Agenda of Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

17 July 2024

Welcome

Welcome to this Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council.

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

About this meeting

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

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

Public Question Time and Submissions

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

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

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

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

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

To Councillors

Notice is hereby given that a Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council will be held in St Kilda Town Hall and Virtually via Teams on Wednesday, 17 July 2024 at 6:30pm. At their discretion, Councillors may suspend the meeting for short breaks as required.

AGENDA

1 APOLOGIES

2 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

Minutes of the Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council 3 July 2024.

3 Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

4 Public Question Time and Submissions

5 Councillor Question Time

6 Sealing Schedule

Nil

7 Petitions and Joint Letters........................................ 5

7.1 Frank’s Sculptures – Danks Street Petition Response 6

7.2 Petition for Port Phillip Council to Cease the Proposed Fitzroy St Seating Plan................................................. 9

8 Presentation of CEO Report

8.1 Presentation of CEO Report Issue 108 - May, 2024.. 11

9 Inclusive Port Phillip

9.1 City of Port Phillip Rental Crisis - Petition Response. 43

10 Liveable Port Phillip

10.1 St Kilda Triangle Live Music Venue - Stage 2 – Targeted Market Engagement Outcomes And Next Steps........................................................................... 54

11 Sustainable Port Phillip

Nil

12 Vibrant Port Phillip

Nil

13 Well Governed Port Phillip

13.1 Station Pier and Waterfront Place – Draft Scheme Amendment GC187.................................................... 67

13.2 Investment and Treasury Management Policy......... 139

13.3 South Melbourne Town Hall - ANAM Schematic Design....................................................................... 152

14 Notices of Motion........................................................ 185

14.1 Notice of Motion – Councillor Bond - Fiztroy Street Seating...................................................................... 186

14.2 Notice of Motion – Mayor Cunsolo - Barak Beacon. 189

15 Reports by Councillor Delegates

16 URGENT BUSINESS

17 Confidential Matters................................................ 190

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

17.1 Plumbing & Gasfitting Services Contract Award

3(1)(g(i)). private commercial information, being information provided by a business, commercial or financial undertaking that relates to trade secrets

3(1)(g(ii)). private commercial information, being information provided by a business, commercial or financial undertaking that if released, would unreasonably expose the business, commercial or financial undertaking to disadvantage.

Reason - The report outlines a proposed contracting arrangement and comercially sensitive information that if made public would potentially expose parties to unfavourable disadvantage.

17.2 Contract Award - St Kilda Festival Production Management Services

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

Reason - Confidential tender recommendations presented to Council for decision.

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

17 July 2024

1. Apologies

2. Minutes of Previous Meetings

RECOMMENDATION:

That the minutes of the Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council held on 3 July 2024 be confirmed.

3. Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

4. Public Question Time and Submissions

5. Councillor Question Time

6. Sealing Schedule

Nil

7. Petitions and Joint Letters

7.1 Frank’s Sculptures – Danks Street Petition Response 6

7.2 Petition for Port Phillip Council to Cease the Proposed Fitzroy St Seating Plan................................................. 9

Item 7.1 Frank’s Sculptures – Danks Street Petition Response

A Petition/Joint Letter containing 734 signatures, was received from citizens which draws the attention of the Council to a complaint made by one person to the placement of sculptures on Council land in Danks Street between Mills Street and Kerferd Road.

Noting that these artistic sculptures:

1. Are not affixed to any council structure and are easily moved by one adult person

2. Are only placed outside dwellings where residents have given their permission

3. Are carefully located away from all traffic so as to avoid loss or injury to persons

4. Have been on display for up to ten years

5. Are created from discarded materials destined for landfill and all collected from within the city of Port Phillip boundaries

6. Are regularly maintained

7. Enhance the local amenity and create a unique arts precinct that differentiates the area from surrounding localities

8. Generally create a sense of community

9. Are admired by most who pass by, are frequently photographed and are great conversation pieces

While we accept that love of art is not universal, the complainant has not, to our knowledge, demonstrated any significant injury.

We therefore request that Council rejects the complaint and allows the ongoing display of Mr Frank Artuso's generally valued art.

At the Council meeting on the 19^th June 2024 it was moved

That Council:

1. Receives and notes the Petition.

2. Thanks the petitioner for the petition.

3. Requests officers to place the request to remove the sculptures on hold while an investigation into this matter takes place, including whether the sculptures are permissible under the Nature Strip Guidelines or Public Art Policy and any changes that may be required to the Guidelines to allow the sculptures to remain.

4. Requests officers to bring a report back to a future Council meet

OFFICER COMMENT

Background

In June 2024 a resident notified Council about a number of sculptures on nature strips and the median strip on Danks Street between Mills Street and Kerferd Road with concerns for pedestrian safety and whether they were permitted.

Officers inspected the location and on 17^th May 2024 sent a letter asking the artist to remove the sculptures from the nature strip and median strip as they were in contravention of Local Law 23 Clause 14.

A person must not:

a) Interfere with or use Council assets in such a way that causes damage or detriment;

b) Any other person could be injured or suffer loss as a result of that interference or use;

And

c) Attach anything to the Council asset

Since the letter was sent, Council has received 11 direct customer requests, 14 written submissions in support, as well as the 734 signature petition lodged at Council. Danks Street is a Council managed road including the median strip. There are approximately 20 sculptures in the foliage in the median strip and approximately 20 on nature strips clustered around street trees near 250 Danks Street.

Local Law and Policy Context

Public Art Context

Public art reflects and enriches our society and adds meaning to place and uniqueness to our communities as outlined in the Public Art Guidelines 2017.

The internal Public Art Working Group made the decision not to take the Danks Street artworks to the Art Acquisition Reference Committee for consideration for the following reasons.

1. It does not meet the following acquisition principle for public artworks under the current Port Phillip City Collection Policy:

“A public artwork has the necessary allocated resources to resolve specific issues related to conservation and presentation.”

2. The acquisition of these artworks into the collection could encourage other artists to initiate public art projects on Council land/ assets without seeking the necessary approvals.

Unfortunately, this kind of scenario is not covered under the CoPP’s Public Art Guidelines.

Instead, we would recommend that the artworks in the nature strip become part of a ‘legacy garden’, which is the responsibility of the artist/community to maintain.

Sculptures in the median strip

Danks Street Bio Link

As part of the Greening Port Phillip Strategy the next phase of the Danks Street Bio-link project has begun. This project is extending the current biodiverse planting in the median along Danks Street. Some of the sculptures are within the project area and we can look to integrate them into the design. Artwork currently on the nature strip could also be relocated into this area.

Sculptures on the nature strip

Nature Strip Guidelines

The Nature Strip Guidelines were adopted in 2022, they set out what residents can plan, plant and maintain on the nature strips.

The Nature Strip Guidelines is an incorporated document in the Local Law which means that anything permitted under the Nature Strip Guidelines overrides the Local Law.

Under these guidelines a nature strip is defined as the area of public space between the boundary of private property and the road kerb but does not include the paved footpath area, kerb or driveway.

Under these guidelines only plants can be incorporated into a nature strip garden as other items could pose a safety risk, block sightlines or cause injury if fallen on. Art is included as an item not permitted within a nature strip garden.

The guidelines include an opportunity for legacy gardens which were already in place (prior to adoption in 2022) to be assessed if a safety concern was raised. In these instances, the commitment was for Council to work with affected residents to modify and maintain the gardens and ensure public safety. Only in circumstances where the conflict could not be safely remedied would the items/garden be removed.

In this circumstance the artwork in question would be considered under the legacy garden provision as the sculptures have been in place for approximately 10 years.

Officers have been in touch with the artist to discuss options to improve the safety of the sculptures.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Thanks the community for their petition and acknowledges the community benefits and. social connectiveness these sculptures have created on Danks Street.

2. Notes that the sculptures on the nature strip can be considered under the Nature Strip Guidelines as legacy gardens and that under this provision they can be retained if they meet safety requirements.

3. Requests that officers conduct safety assessments on the sculptures to ensure they limit risk to the broader public, noting that through these assessments the sculptures may need to be modified, moved or removed.

4. Notes that the sculptures in the median strip of Danks Street between Mills Street and Kerferd Road will be included in the design of the Danks Street Biolink Project and retained.

5. Requests that no further installations of sculptures in public space is to take place without Council consent

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

17 July 2024

9.1	City of Port Phillip Rental Crisis - Petition Response
Executive Member:	Tarnya McKenzie, Interim General Manager, Community Wellbeing and Inclusion
PREPARED BY:	Leo Kelly, Acting Manager Community Building and Inclusion

1. PURPOSE

1.1 Provide an officer report on the City of Port Phillip Rental Crisis petition and consideration of the seven proposed actions identified.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

At the 6 March 2024 Ordinary Council Meeting a petition containing 5 signatures, was received from residents titled ‘City of Port Phillip Rental Crisis’. The petition outlined the following key requests:

1. ‘Establish an emergency rental relief fund for low-income residents and partner with a relevant agency, e.g., Launch Housing to manage such a fund on behalf of Council.

2. Establish a dedicated page on the Port Phillip Council website that will provide information for renters about their rights and where they can access assistance and support.

3. Nominate a Council Housing Officer to provide support, information, and advice for renters in Port Phillip and liaise with relevant local support agencies.

4. Re-establish financial support for Southside Justice to provide legal assistance for tenants facing eviction and/or unfair treatment at the hands of Landlords and Real Estate Agencies.

5. Ensure that there is a funding allocation in the next Council Budget to meet the costs associated with these initiatives.

6. Advocate to the State Government for introduction of a 'fairness formula' by which maximum rent increases would be calculated (as recommended by Tenants Victoria in their submission to the Victorian Government's recent Inquiry into the Rental and Housing Affordability Crisis).

