.9) million additional for deposit for land purchases under the Public Space Strategy land acquisitions.

4.8.5 ($1.5) million other minor movements including additional projects, cost escalations and minor project savings.

4.8.6 See capital works statement for detailed breakdown (Attachment 1).

4.9 The forecasted drawdown on council reserves has decreased by $9.9 million. This is primarily related to delays in delivering project work (funds held in reserves). See reserve movements notes in Attachment 1 for detailed breakdown.

Assessment against VAGO Financial Sustainability Indicators

4.10 Council’s decision-making is reflected by the principles of sound financial management, to ensure our financial position is sustainable. We assess our financial performance using the VAGO financial sustainability indicators.

4.11 Council is forecasting a low-risk financial sustainability rating at the end of the second quarter, highlighted by the seven VAGO financial indicators below:

Indicator	Forecast 2023/24	Budget 2023/24	Variance	Risk
Net Result %	2.2%	4.0%	(1.8%)	Low
Adjusted Underlying Result %	(0.1%)	0.5%	(0.6%)	High
Working Capital %	339%	351%	(12%)	Low
Internal Financing %	112%	77%	35%	Low
Indebtedness %	1.3%	1.3%	0.0%	Low
Capital Replacement %	187%	267%	(80.0%)	Low
Infrastructure Renewal Gap %	148%	199%	(54.0%)	Low
Overall financial sustainability risk rating	Low	Low	No Change	Low

4.12 The indicators generally need to be considered from a medium-term trend perspective rather than annual basis. A medium rating over one or two years is acceptable particularly in response to short-term events such as COVID-19 but over the medium to long-term, Council aims to achieve a low-risk rating overall.

4.13 Net Result %:

4.13.1 Net Result % assesses Council's ability to generate an operating surplus. The greater the result, the stronger the operating surplus. Budget 2023/24 included a 4.0% net result due to an operating surplus of $10.4m.

4.13.2 Net Result % has decreased by (1.8%) to a forecast of 2.2% for 2023/24 maintaining a low-risk rating. This is caused by a decrease in operating surplus for the same reasons as the reduction in Councils cumulative cash surplus and also due to the reduction in open space contributions (funds ringfenced in reserves).

4.14 Adjusted Underlying Result %:

4.14.1 Adjusted Underlying Result % assesses council’s ability to generate surplus in the ordinary course of business excluding non-recurrent capital grants and contributions to fund capital expenditure from net result.

4.14.2 An underlying deficit is normally budgeted due to the reliance on external funding/contributions to fund our infrastructure assets works. For instance, Open Space Contributions are collected, held in reserve to fund upgrades, expansion and new of public space.

4.14.3 The third quarter financial review forecasts a marginal high risk result due to the same factors highlighted in the Net Result ratio (excluding open space contributions).

4.15 Workings Capital %:

4.15.1 This working capital ratio assesses Council’s ability to pay short-term liabilities as they fall due (current assets/ current liabilities).

4.15.2 Council has no working capital issues at the forecast 3339% with a low-risk rating. This has improved slightly due to a projected decrease in liabilities at year-end (predominately payables).

4.16 Internal Financing %:

4.16.1 The internal financial ratio assesses Council’s ability to finance capital works using cash generated from its operations. A ratio below 100 means cash reserves or borrowing are being used to fund capital works, which is acceptable on occasions.

4.16.2 Internal financing has improved to 112% with a low-risk rating primarily due to updating timing of collection of cashflows and a minor reduction in capital expenditure (delayed to future years, with funds held in reserves).

4.17 Indebtedness %:

4.17.1 The indebtedness ratio assesses Council’s ability to repay its non-current debt from its own source revenue.

4.17.2 This indicator shows a low risk for Council with a forecast of 1.3% which is consistent with budget and significantly lower than the 40% target. Council has no current or planned borrowings Budget 2023/24 and Long-Term Financial Plan.

4.18 Capital Replacement %:

4.18.1 The capital replacement ratio assesses whether Council’s overall cash spend in renewing, growing and improving its asset base is enough.

4.18.2 Capital replacement % has reduced from budget to 187% (maintains a low-risk rating) caused by a reduction in capital expenditure (predominately due to capital expenditure delayed to future years, with funds held in reserves).

4.19 Infrastructure Renewal Gap %:

4.19.1 The infrastructure renewal gap ratio assesses Council’s spend on its asset base is keeping up with the rate of asset depletion (depreciation).

4.19.2 Infrastructure renewal gap % has reduced slightly from budget to 148% (maintains a low-risk rating) caused by a reduction in capital expenditure (predominately due to capital expenditure delayed to future years, with funds held in reserves).

Project Portfolio Update

4.20 The Project Portfolio has reduced by net $16.1 million to a 2023/24 forecast of $60.5 million. Portfolio deferrals and significant movements are published monthly in the CEO Report. While project deferrals and significant movements are published monthly in the CEO Report, those identified in April as part of the third quarter review have been listed in attachment 3.

4.21 The portfolio status is tracking below the to the 12-month average with 61% of projects reported On Track, 26% At-Risk and 13% Off Track.

4.22 The key challenges impacting delivery continue to be:

4.22.1 Construction costs: Tenders and cost plans are still returning with significant increase in costs compared to budget.