7. Advocate to, and partner with, State and Federal Governments for substantial expansion of social housing (inclusive of public housing) in Port Phillip. There is currently no Council funded hardship/rent relief available for tenants in City of Port Phillip.’

2.1 Council resolved to receive and note the petition and ‘provide a response to a future Council meeting’. Officers have considered the petition received, consulted with local service and housing providers, and prepared a response to each of the seven requests.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Acknowledges the availability of established State Government emergency rental relief programs, currently administered by local external agencies, particularly the Private Rental Assistance Program (PRAP) and Rental Stress Support Package (RSSP).

3.2 Does not replicate the State Government emergency rental relief programs.

3.3 Works with partners to advocate to the State Government for a review of the income thresholds of PRAP / RSSP to enabling the extension of services to those currently ineligible.

3.4 Notes that Council maintains a dedicated website page to affordable housing information, including tenancy assistance and support.

3.5 Notes that Council’s Housing and Homelessness Team will continue to respond to enquiries, including those from individual renters facing challenges. Officers will continue to direct people to suitable services and supports.

3.6 Notes there are established annual budget allocations to deliver affordable housing and homelessness programs, and project contributions through the ‘In Our Backyard’ project reserve.

3.7 Notes that a budget submission was considered for direct funding to South Side Justice as part of the 2024/25 Council Plan and Budget and additional funding was not included in the budget.

3.8 In partnership with South Side Justice, advocates to Consumer Affairs Victoria for a targeted dedicated Tenancy Assistance and Advocacy Program (TAAP) in the inner south, with a full-time tenancy lawyer to directly support and address issues facing the community.

3.9 Notes that people renting in the City of Port Phillip hold equal access to services provided by Council and are not restricted due to status.

3.10 Includes the following as part of Council’s Advocacy priorities in 2025/2026:

3.10.1 Strategies to improve outcomes for tenants’ security, and equitability and conditions that will generate investment in rental supply and affordability (State)

3.10.2 Extend welfare supports around Rent Assistance (Federal)

3.10.3 Review for consideration of the impacts of the PRAP thresholds (55% of household income) and the need to consider and address through their programs the higher local private rental costs in Port Phillip when compared to the metropolitan average (State)

3.10.4 Advocate to Consumer Affairs Victoria for a targeted Tenancy Assistance and Advocacy Program (TAAP) in the inner south to directly support and address issues facing the community (State).

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 At the 6 March 2024 Ordinary Council Meeting a petition containing 5 signatures, was received from residents titled ‘City of Port Phillip Rental Crisis’. The petition outlined the following requests:

1. ‘Establish an emergency rental relief fund for low-income residents and partner with a relevant agency, e.g., Launch Housing to manage such a fund on behalf of Council.

2. Establish a dedicated page on the Port Phillip Council website that will provide information for renters about their rights and where they can access assistance and support.

3. Nominate a Council Housing Officer to provide support, information, and advice for renters in Port Phillip and liaise with relevant local support agencies.

4. Re-establish financial support for Southside Justice to provide legal assistance for tenants facing eviction and/or unfair treatment at the hands of Landlords and Real Estate Agencies.

5. Ensure that there is a funding allocation in the next Council Budget to meet the costs associated with these initiatives.

4.2 Council resolved to receive and note the petition and ‘provide a response to a future Council meeting’. Officers have considered each of the items and consulted with local service providers. This report provides consideration and recommended response to each of the seven requests.

Request 1 - Low-income emergency rent relief

4.3 The first request related to establishing emergency rental relief fund for low-income residents with a partner agency (Launch Housing) to manage on behalf of Council. Officers have evaluated the emergency rental relief initiatives available in other local government areas and existing state government funded programs. In consultation with our partnering agency Launch Housing, it is advised Council does not replicate current emergency rental relief efforts such as the PRAP or RSSP.

4.4 Council should direct resources towards advocacy to the State Government to extend the eligibility criteria.

State Government - Private Rental Assistance Program (PRAP)

4.5 While Council does not fund any private rental support in the municipality, support is available to eligible residents through Launch Housing who administer the State Government’s Private Rental Assistance Program (PRAP) in select local government areas across metropolitan Melbourne, including Port Phillip. Through PRAP and PRAP Plus (complimentary program to build capacity to assist when tenancies are at risk, to build their capacity to manage their tenancy), Launch Housing are engaged to provide financial support for eligible people in rental arrears and rent in advance. The service aims to:

4.5.1 Rapidly rehouse people capable of sustaining private rental after initial support.

4.5.2 Support ‘at risk’ households to sustain affordable and appropriate housing in the private rental market.

4.5.3 Assist people who currently live in crisis, transitional or social housing to become independent in the private rental market.

4.6 Launch Housing has indicated relief averages generally equate to $4,000 per household (where a total limit of $7,000 per household per annum applies). Launch Housing have confirmed there are 2.5 FTE (PRAP) and 1 FTE (PRAP Plus) workers, funded across Bayside area (Port Phillip to Frankston) and a level of brokage funds to support private rental tenancies (new or established).

Eligibility

4.7 Established with the intent that renters can’t take out rental agreements above their capacity, program eligibility is tied to income. Rent cannot constitute more than 55% of the household income as well as eligible personal income limits. The strict eligibility criteria apply to both support and brokerage services. For many private rentals particularly in inner-city rental markets like Port Phillip, this poses a challenge.

State Government - Rental Stress Support Package (RSSP)

4.8 In May 2024 the Victorian Government announced successful applicants of the Rental Stress Support Package. This included funding announced for Launch Housing of $1,021,74 million and 4.15 FTE. The RSSP funding, provided as part of the Housing Statement, will help address the high demand for rental assistance, advocacy and legal services sought by organisations working to prevent homelessness and support renters in maintaining their homes.

City of Yarra - Rent Relief

4.9 Officers have looked to other Council’s. An example of the role that Councils can play in providing rental relief can be found in the City of Yarra. In a recent decision, Yarra Council increased its existing Community Housing grants stream for the 2023/2024 period by an additional $100,000. This was with the intent of ‘providing initiatives that help sustain tenancies, including emergency rent relief to those experiencing financial rental distress, supporting people out of homelessness, reducing, and addressing the social and cultural impacts for tenants of community housing and those at risk of homelessness’.

4.10 This program operates alongside the PRAP, with funds managed by a local housing and homelessness service. During the 2022 to 2023, the program assisted seventy-six tenancies in arrears, with an average of $1057 per renter. In addition, it supported eighteen new tenancies, providing an average of four weeks’ rent per new renter. Eligibility for accessing funds requires individuals to be housed within the housing portfolio overseen by the fund’s manager. Direct applications cannot be made from the general community.

4.11 While this example presents an option for Council consideration, it's worth noting eligibility and demand, would best be provided through existing organisations that provide tenancy support and rent relief which in the case of Port Phillip, our partner agency is Launch Housing. In discussion with Launch Housing, they have noted this type of funding may duplicate existing state funded programs and that Council might be better placed to direct advocacy efforts to the State Government to reconsider the income thresholds of PRAP to address issues presented by Port Phillip’s rental market.

4.12 In relation to Request 1 – Low-income emergency rent relief, it is advised Council does not replicate current emergency rental relief efforts such as PRAP or RSSP. Council efforts may best be placed in advocating to the State Government for a review of the income thresholds of “PRAP / PRAP Plus”, in response to issues presented. Council should further note, officers through the Housing and Homelessness program can provide support information and referral pathways to existing services for those experiencing rental stress.

Request 2 – Use of Council website

4.13 The second request relates to the establishment of a dedicated page on the Port Phillip Council website for renters about their rights and where they can access assistance and support.

4.14 In relation to Request 2 – Officers have reviewed Council’s website and provided additional information to direct our residents to services and supports when experiencing difficulty finding or affording private rental. This information will be regularly monitored to ensure its currency with local resources and services available, which will be received through Council’s regular service coordination meetings.

Request 3 – Nominated Housing Officer

4.15 The third request relates to nominating a Council Housing Officer to provide support, information, and advice for renters in Port Phillip and liaise with relevant local support agencies.

4.16 In responding to this request, it should be noted Council has a housing and homelessness service consisting of 1.8 FTE. This includes 1.0 FTE to provide direct assessment, referral, and interim case management to support ‘older persons’ in housing stress, at risk of housing loss or homelessness. They also direct general enquiries about rental stress to relevant services and supports. In addition, through a 0.8 FTE, Council integrates multi-agency response to public homelessness through the Port Phillip Zero project. Council also funds an enhanced outreach worker that focuses specifically on people experiencing homelessness or that are sleeping rough in our municipality. This is delivered through Launch Housing.

4.17 In relation to Request 3 – While Council does not have a dedicated private rental officer, Council’s housing and homelessness officers can continue to provide information and advice for renters through their knowledge and connection to services including direct linkages to local housing providers, legal assistance, or food relief.

Request 4 – Legal Assistance

4.18 The fourth request relates to financial support for Southside Justice to provide legal assistance for tenants facing eviction and/or unfair treatment.

4.19 Officers have met with Southside Justice to discuss this request with advice focused on the value of a tenancy support program delivered by a dedicated qualified tenancy lawyer enabling direct provision of legal advice, representation, and advocacy. Such a program would provide direct service to tenants facing eviction, unfair treatment, and related housing instability. The defining feature of this approach being targeted advice and legal representation to residents of Port Phillip, based on face-to-face service with outreach capacity that is locally accessible. Such a proposal would include a full-time tenancy lawyer to directly support, and address issues facing the Port Phillip community and have the capability to work with Council and partner agencies in service provision and directly support for advocacy around systemic rental and tenancy issues.