4.22.2 Contractor availability: Competition for resources for design and construction with the State Government Big Build and other Councils that are also in year three of their council plans.

4.22.3 Resource market: recruitment is still competitive for project management and specialised roles.

Budget Requests

4.23 The quarterly review process is also used to identify and assess urgent and unbudgeted expenditure proposals.

4.24 The following funding requests have been identified as part of the third quarter financial review for Council consideration (see attachment 2).

4.24.1 St Vincent’s Gardens Playground

· St Vincent’s Gardens Playground has progressed through the design phase. The cost plan based on the revised concept design for the project has come in significantly higher than the project budget.

· Key reasons for the cost escalation including greater detail being obtained through the project design phase, additional scope items through community engagement and an increase in project construction costs.

· This budget request is proposed to be funded from re-prioritisation of savings from Sol Green Reserve Upgrade and Blessington Street Pop-up Park removal.

· See detail in Attachment 2.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 The Third Quarter 2023/24 budget review and consideration of unbudgeted initiatives has been conducted after engagement with relevant stakeholders from across the business if required.

5.2 Specific consultation was conducted for the St Vincent’s Gardens Playground in November-December 2023 which has influenced the budget request being considered tonight. Details of this can be found on Council’s Have Your Say Website - St Vincent Gardens Playground Upgrade | Have Your Say Port Phillip

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 As outlined in section 4, the Council’s financial sustainability risk is considered low based on projections resulting from the third quarter financial review (as budgeted). However, there are several specific risks that Council is facing:

6.1.1 Open Space Contributions – The increase of build-to-rent developments has significantly impacted Council’s ability to collect developer open space contributions. The impact of known developments equates to a $4.9m loss to council of open space contributions. These contributions are vital to fund our growing public and open space portfolio. Advocacy work is in progress.

6.1.2 Persistent Inflation - High inflation continues to increase the cost base of our core services and projects. Melbourne all groups CPI rose by 3.0 per cent in the first three quarters of 2023/24. Ongoing overseas conflict is likely to cause further economic uncertainty and result in higher inflation. This remains one of our key risks in Budget 23/24 and our 10-year financial plan.

6.1.3 Childcare Centres experiencing low utilisation – Staffing shortages continues to be a significant barrier to opening more classrooms and increasing utilisation. Officers are working through agreed actions to encourage an improvement in utilisation.

6.1.4 Planning Reforms - State Government Planning Reforms are likely to impact revenue, particularly for large planning approvals over $50 million to be managed by the state and changes to planning requirements for residential backyard studios. Revenue is being closely monitored. The full impacts of the reforms are still being investigated.

6.1.5 Project Delivery – the portfolio (including both capital and operating programs) continues to experience increasing delivery risks due to staff resourcing, external dependencies, external approval, and statutory approvals.

6.1.6 Fishermans Bend Funding Gap – Ongoing significant risk of unfunded local infrastructure putting risk on delivery. Current economic environment means external funding opportunities may not be possible.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 Budget 2023/24 was adopted with a surplus of $0.87 million. As at the end of the third quarter the surplus has reduced to $0.15 million, this is a reduction of $0.72 million compared to Budget 2023/24 (see Attachment 1).

7.2 Noting that the budget requests will have no impact on the 2023/24 forecast cash surplus as the funds are proposed to be re-prioritised from existing projects within Council’s project portfolio.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 The third quarter financial review includes adjustments to Council’s project portfolio and considers delivery and environmental impacts.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 The updated financial information presented as part of the third quarter financial 2023/24 review including ongoing careful financial management will continue to deliver benefits to the community and support to the local economy.

9.2 The additional funding for St Vincent’s Garden Playground Update will directly benefit the community members through creating improved and more accessible recreation and open space. This will be achieved through improved facilities, equipment and amenity.

10. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

10.1 The third quarter review 2023/24 supports strategic direction 5 – “Well Governed Port Phillip” as a city that is a leading local government authority, where our community and our organisation are in a better place as a result of our collective efforts. This review helps to ensure that Port Phillip Council is cost-effective, efficient and delivers with speed, simplicity, and confidence.

11. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

11.1 TIMELINE

11.1.1 The initiatives proposed can commence immediately if approved by Council.

11.2 COMMUNICATION

11.2.1 Since the Budget was set new information on the costs of initiatives and accuracy of forecasts has been received.

11.2.2 These changes are reflected in updated forecasts in the monthly CEO report. This includes major changes including deferrals associated with the project portfolio.

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

1. Third Quarter 2023-24 - Financial Statements⇩

2. Budget Requests March 2024⇩

3. Portfolio Deferrals and Achievements - March 2024⇩

13.2	Appointment of Cr Crawford as Council's delegate to MAV external committee
Executive Member:	Joanne McNeill, Executive Manager, Governance and Organisational Performance
PREPARED BY:	Mitchell Gillett, Coordinator Councillor and Executive Support

13.4	Records of Informal Meetings of Council
Executive Member:	Joanne McNeill, Executive Manager, Governance and Organisational Performance
PREPARED BY:	Emily Williams, Council Business Advisor

12.1	Business Parklet Guidelines 2024
Executive Member:	Brian Tee, General Manager, City Growth and Development
PREPARED BY:	Marc Jay, Coordinator City Permits