4.20 Council currently contributes $74,521 per annum to SouthPort Community Legal Service (SPCLS) to provide legal advice, assistance, and referrals to approximately 500 service users per annum that live, study or work in the City of Port Phillip, and who are experiencing disadvantage or vulnerability. Their service agreement extends to legal advice for tenants.

4.21 It should be further noted the State funded PRAP and PRAP Plus programs provides capacity for communications and brokerage between tenants, rent providers and landlords. This can be used to support or negotiate rent arrears and other legal tenancy aspects (for those eligible). There are also number of agencies such as Tenant’s Victoria, Peninsula Community Legal Service and Justice Connect which provide tenant legal services. Officers note through discussions with Launch Housing, they impressed, Council may best address ineligible renters and assistance by focusing resources to enhance targeted tenancy, legal support, and advocacy.

4.22 Victorian Government funding rounds on the Rental Stress Support Packages announced in May 2024, a number of not-for-profit organisations that deliver rental services advice, advocacy and legal assistance that include Port Phillip within their service area were funded (in addition to Launch PRAP funding noted above). These included Launch Housing, Justice Connect, Housing for the Aged Action Group, and Tenants Victoria.

4.23 City of Port Phillip Mayor and CEO have recently met with representatives from Southside Justice to discuss the vision and benefit of a dedicated a full-time tenancy lawyer to directly support and address issues facing the Port Phillip community. Discussions included shared advocacy opportunities for a Tenancy Assistance and Advocacy Program (TAAP) directly targeting the inner south.

4.24 Council considered a budget submission for direct funding to South Side Justice as part of the 2024-2025 Council Plan and Budget. While additional funding was not approved in the 2024-2025 Council budget. Council will join with South Side Justice in joint advocacy for a dedicated a tenancy support program delivered locally.

4.25 In relation to Request 4 - Officers recommend that Council not fund direct legal services. Instead, information should be made available via Council’s website to direct residents to the numerous free legal services available to renters (e.g., South Side Justice, Anika Legal, Victoria Legal Aid, Justice Connect, Tenants Victoria). Council should however advocate alongside local legal providers including Southside Justice, seeking funding for targeted tenancy assistance and legal service in Melbourne’s inner south.

Request 5 – Budget

4.26 The fifth request was to ensure that there is funding allocated in the next Council Budget to meet the costs associated with these initiatives.

4.27 Council allocates $1,097,000 annually through operational expenditure to deliver its affordable housing and homelessness programs. Additionally, it has provided historically $500,000 of project contributions to social and affordable housing projects through the ‘In Our Backyard’ project reserve.

4.28 In relation to Request 5 - Each item can be covered through existing service delivery and costs in the current financial year.

Request 6 – Advocacy ‘Fairness Formula’

4.29 The sixth request was to advocate to the State Government to introduce a 'fairness formula' by which maximum rent increases would be calculated.

· Tenants Victoria provided a submission in response to the Victorian Government Inquiry into the Rental and Housing Affordability Crisis in Victoria in mid-2023. Victoria already has a version of a fairness formula that has been applied in the new Homes Victoria affordable housing program, which includes a rent cap. This measure aims to maintain housing affordability for low-income households. Under this program, after the initial 3-year lease, rent can be increased annually by a maximum of 5%.

· Tenants Victoria are requesting legislation to provide for a ‘fairness formula’ by which maximum rent increases can be calculated across private rentals. In their submission, under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, there is no fixed formula to calculate a rent increase. ‘There are rules about how often rent can be increased and how a landlord is to notify the renter of their intention to do so. But the missing piece in these arrangements in our state is the lack of a prescribed method to arrive at the dollar value of the rent increase that is fair to both the renter and the landlord’. Consumer Affairs Victoria, further notes the law doesn’t say exactly how much a rental provider can put the rent up by, although under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 a rental provider is required to give the tenant information about how they have calculated the increase.

· Consumer Affairs Victoria note that renters can challenge a rent increase if they think it is higher than the market range.

4.30 Council regularly advocates on issues relating to housing affordability and homelessness. In the last year alone, this has included:

4.30.1 National Housing & Homelessness Plan-Issues Paper, Oct 2023

4.30.2 Inquiry into the Rental & Housing Affordability Crisis in Victoria, July 2023

4.30.3 Federal Inquiry into Homelessness in Australia, June 2020

4.30.4 Parliamentary Inquiry into Homelessness in Victoria, Jan 2020

4.30.5 Planning Mechanisms for Affordable Housing- Ministerial Advisory Committee 2019.

4.31 When considering whether Council would support advocating for changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, it's important to recognise that regulating provision should also consider the impact on investment and therefore potentially local housing supply. Officer’s support ongoing advocacy to the State Government to address strategies to improve outcomes for tenants’ security and equitability, but also for conditions that support investment in supply and therefore affordability being faced by renters in Port Phillip

4.32 In relation to Request 6 - It is recommended that Council’s advocacy priorities to the State Government in 2025/2026 should include strategies to improve outcomes for tenants’ security and equitability and conditions to support investment in rental supply and affordability.

Request 7 – Advocacy Increase Social Housing and Funded Rent Relief

4.33 The final request was to advocate to, and partner with, State and Federal Governments for substantial expansion of social housing (inclusive of public housing) in Port Phillip, and also notes there is currently no Council funded hardship/rent relief available for tenants in City of Port Phillip.

4.34 This request points to, responsibility for addressing issues underlying the rental crisis extending across all levels of government. Council has a long history of advocating for, and additionally, actively contributing to the increase in social and affordable housing in our municipality. As noted above, Council, through both its affordable housing and homelessness programs, regularly advocates on issues relating to housing affordability.

4.35 Our advocacy efforts have been unpinned through two key strategies:

4.35.1 `Think and Act: Homelessness Action Strategy, as Council’s specific homelessness strategy, and

4.35.2 In Our Backyard, Growing Affordable Housing in Port Phillip

4.36 An integrated review of both strategies will commence in late 2024 and as noted above will consider and define Council’s advocacy priorities.

4.37 As previously noted, Council advocate to the State and Federal Government through submissions on a range of affordable and social housing matters. Council also actively contributes and advocates for direct project contributions for local social and affordable housing projects (demonstrated most recently through the Marlborough Street community housing project and Wellington Street Common Ground). It should be further noted, in the upcoming review and integration of the Council's affordable housing and homelessness strategies (to commence in late 2024), consideration will be given to define our advocacy priorities.

Request for hardship rent relief.

4.38 Council provides integrated responses to people at risk of homelessness and supports those who might be impacted by the rising costs to age in place by aiding the cost of living through assistance with food security programs and supports provided by Council and through state government initiatives including:

4.38.1 Hardship support for homeowners: to aid those who need assistance, particularly residents having trouble meeting rate payments. Support is provided in the form of financial counselling, interest-free payment plans, deferrals, and, in exceptional circumstances, waivers.

4.38.2 Pensioner rates rebate options available via the Victorian Government Pension Rebate – up to 50% of your rates (to a maximum of $253.20) and the Port Phillip rebate – up to $210 or a maximum of 50% of rates payable when combined with the Victorian Government rebate.

4.39 Direct financial hardship support for people experiencing rental stress or at risk of homelessness are directed by officers to our service partner agencies that are funded through the State Government's PRAP program. In discussion with our partner agency, Launch Housing, it is recommended that council seek to support renters in need through:

4.39.1 Advocacy to Federal Government around rent assistance

4.39.2 Advocacy to the State Government around considering the impacts of the PRAP thresholds (55% of household income) and the need to consider and address in their programs the impact of the higher local private rental costs in Port Phillip when compared to the metropolitan average.

4.40 In relation to Request 7 - These items should be identified and considered as part of the council's advocacy priorities for 2024/2025.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 City of Port Phillip Mayor and CEO have recently met with representatives from Southside Justice to discuss tenancy assistance and advocacy opportunities.

5.2 Officers have consulted with Launch Housing and The City of Yarra to inform the response provided to establishing an emergency rental relief fund, and advocacy to increase social housing and rent relief. The details of these consultations have been incorporated into the above discussion of issues and officer response and recommendations.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 In response to request 3 to nominate a Council Housing Officer to provide support, information, and advice for renters in Port Phillip, it is recommended that renters be directed to relevant local support agencies for assistance. Council officers are not positioned to mediate disputes between landlords and tenants, including issues related to rental payments, property maintenance, or lease terms. Resolving these disputes often require legal intervention or advocacy.

6.2 The recommendations in response to the petition involve directing renters requiring assistance to the appropriate legal services and agencies operating in the local area. The proposed approach aims to mitigate these risks by connecting renters with specialised legal resources.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 Council allocates $1,097,000 annually through operational expenditure to deliver its affordable housing and homelessness programs. Additionally, through the delivery of the life of ‘In Our Backyard’ Council’s Affordable Housing Strategy, it has provided an annual $500,000 project reserve to social and affordable housing projects across the city.

7.2 In terms of future budget implications concerning proposed recommendations, these can be covered through existing service delivery and costs.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 Providing adequate support to ensure access to sustainable and secure long-term housing, not only addresses Council’s commitment to social justice, but can yield environmental benefits through stronger and more resilient communities.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 Ensuring our community has access to affordable and secure housing and are provided with supports, will strengthen Council’s commitment to an inclusive and liveable communities. This will deliver social cohesion, fostering economic stability and improve the health and wellbeing of our those in need in our community.

10. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

10.1 Council’s response to the rental crisis petition is covered under the delivery of Council’s bedrock services. They are further supported n the Council Plan Strategic Direction 1 Inclusive, ‘A City that is a place for all members of our community, where people feel supported…’. A number of the requests relating to the supply and availability of social and affordable housing are addressed through Council’s core strategy ‘In Our Backyard’.

11. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

11.1 TIMELINE

11.1.1 Council’s website will be updated immediately following Council’s resolution.

11.1.2 Advocacy will be included through Council’s advocacy priorities through the 2024-2025 year.

11.2 COMMUNICATION

11.2.1 Council has reviewed the rental crisis petition to determine its role in addressing the outlined requests.

11.2.2 Safe and secure housing is a fundamental human right. Given current social and economic conditions, renters in Port Phillip face numerous challenges, heightening the risk of homelessness.

11.2.3 The rental crisis in Port Phillip is exacerbated by a shortage of affordable housing throughout the city, reflecting a broader trend seen across Australia.

11.2.4 Council remains committed to leveraging its networks and partnerships to guide those in need towards local support services and agencies.

11.2.5 Council will actively advocate at all government levels for increased availability of affordable housing options and relevant support services within our city.

12. OFFICER MATERIAL OR GENERAL INTEREST

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

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

17 July 2024

10.1	ST KILDA TRIANGLE LIVE MUSIC VENUE - STAGE 2 – TARGETED MARKET ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES AND NEXT STEPS
Executive Member:	Joanne McNeill, Executive Manager, Governance and Organisational Performance
PREPARED BY:	Michelle Rysanek, Senior Project Manager – Strategic Projects

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To present the outcomes from the St Kilda Triangle Live Music Venue - Stage 2 - Targeted Market Engagement undertaken in response to Council’s direction provided at the public Council Meeting on 6 December 2023 to clarify the level of interest in and capacity for investing in a new live music and performance venue on the St Kilda Triangle and understand the quantum of funding contribution that is possible.

1.2 To provide options and a recommendation for the next steps for the project for consideration and endorsement by Council.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 Council, at a meeting on 7 September 2022, elected to progress feasibility work for the St Kilda Triangle to assess the viability of a live music led / performance venue development, inform Council decision making about investment, and support subsequent stages should Council decide to progress.

2.2 This stage 1 feasibility work concluded late 2023 when, at a public meeting on 6 December 2023, Council was presented with several key documents collating the outcome of various streams of work undertaken as part of the feasibility assessment. These included the St Kilda Triangle Design Feasibility for a Live Music and Performance Venue, the St Kilda Triangle Potential Live Music / Performance Venue Market Sounding Report, The St Kilda Triangle Commercial Feasibility Analysis & Development Options Report, St Kilda Triangle Planning Pathway Options Assessment and the St Kilda Triangle – Proposal for a Live Music and Performance Venue - Engagement Summary Report.

2.3 At this 6 December 2023 public meeting, Council elected to progress work beyond the stage 1 feasibility stage to:

· Advocate to the Victorian Government for investment in a business case for a new live music and performance venue on the St Kilda Triangle, with a possible contribution from Council to the business case to be confirmed.

· Approve a project budget of $110k for Officers to engage with the market to further clarify the level of interest in investing in a new live music and performance venue on the St Kilda Triangle and understand the level of funding contribution that is possible. This could include discussions with any interested parties that were involved in the market sounding, parties that have already expressed interest in the project and an invitation to other interested parties who haven’t yet made contact with Council.

2.4 To address Council’s direction, a targeted market engagement, with input from probity consultants, was implemented from April to June 2024. A portion of those contacted declined to participate for various reasons including wanting to protect their IP should this project eventuate in a procurement process or being occupied with other priorities, while others were willing to be interviewed and divulge some level of relevant information in response to requests for information included in a participant pack issued well ahead of the meeting.

2.5 Attachment 1 includes a confidential Targeted Market Engagement Report detailing the process and protocols adopted, parties contacted and those who participated (and those who didn’t including their rationale), the key findings from the discussions and possible next steps.

2.6 Given the nature of the targeted engagement, the results of this stage will remain confidential and have been combined here with previous market sounding findings to provide a summary of what we know based on all the work undertaken, rather than on the specific interviews held in this round.

2.7 The key findings across all market sounding activities relevant to the questions posed for this round are as follows:

· There is market appetite to provide significant private funding for a new venue. However, public funding would likely be needed to fund the carparking and public realm components.

· There may be one or more parties willing to fully fund the venue (order of cost has previously been estimated as $80 to $100M excluding carpark and public realm) without a public contribution. However, a tender that relies on full funding being provided by the market would likely lead to a smaller tender field should a procurement process progress.

· A public capital contribution to the Triangle development cost may make the opportunity more viable for interested parties and should therefore increase the potential number of participants in any open market process.

· The amount of rent that may be derived from the tenure arrangement on the site has a direct relationship to the upfront capital contribution for the development of the venue. For example, a peppercorn rent, with the potential to offer this as part of a tender process, could increase the capital contribution from the market and therefore reduce requirement for public funding. On the other hand, a commercial rent derived year by year over the course of the lease could reduce the capital contribution and therefore increase the need for public funding upfront to develop the venue, and the site.

· A ground lease term in the order of 50 years appears preferred by the market to justify an upfront significant capital contribution, with the improvements reverting to Council at lease expiry.

· There will likely be a desire from the market to reduce the capital cost and reduce risks of any venue it funds (or significantly funds). Council will need to consider what design outcomes are mandatory vs preferred so it is clear as part of a procurement process.

· Flexibility in use (e.g. allowing other uses in addition to the live music venue (e.g. Nightclub) may increase offers due to the opportunity to diversify income streams and financial sustainability. However, impacts on amenity in the precinct will need to be considered.

· The live venue market is generally expecting an open market process should the project continue to progress. This is supported by the fact that some businesses chose not to participate in the process as they indicated they were wanting to maintain their competitive advantage.

2.8 A number of advances have been made to State Government, advising of the concept for the site and community sentiment (general support) and seeking funding for a business case. Now that the targeted engagement has concluded, there is an opportunity to test whether there is increased interest from state government regarding support for next steps given that the targeted market engagement confirmed our understanding that there is significant interest from the market in participating in a competitive process for the opportunity to develop and manage a live music and performance venue on the St Kilda Triangle.

2.9 There are three options proposed for consideration by Council for next steps for this project. These are:

· Option 1 (Recommended): Undertake Advocacy to State Government while other project works pause.

· Option 2: Begin preparation for a Competitive Market Process whilst continuing to advocate to State Government.

· Option 3: Pause All St Kilda Triangle Live Music Venue Work and review next steps with the newly elected Council.

2.10 An assessment of the benefits and risks of each option has been undertaken with the outcomes summarised in the body of the report. Option 1 is recommended as the pathway forward for the project works, with further engagement on the project to occur with Council post-election.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Notes that Council, at a public meeting on 6 December 2023, was presented with a number of documents collating the outcome of various streams of work undertaken as part of the Stage 1 St Kilda Triangle Live Music Venue feasibility assessment work including the St Kilda Triangle Design Feasibility for a Live Music and Performance Venue, St Kilda Triangle Potential Live Music / Performance Venue Market Sounding Report and The St Kilda Triangle Commercial Feasibility Analysis & Development Options Report and the St Kilda Triangle – Proposal for a Live Music and Performance Venue - Engagement Summary Report

3.2 Notes the following key findings across the various components of work:

· There is demand for a flexible 5000 standing live music and performance venue.

· The ‘proof of concept’ layout shows that a venue can be effectively accommodated on the St Kilda Triangle with carparking, public realm and other uses.

· There is strong industry support for a new venue to be located in St Kilda.

· There is majority support for a live music and performance venue, including strong support by representatives of the Traders Associations for Acland Street and Fitzroy Street, though there is some local opposition to the idea.

· There was concern expressed by destination venues immediately adjacent about a reduction in parking leading to loss of business.

· Carparking and traffic movement, the scale of the building and ongoing activation of or need for the venue were raised as concerns by those who did not support the concept and there were mixed views regarding parking.

· The likely cost of the ‘proof of concept’ idea that has been explored for a new live music and performance venue is estimated as a range between $113m-$139m, including the venue, basement carparking and public realm.

· The cost estimate that has been developed is useful for understanding the type of cost for a development such as this but would need to be reassessed to reflect any key changes that have been incorporated to the final design and cost of construction at the time.

· Operators are likely to have capacity to include a significant capital contribution as part of a bid in a competitive procurement process for a new venue in future, with the quantum being directly related to the length of tenure.

· Given the regional significance and civic nature of the project, it is likely that public funding or other subsidy will be required to support private investment in the development, to achieve an overall outcome for the site that will realise the full benefits possible.

3.3 Notes the process and outcomes of the Targeted Market Engagement undertaken with selected live music industry organisations and those that have previously contacted Council, as set out in the confidential St Kilda Triangle Live Music Venue – Stage 2 – Targeted Market Engagement Report.

3.4 Notes that the St Kilda Triangle Live Music Venue – Stage 2 – Targeted Market Engagement Report collating the work undertaken as part of Stage 2 undertaken to date has been provided confidentially to Council due to the commercially sensitive nature of the contents but that a summary of the findings within the context of the broader market engagement findings has been included in the body of this report.

3.5 Notes that three options have been provided to Council for consideration, these are:

· Option 1: Undertake Advocacy to State Government while other project works pause.

· Option 2: Begin preparation for a Competitive Market Process while continuing to advocate to State Government.

· Option 3: Pause All St Kilda Triangle Live Music Venue Work and review next steps with the newly elected Council.

3.6 Instructs the CEO or delegates to proceed with implementation of Option [insert], including authorising any budget required for implementation.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

Background

4.1 Council, at a meeting on 7 September 2022, elected to progress feasibility work for the St Kilda Triangle to assess the viability of a live music led / performance venue development, inform Council decision making about investment, and support subsequent stages should Council decide to progress.

4.2 This stage 1 feasibility work concluded late 2023 with the outcomes summarised as follows:

· There is demand for a flexible 5000 standing live music and performance venue.

· The ‘proof of concept’ layout shows that a venue can be effectively accommodated on the St Kilda Triangle with carparking, public realm and other uses.

· There is strong industry support for a new venue to be located in St Kilda.

· There was concern expressed by destination venues immediately adjacent about a reduction in parking leading to loss of business.

· Operators are likely to have capacity to include a capital contribution as part of a bid in a competitive procurement process for a new venue in future, with the quantum being directly related to the length of tenure.

· Given the regional significance and civic nature of the project, it is likely that significant public funding or other subsidy will be required to support private investment in the development to achieve an outcome that will realise the full benefits possible for the site.

4.3 At a public meeting on 6 December 2023, Council, informed by St Kilda Triangle Design Feasibility for a Live Music and Performance Venue and the St Kilda Triangle Potential Live Music / Performance Venue Market Sounding Report and The St Kilda Triangle Commercial Feasibility Analysis & Development Options Report, elected to progress work beyond the stage 1 feasibility stage to:

Targeted Market Engagement

4.4 To address Council’s direction, an Approach to engage further with the live music industry was developed with probity advice. The purpose was to understand, more specifically (than what we have been able to determine to date), the level of funding contribution that is possible from the market, the organisational capability and level of genuine interest.

4.5 Key considerations that underpinned the approach included:

· Identify which/how many parties have the interest and capacity to fund and develop a live performance venue.

· Assess the market’s capability to be a developer of the venue vs owner/operator

· Quantify what level of funding could be expected to then refine our current understanding of the funding gap.

· Explore what conditions would be attached to funding being made available e.g.: development/delivery structures, operational conditions, lease tenure, additional allowable uses or concessions, does the operating strategy affect the funding available? Is there a strong view on management structures e.g. vertically integrated.

· Identify any changes that impact the market sounding to date or provide opportunities.

· Seek feedback on the market’s appetite and willingness to develop carpark and public realm and operate the carpark.

4.6 In developing an approach to this work, Council has:

· Built on the intel received through the two previous market soundings undertaken in 2023 as part of Stage 1. The first was to assess demand, and the second to test the outcomes of Council’s feasibility work.

· Underpinned the work with a robust probity framework to avoid compromising a possible future procurement process.

· Established a pathway for a future public procurement process should feedback from the market suggest this is, at this point, a realistic possibility.

· Considered a balance between keeping the market interested and engaging with key parties, while avoiding fatiguing those who have had input to date (in the initial market soundings).

· Avoided building expectation from the market or community that we are entering into a procurement process that will lead to the delivery of a new venue (given the current uncertainty in funding).

· Build in a mechanism to manage the interaction between this work and advocacy to the State Government.

4.7 A targeted market engagement, with input from probity consultants, was implemented from April to June 2024. A portion of those contacted declined to participate for various reasons including wanting to protect their IP should this project eventuate in a procurement process or being occupied with other priorities, while others were willing to be interviewed and divulge some level of relevant information in response to requests for information included in a participant pack issued well ahead of the meeting.

4.8 The targeted engagement involved detailed discussions with key parties that may have the capacity to provide a significant capital contribution towards the whole or most of the cost of the venue. This included parties that have been previously engaged, those that have indicated willingness to engage, and any others that were identified through a further scan of the broader global market.

Targeted Market Engagement Key Findings

4.9 Attachment 1 contains a confidential Targeted Market Engagement Report detailing the process and protocols adopted, parties contacted and those who participated (and those who didn’t including their rationale), the key findings from the discussions and possible next steps. While the details included in the report are confidential, a public summary of the key components of the report is provided below.

4.10 Given nature of the targeted engagement, the results of this stage will remain confidential and have been combined here with previous market sounding findings to provide a summary of what we know based on all the work undertaken, rather than on the specific interviews held in this round.

4.11 The key findings across all market sounding activities relevant to the questions posed for this round are as follows:

· There is market appetite to provide significant private funding for a new venue. However, public funding would likely be needed to fund the carparking and public realm components.

· A ground lease term in the order of 50 years appears preferred by the market to justify an upfront significant capital contribution, with the improvements reverting to Council at lease expiry.

Status of Advocacy to State Government

4.12 Upon conclusion of the design work that formed a key part of the study investigating the feasibility of a live music venue and subsequent community engagement undertaken from September to October 2023 (refer to Council report dated 6 December 2023), various advances were made to State Government advising of the concept for the site and community sentiment (general support) and seeking funding for a business case.

4.13 While there has been some positive feedback about the value of the opportunity, no commitment has been made to date to provide support for a business case to progress the project.

4.14 Now that the targeted engagement has concluded, there is an opportunity to test whether there is increased interest from state government regarding the live music venue given that the targeted market engagement confirmed that there is significant interest from the market in participating in a competitive process for the opportunity to develop and manage a live music and performance venue on the St Kilda Triangle.

4.15 An advocacy strategy for the St Kilda Triangle Live Music Venue has been developed for consideration as part of options for next steps which will be refined once an option for the way forward is selected.

Options for the Next Steps

4.16 Three options are presented for consideration. These are:

· Option 1 (Recommended): Undertake Advocacy to State Government while other project works pause.

· Option 2: Begin preparation for a Competitive Market Process whilst continuing to advocate to State Government.

· Option 3: Pause All St Kilda Triangle Live Music Venue Work and review next steps with the newly elected Council.

4.17 Option 1 (Recommended): Refined Advocacy Approach to State Government while other project works pause:

· This involves advocacy to State Government, built on the outcomes of the targeted market engagement to seek support and funding for a business case. The outcomes of the advocacy would inform options for next steps for consideration by the new Council early 2025.

· Cost to Council:

o For immediate project work - $0 (internal resources use to advocate)

· Program:

o Advocacy: August 2024 to April 2025

4.18 Option 2: Begin preparation for a Competitive Market Process while continuing to advocate to State Government. Begin preparing for a competitive market process while continuing to advocate state government support for the project. This involves:

· Initial engagement with the State Government on the outcomes of the targeted market engagement to seek support for the work being undertaken to prepare for a market process and to seek funding for a business case as per Option 1.

· Begin preparation for an open market process, including identifying the design parameters critical to Council, assessment criteria and approach, consideration of the appropriate planning pathway to support implementation of the desired outcome and other work required to support Council investing in the project. This work would be brought to Council for consideration next year.

· Cost to Council:

o Initial cost approximately $100k. This amount would need to be confirmed through detailed project planning for this piece of work.

· Program:

o Advocacy: August 24 to April 25, with future work subject to direction from the new Council in March/April 2025.

o Project planning to determine cost, timeline and procurement approach and other initial work to begin preparation for procurement: October 24 to March 2025 (hold point for review and approval by the new Council to proceed to tender documentation and market process go live).

4.19 Option 3: Pause All St Kilda Triangle Live Music Venue Work. Pause all work for the St Kilda Triangle and prepare a briefing for the new Council in March/April 2025 to confirm the way forward. This involves:

· Light touch engagement or basic monitoring by Council of:

o The live music venue market to understand the changes, interest in the Triangle venue and impacts on the demand assessment work undertaken to date

o Changes in State Government’s priorities and budget allocations to assess future potential support for the Live Music Venue on the Triangle site

· Cost to Council - $0.00

· Program - Recommence consideration of the way forward in March/April 2025 with a briefing to the new Council

Assessment of Options

4.20 An assessment of the benefits and risks of each option has been undertaken and is summarised below. Option 1 is recommended as the pathway forward for the project works.

· Option 1 presents a moderate or balanced approach. It is beneficial in that it uses new information from recent investigations to re-instigate advocacy works to potentially create or access opportunities for funding for a business case that were not previously available. In doing so it maintains project momentum while using minimal project resources (including no immediate requirements for funding).

· Option 2 uses more resources and some budget (approx. $100k) to increase project momentum and capitalise on recent market interactions to progress project planning and preparation work required to undertake an open market process in the first part of 2025. In doing so, it minimises the time lag in the other options where work on progressing the planning for an open market process is paused for a considerable period of time. This option requires further investment by this Council and progresses a project that may not have the same level of support from the new Council.

· Option 3 pauses all work and defers a decision about any project progress to be made by the new Council in March/April 2025.This means that more time will lapse before any next steps are undertaken (which increases the risk of changes in the live music venue market compromising the proposed concept), and any possible opportunities for funding from State Government over the next 6-8 months may be missed. However, resources can be re-diverted to focus on other pressing issues until the new Council has had time to evaluate their priorities.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 Extensive community and stakeholder engagement informed the development of the St Kilda Triangle Masterplan 2016. There has also been significant community consultation over the years for pieces of work that preceded the 2016 Masterplan. As such there is likely to be significant interest and scrutiny of the project by the community, government, stakeholders and the market.

5.2 As part of the Stage 1 feasibility work, the live music and performance industry was consulted in terms of demand for a venue in the proposed location via a market sounding process and subsequently consulted upon completion of the design feasibility work.

5.3 Community engagement was undertaken in the first stage to understand the sentiment and feedback about the outcomes of the design feasibility work and new direction for the site. The Council Report for the 6 December 23 public meeting presented the findings of that engagement program.

5.4 While it is intended that the feedback from the community informs subsequent stages of the project, this stage has focussed on State Government advocacy and further market engagement. The community will be updated on the next steps as part of a public meeting in July when Council will be requested to confirm a preferred option.

5.5 State Government partners, particularly DEECA have been kept informed of project progress.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Procuring appropriate legal and probity advice and input to a procurement and planning process will be key to the success of the project.

6.2 Partnering as appropriate with State Government bodies throughout any future stages of the project will be important to ensure suitable legislative processes are undertaken and risks related to State Government requirements are managed.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 The budget approved for the current stage of works (stage 2) is $110,000 which covers strategic commercial advice to support the market engagement strategy and probity advice to ensure any future procurement processes are not compromised.

7.2 An estimate of costs for each option has been provided in the body of the report.

7.3 These costs do not factor in the cost of existing officer time, including project management, property, urban design, transport, sustainability, planning and commercial expertise, that are being utilised to support the project.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 There are no environmental impacts from this stage of the project.

8.2 However, a range of environmental considerations have been incorporated in the design related planning for the site at a high level and will be considered in more detail should further stages progress.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 The concept of a live music venue, carparking and public realm redevelopment of the high-profile St Kilda Triangle site, currently an aging carpark, proposes a solution that responds directly to a gap in the live music industry market to enable not only St Kilda, but Melbourne, to maintain its reputation as a live music hub.

9.2 It has the potential to unlock considerable local and broader community benefits attached to this prominent foreshore site, including access to significantly improved amenity and activation of the site and supports the work of Council in delivering Victoria’s first live music precinct.

9.3 Should the project progress to a business case, planning and design work to resolve key community concerns raised as part of the engagement program in late 2023 will need to be undertaken.

10. Gender Impact Assessment

10.1 A gender impact assessment will be undertaken as part of a business case should it be supported to progress.

11. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

11.1 While the St Kilda Triangle project has been specifically identified to align with Liveable Port Phillip, the work and intended outcomes align with all five strategic directions in the Council Plan:

· Inclusive Port Phillip – A City that is a place for all members of our community where people feel supported and comfortable being themselves and expressing their identities.

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

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

· Vibrant - 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.

· Well-Governed Port Phillip – A city that is leading local government authority, where our community and our organisation are in a better place as a result of our collective efforts.

12. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

12.1 TIMELINE

12.1.1 The options for the next steps presented in the body of the report for Council consideration include broad timelines for works proposed.

12.2 COMMUNICATION

12.2.1 The Council website will be updated with Council’s decision, approach and next steps.

12.2.2 The Triangle Project database of interested community members, key stakeholders and other interested parties is being used to provide updates at key points of the project such as when key reports are released or when recommendations regarding options for the St Kilda Triangle are to be considered by Council. This database will continue to be updated as people advise their interest in the project.

12.2.3 The State Government Advocacy approach will be implemented to align with the option chosen.

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. Confidential- St Kilda Triangle Live Music Venue Feasibility Stage 2 - Targeted Market Engagement Report Final July 24.

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

17 July 2024

13.1	Station Pier and Waterfront Place – Draft Scheme Amendment GC187
Executive Member:	Brian Tee, General Manager, City Growth and Development
PREPARED BY:	Luke Rogers, Strategic Planner

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To seek a decision on the Minister for Planning’s request for consent to amend the Port Phillip Planning Scheme boundary and consideration of draft planning scheme Amendment GC187 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 The municipal district of the City of Port Phillip contains Station Pier and associated land, including the TT Lines Freight Yard, which sits adjacent to the Waterfront Place Precinct. The Waterfront Place Precinct includes the Station Pier car park, land used for restaurants adjacent to the carpark (9, 11 and 13 Waterfront Place), Port Plaza, Beach Street Car Park, 101 and 103 Beach Street and 1-7 Waterfront Place.

2.2 On 24 October 2023, the Minister for Planning, through Department of Transport and Planning (DTP), wrote to Council requesting its consent to amend the Port Phillip Planning Scheme boundary under Section 6(6)(d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) and seeking its views on draft planning scheme Amendment GC187 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. The letter from the Minister for Planning is Attachment 1 and a copy of the draft amendment documentation is Attachment 2.

2.3 GC187 has been prepared by the Minister for Planning who is the planning authority for this amendment at the request of the Department of Transport and the Minister for Ports. It is a fixup amendment that will align the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme with the declared Port of Melbourne Area under the Port Management Act 1995.

2.4 The amendment applies to land in the following planning schemes: Port Phillip, Maribyrnong; Melbourne, Port of Melbourne and Hobsons Bay.

2.5 Proposed changes to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme include:

· removing the area in the Port Zone (Station Pier and the TT Lines Freight Yard) from the Port Phillip Scheme and include that land within the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme (PoM Planning Scheme);

· incorporating a nearby area of beachfront and water at Port Melbourne – St Kilda Coastal Reserve and South Melbourne Beachfront Reserve, adjoining Beaconsfield Parade into the Port Phillip Planning Scheme (currently in the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme); and

· consequential changes to the heritage overlay, Port Zone and operational provisions to reflect the preceding changes.

2.6 If the proposal is progressed, further formal notification to Council, or the public, on the change would not be required.

2.7 The proposal is administrative in nature.

2.8 The following options are available to Council in response to the request from the Minister for Planning:

· Option 1: Refuse consent for excision and inclusion of land from Port Phillip scheme and provide comment on amendment.

· Option 2: Withhold consent for excision and inclusion of land from Port Phillip scheme at this time and provide comment on amendment.

· Option 3: Consent for excision and inclusion of land from Port Phillip scheme and provide comment on amendment.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Notes the request from the Minister for Planning seeking consent to amend the Port Phillip Planning Scheme boundary under Section 6(6)(d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) and views on draft planning scheme Amendment GC187 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

3.2 Endorses the content in attachment 3 to this report as the submission to the proposed Ministerial Amendment GC187 and request for consent under Section 6(6)(d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

3.3 Authorises the CEO, or their delegate, to prepare a formal Council submission consistent with clause 3.2 above and submit to the Minister for Planning.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

Background

4.1 The proposed amendment GC187 seeks to realign planning scheme boundaries and remove consequently redundant provisions from the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. The proposed amendment is a fixup amendment. It is the final part of the process to align the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme with the declared Port of Melbourne Area under the Port Management Act 1995.

4.2 This process commenced in March 2016 when the Victorian Infrastructure (Port of Melbourne Lease Transaction) Act 2016 (the Act) enabled a market process to lease the commercial operations of the Port of Melbourne (PoM).

4.3 The Act facilitated a lease agreement. Implementation of the lease agreement included Planning Scheme Amendment GC54 to the Hobsons Bay, Maribyrnong, Melbourne, Port Phillip and Port of Melbourne Planning Schemes which rezoned all land and water subject to the port lease transaction.  

4.4 Amendment GC54 made the Minister for Planning the Responsible Authority for land within the Port Zone. As such the Minister for Planning is currently responsible for determining planning permit applications for Station Pier and the adjoining TT Lines Freight Yard.

4.5 The current request (GC187) consolidates all areas in the Port Zone within the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme, to ensure consistent management of State strategic planning matters by a singular Responsible Authority.

4.6 The proposal does not remove the land and water from the municipal district of the City of Port Phillip, only from the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. So other powers and obligations of Council within the municipal district will not be impacted. It does not transfer assets, only changes the planning framework that affect existing assets.

4.7 The Port Melbourne – St Kilda Coastal Reserve and South Melbourne Beachfront Reserve is included in the PoM Planning Scheme but is not part of the PoM Lease. It is also currently within the Public Park and Recreation Zone and not the Port Zone. Including this land in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme would make Council the Responsible Authority. The land would remain in the Public Park and Recreation Zone.

Background – land management

4.8 Station Pier is the main point of arrival into Victoria for cruise ships and is a local point of interest. It is part of the declared Port of Melbourne Area which is the centre of docking and shipping operations for Greater Melbourne.

4.9 Currently, Station Pier, the TT Lines Freight Yard and the Waterfront Place Precinct are covered by the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, as well as being in the municipal district of the City of Port Phillip.

4.10 Station Pier and the TT Line freight yard are managed by Ports Victoria, a body responsible for shipping traffic control within Port Phillip Bay, among other services. Ports Victoria is the Committee of Management for this land. Ports Victoria are required to undertake ongoing maintenance of the Pier.

4.11 The City of Port Phillip (CoPP) is the Committee of Management for the Station Pier car park and for Waterfront Place in Figure 1.

4.12 The proposed amendment does not remove any land from the Port Phillip Planning Scheme for which Council is the Committee of Management (i.e. Waterfront Place and the Station Pier car park in Figure 1).

4.13 Council is already the Committee of Management for the land proposed to be included in the Planning Scheme, Port Melbourne – St Kilda Coastal Reserve.

Figure 1 – Committee of Management areas

Draft Amendment GC187

4.14 The draft amendment GC187 proposes the following changes to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme:

· Incorporate the area of land along the Port Phillip foreshore and on the corner of The Blvd, Port Melbourne adjoining South Melbourne Beach from the PoM Scheme. This land has the Public Park and Recreation Zone applied, this will remain the zoning upon incorporation of the land to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

· Excise Station Pier and the surrounding water from the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

· Consequential change to delete Clause 37.09 (Port Zone) from the scheme as this zone will no longer cover any land in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

· Consequential changes to remove Station Pier from Port Phillip Heritage Overlay and include it in PoM Scheme Heritage Overlay. The existing heritage protections would remain.

· Consequential update to Clause 72.01 (Responsible Authority for this Planning Scheme) to remove the Minister for Planning as the responsible authority for administering and enforcing the scheme as it pertains to land and water within the Port Zone as this zone would no longer exist in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

· See Figure 2.

Figure 2 – DTP Map of GC187 - The pink shows Land/water proposed to be within PoM Planning Scheme, including land and water to be excised from Port Phillip Scheme. The orange shows land and water included in Port Phillip Scheme.

Ministerial Request for Council consent

4.15 Given the draft amendment proposes to excise land from the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, the consent of Council is required under Section 6(6)(d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act). Section 6(6)(d) of the Act does not provide for any specific ability to appeal the decision of Council to withhold consent.

4.16 If the change is approved, the land would remain within the municipal boundary of the City of Port Phillip.

4.17 There is no ability to apply to VCAT to review Council’s decision. There is the possibility to challenge the decision to provide or withhold consent through judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court. Judicial review proceedings do not consider the merits of a decision. Instead, they consider the exercise of discretion associated with the making of the statutory decision.

Amendment Impact – Officer Assessment

4.18 Officers consider that the fixup amendment is largely administrative in nature with limited operational impact.

4.19 The fixup amendment will enable the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and its role and function as part of the PoM.

4.20 The excision of land will allow it to be managed by the appropriate authority, consistent with similar land across the port.

4.21 Council is not currently the Responsible Authority (RA) for planning applications within the land proposed to be excised. The land that would be excised is in the Port Zone, which gives the Minister for Planning the role of Responsible Authority for planning applications.

4.22 Council’s ability to administer planning controls or impact the outcome of planning applications are not impacted by this change.

4.23 Council still has the opportunity to advocate and submit to proposals on any development projects.

4.24 Council currently cannot prepare a planning scheme amendment specific to the Port of Melbourne Area. This amendment will not change that outcome.

4.25 Council is not a referral authority for any application on the land within the Port Zone and does not hold any specific powers or responsibilities within the planning scheme regarding Station Pier and the TT Lines Freight Yard.

4.26 While Ports Victoria are the Committee of Management over Station Pier and the TT Lines Freight Yard, they have no specific powers or responsibilities within the planning system. Ports Victoria submit applications to the Minister for Planning for planning permit or planning scheme amendments. The proposed amendment does not have any impact on the current Committees of Management in these areas.

4.27 The area proposed to be included in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, Port Melbourne – St Kilda Coastal Reserve and South Melbourne Beachfront Reserve and adjoining water, would allow Council to act as Responsible Authority for any planning applications over this land. Council is currently, and would remain, the Committee of Management over this land.

Options for Response to draft Amendment

4.28 The following options are available to Council in response to the Minister for Planning’s letter:

· Option 1: Refuse consent for excision of land from Port Phillip scheme and provide comment on amendment.

· Option 2: Withhold consent for excision of land from Port Phillip scheme at this time and provide comment on amendment.

· Option 3: Give consent for excision of land from Port Phillip scheme and provide comment on amendment.

4.29 Options 3 is recommended for the reasons set out below:

· Excision of the land removes confusion regarding decision making from a planning perspective in the declared Port of Melbourne Area.

· The inclusion of land within the Port Phillip Planning Scheme at Port Melbourne – St Kilda Coastal Reserve and South Melbourne Beachfront Reserve - provides Council oversight powers as the Responsible Authority for this land. The inclusion would align the role of Council as Committee of Management with Council’s decision making for planning applications as a Responsible Authority.

4.30 Additionally, as Council is, and will remain, both the Committee of Management and the Responsible Authority for much of the Waterfront Place Precinct, Council is a key stakeholder in any planning and development of the land adjacent to Station Pier and TT Line Freight Yard. This provides the opportunity to advocate for a holistic precinct plan for this area, and to continue to be involved in any discussions relating to the future of these sites.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 The Minister for Planning is seeking affected councils’ views on draft Amendment GC187 in accordance with section 20(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Broader community engagement has not been undertaken.

5.2 Discussions have been held with DTP and PoM officers to gain information on the Amendment.

5.3 Council’s advocacy and engagement with the community and key stakeholders on the future of Station Pier and Waterfront Place Precinct can continue separate to this request.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Legal advice was sought to understand Council’s obligations under Section 6(6)(d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and any associated risk. This is outlined from Section 4.22 – 4.24.

6.2 There is limited risk to Council in consenting to, or withholding consent for, the excision of the land from the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 Regarding the proposed inclusion of additional foreshore reserve into the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, there is minimal additional costs to Council as administration costs for the processing of planning applications would be offset by fees. The excision of land from the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, or retention of that land, would have little to no financial impact.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 There are no foreseen environmental impacts resulting from draft Amendment GC187 as it is largely administrative in nature. 

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 There are limited community impacts resulting from draft Amendment GC187 as it is largely administrative in nature.

9.2 Advocacy and communication with key stakeholders on Station Pier Precinct can continue.

10. Gender Impact Assessment

10.1 There are no gender impacts resulting from draft Amendment GC187 as it is largely administrative in nature.

11. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

11.1 Providing a response to a request from the Minister for Planning and aligning planning scheme boundaries for ease of administration delivers on Direction 5 of the Council Plan (Well Governed Port Phillip), by providing a transparent and good governance approach to decision making.

12. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

12.1 TIMELINE

12.1.1 Should Council support the recommended option, a response will be provided to the Minister for Planning and Department of Transport and Planning.

12.2 COMMUNICATION

12.2.1 If the proposed amendment to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, as other planning schemes, is to proceed, notification will be provided by the Department of Transport and Planning in the manner set out by the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

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. Attachment 1 - Letter from Minister for Planning re GC187⇩

2. Attachment 2 - GC187 Port Phillip Amendment Documents⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Outline of submission to minister on draft Amendment GC187⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

17 July 2024

13.2

Investment and Treasury Management Policy

Executive Member:

Lachlan Johnson, General Manager, Operations and Infrastructure

PREPARED BY:

Peter Liu, Chief Financial Officer

Elizabeth Erskine, Head of Financial Accounting and Services

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To present to Council for approval of the updated Investment & Treasury Management Policy, which sets out the principles to be followed by officers investing funds with financial institutions.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 Council must ensure that our assets, including monies collected, are protected on behalf of ratepayers and residents.

2.2 The Investment & Treasury Management Policy seeks to optimise investment returns while minimising risk, balancing liquidity, and achieving Council’s environmental and social objectives.

2.3 The policy contains minimum credit rating criteria for financial institutions to meet for short and long-term investments to ensure the security of Council’s investments.

2.4 Maximum thresholds for investment in individual financial institutions are included and to ensure portfolio diversification and to minimise potential risk exposure.

2.5 Investment types are restricted to those allowable under the Local Government Act.

2.6 Investment limits and terms are stipulated to balance our risk exposure with interest earning potential and fund availability.

2.7 The updated policy allows for investing in Victorian Funds Management Corporation (VFMC) Enhanced income funds which is approved by the Minister for Local Government.

2.8 The Policy should be reviewed every two years to reflect the current operating environment.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Adopts the Investment & Treasury Management Policy 2024 as set out in Attachment 1 to this report.

3.2 Delegates authority to the CEO to reflect any changes made by Council at tonight’s meeting, and to make minor typographical corrections and administrative changes.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 To ensure Council’s exposure to financial risk is minimised investments can only be placed in higher rated banks meeting the minimum credit rating criteria.

4.2 Credit ratings are obtained from Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s, with Fitch ratings to be accessed under the updated policy as well.

4.3 Credit ratings are set for investments held short or long term to allow portfolio diversification and capital preservation and each institution Council invests with must meet the following minimum criteria (unchanged):

4.3.1 Investments for 365 days or longer must be with institutions with a long-term rating of BBB+/Baa1 or above.

4.3.2 Investments for less than 365 days must be with institutions with a short-term rating of A-2/P-2/F-2 or above.

4.4 The policy limits the maximum investments allowable with each financial institution, to further reduce exposure to financial risk and diversify the portfolio as follows:

4.4.1 Investments in individual institutions rated A+/A-1 or above capped at 40 percent of the portfolio.

4.4.2 Investments in individual institutions rated BBB+/A-2 or above capped at 20 percent.

4.4.3 To strengthen our investment in environmentally and socially responsible institutions and achieve Council’s objective institutions rated BBB+/A-2 who meet the Corporate Social Responsibility criteria are granted a special threshold of 30 percent.

4.5 The updated policy allows for investing in Victorian Funds Management Corporation (VFMC) Enhanced income funds due to:

4.5.1 Product approved by Minister for Local Government.

4.5.2 A low-risk investment where monies can be invested by the fund in multiple institutions of various ratings – on evidence will be classified as an equivalent AAA rated investment.

4.5.3 A large portion of this fund is directed towards floating notes, therefore will be classified as Floating Notes.

4.5.4 Product is a suitable a long-term investment option given its rating equivalent of AAA and Floating Notes.

4.5.5 Yields are relatively higher than AAA rated institution such as CBA.

4.5.6 Highly liquid investment option which can be redeemed within a business day (may require a longer notice period for large redemptions).

4.6 With the inclusion of VFMC investment option, floating rate notes will be capped at 20% of the total portfolio, increased from 10%. This allows Council to realise the benefits of VFMC as highlighted above.

4.7 The performance benchmark remains the same and is split for cash in At-Call accounts and direct investments:

4.7.1 At-Call target- the Reserve Bank of Australia cash rate

4.7.2 Direct investments- the 90-day Bank Bill Swap rate plus 50 basis points.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 The policy was reviewed and endorsed by the Executive Leadership Team and the Audit and Risk Committee.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 The policy meets the requirements of the Local Government Act.

6.2 The policy limits Council’s financial risks due to the strict criteria that must be met before an investment can be placed including:

6.2.1 The types on investment allowed.

6.2.2 The maximum amount allowed to be invested.

6.2.3 The maximum percentage of the fund allowed to be invested with individual entities based on their credit rating.

6.2.4 The threshold for individual entities ensuring the portfolio is spread across several institutions and not concentrated with one or two.

6.2.5 The short and long-term credit ratings that must be satisfied before surplus funds can be invested.

6.3 The policy provides direction in the event of a credit rating downgrade placing the portfolio in breach and the funds at risk.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 There is limited financial impact from the proposed changes. Council may achieve a slightly higher rate of return through the increased availability to invest in floating rate notes and the VFMC fund.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 The policy supports Council to increase its investment in financial institutions that maximise social and environmental outcomes.

8.2 The policy stipulates that Council will not invest in companies that produce nuclear weapons and will preference those who do not fund activities in the Arms Industry.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 The policy enables Council to strengthen its ability to invest in financial institutions that are socially responsible.

9.2 This policy ensures the security and safeguarding of public monies, to enable Council to deliver its commitments to our community.

10. Gender Impact Assessment

10.1 Not applicable.

11. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

11.1 Direction 3 – Sustainable Port Phillip - The proposed policy enables surplus funds to be placed with institutions that have proven alignment with Council’s environmental commitments.

11.2 Strategic Direction 5 – Well Governed Port Phillip - The proposed policy aims to maximise returns on investment and enable the preservation of capital and the maintenance of liquidity. This assists the organisation in achieving optimum financial sustainability ratios and performance benchmarks.

12. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

12.1 TIMELINE

12.1.1 The new Policy will have immediate effect once adopted.

12.2 COMMUNICATION

12.2.1 Responsible officers who place funds for investment on behalf of Council will be advised of changes to the policy following adoption by Council.

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. Investment and Treasury Management Policy 2024⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

17 July 2024

13.3	South Melbourne Town Hall - ANAM Schematic Design
Executive Member:	Lachlan Johnson, General Manager, Operations and Infrastructure
PREPARED BY:	Vicki Tuchtan, Acting Manager Property and Assets

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To present to Council, and recommend conditional approval of, the schematic design submitted by the Australian Academy of Music (ANAM) in accordance with their Agreement for Lease (AFL) with Council for the redevelopment of the South Melbourne Town Hall (SMTH).

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 The South Melbourne Town Hall (‘the SMTH’) is located on City of Port Phillip freehold land at 208-220 Bank Street South Melbourne, within the Emerald Hill arts and culture precinct.

2.2 The Australian National Academy of Music (ANAM) has been the major tenant of the SMTH since 1996, following an agreement reached by the City of Port Phillip and the Victorian Government.

2.3 Following a ceiling collapse in 2018, the SMTH has been temporarily closed to the public and Council is committed to reopening this valuable community asset.

2.4 At its ordinary meeting on 15 March 2023, following an extensive community engagement process, Council resolved to enter into an Agreement for Lease (‘the AFL’) and subsequent Lease of the SMTH with ANAM.

2.5 The Lease is intended to:

· Secure ongoing use of the SMTH as a cultural hub.

· Support its restoration, renewal, and ongoing maintenance.

· Over time, boost use and visitation.

2.6 The AFL also requires Council to bring the SMTH to a basic, tenantable condition, including being structurally sound (‘Landlord’s Works’).

2.7 The Lease term:

· Will be for up to 35 years and begin after ANAM has contributed $20.5 million in capital investment to the building.

· Has a further 15-year option if ANAM provides a further $19.5 million in capital investment.

2.8 In 2023 Council delivered an early works package to prepare the town hall for the main works.

2.9 In May 2024, Council entered into a contract for the delivery of the Landlord’s works. These works have now commenced and will be delivered throughout 2024 and 2025.

2.10 ANAM completed a Concept Design for the Tenant’s Works, which was presented to Council in late January 2024.

2.11 In accordance with the provisions of the AFL between Council and ANAM, the Schematic Design for Tenant’s Works (‘the Schematic Design’) has been submitted by ANAM for Council approval.

2.12 The Schematic Design has been reviewed against the requirements of the AFL, particularly the Project Brief.

2.13 The review has included consideration of the following items:

· Compliance with the project brief in the AFL.

· Achievement of community benefits.

· Alignment with the Asset Management Plan.

2.14 The Schematic Design generally accords with the AFL and the Project Brief and, when implemented will help to deliver the objectives espoused in the AFL.

2.15 There are a several deviations from the Project Brief, particularly when it comes to expanding the building footprint and some restoration works to the heritage building fabric.

2.16 As outlined in this report, Council relies upon the expertise of Heritage Victoria as both the preeminent authority on heritage matters and as the approval authority for relevant works to the building.

2.17 The deviations from the Project Brief, whilst relatively minor compared to the overall works, do raise concerns for Council that will need to be worked through as ANAM continue to evolve their design and secure the remaining funding for their works. As such, it is recommended that Council provide conditional approval for the Schematic Design, outlining the matters still to be resolved.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Acknowledges the collaborative work between the Australia National Academy of Music (ANAM) and Council in progressing the refurbishment of the South Melbourne Town Hall.

3.2 Notes that the Schematic Design submitted by ANAM for Council’s consideration meets the shared objectives of Council and ANAM for the highly valued community asset.

3.3 Provides conditional approval for the Schematic Design, noting the following key matters to be resolved:

3.3.1 Heritage Victoria approval of the design including specifically for the proposed eastern extension (Student Common Room), demolition of the north-western apartment, modifications to the main stage, and other associated works that will impact the heritage significance of the building.

3.3.2 Detailed investigation and clarification on window repairs and double-glazing, noting the requirements of the Project Brief.

3.3.3 Rendering of the exterior of the building.

3.3.4 Provision of energy storage as per the Project Brief requirements.

3.4 Delegates to the Chief Executive Officer, or their delegate, through the joint project control group, to resolve the outstanding matters to the satisfaction of Council.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 The site of the South Melbourne Town Hall is bound by Daly Street to the north, Layfield Street to the west, Fishley Street to the east, and Bank Street to the south, in South Melbourne, Victoria.

4.2 Opening on 30 June 1880, the SMTH comprises a two storey, heritage listed building with a floor area of approximately 6,000m², on a site of approximately 3,650m².

4.3 It is an historically significant building, that shapes the character of Emerald Hill, and provides a focal point for community activities and events.

4.4 The SMTH was constructed between 1878 and 1880 on land of the Wurundjeri people. Emerald Hill has a significant Indigenous history as a gathering place for ceremonies, conciliation, and exchange, and is also of architectural and social significance to the state of Victoria.

4.5 A town hall is traditionally where the business of local government is conducted, and public gatherings are held. In the case of SMTH, the building was originally constructed to house the Emerald Hill Mechanics Institute, Post Office, Police Station, and Court House, as well as the Emerald Hill Town Council (later becoming the City of South Melbourne, prior to amalgamation in 1994 with the cities of St Kilda and Port Melbourne to form the City of Port Phillip). Following amalgamation, most Council services were relocated from SMTH to St Kilda Town Hall.

4.6 The original parts of the SMTH were built in the late 19^th century and the site has significant architectural, aesthetic, historical and social significance.

4.7 The Australian National Academy of Music (ANAM) has been the major tenant of the SMTH since 1996, following an agreement reached by the City of Port Phillip and the Victorian Government.

4.8 The SMTH is temporarily closed to the public and Council is committed to reopening this valuable community asset as a matter of priority.

4.9 At its ordinary meeting on 15 March 2023, Council resolved to enter into an Agreement for Lease (‘the AFL’) and subsequent Lease of the SMTH with ANAM.

4.10 Established in 1994, ANAM is one of eight national performing arts training organisations funded by the Federal Government to support Australia’s creative economy and promote artistic and cultural excellence.

4.11 Council values and acknowledges ANAM’s use of the town hall and the contributions it has made to the Emerald Hill area as an internationally recognised music training organisation.

4.12 In November 2023, Council signed the Agreement for Lease (AFL) with ANAM, which outlined that Council would carry out Landlord's Works to provide a compliant and tenantable building and that ANAM would subsequently carry out the Tenant's Works.

4.13 The AFL allows for two stages for the Tenant’s Works (Stage 1 and Stage 2). Stage 2 works are subject to ANAM raising the required funding.

4.14 The AFL requires ANAM to develop their design and to request Council approval in a progressive manner.

4.15 The AFL includes provisions whereby ANAM may request Council to vary the scope of Landlord's Works to suit their future Tenant’s Works.

4.16 ANAM completed their Concept Design in January 2024, and through this process, has formally requested changes to the scope of Landlord's Works in part to suit their works and to avoid, where possible, redundant work by Council.

4.17 Council is currently in the process of resolving these change requests in coordination with ANAM on the basis the Landlord’s Works still achieve a compliant building with a certificate of occupancy at the end of the works.

4.18 ANAM submitted their Schematic Design for both Stage 1 and Stage 2 works for Council approval on the 3 June 2024. The AFL allows 15 business days for review of the Schematic Design and to approve or reject the design. ANAM has agreed to extend the review period to enable Council’s formal approval of their design.

4.19 The Schematic Design has been compared with the project brief included in the AFL and is included at Attachment 1.

Schematic Design – Key Variances

4.20 The key variances of the Schematic Design from the Project Brief are described below.

Schematic Design Variance	Council Response
1. The Project Brief did not envisage the build of a new space above the loading dock area for a student lounge (Student Common Room). The student lounge was anticipated to be incorporated in the existing building footprint.	It is noted that this work is subject to Stage 2 funding. Council has concerns about the heritage impact of this extension but defers to Heritage Victoria (HV) as the relevant authority for their determination. Council provides conditional approval subject to funding and satisfactory resolution of heritage considerations and requirements with HV.
2. The Project Brief did not provide for any works to the main hall stage however the design incorporates a significant extension of the stage and access to the existing stage.	The proposed modifications to the stage will provide an improved community outcome. The stage is to be increased in footprint and the proposed stagging plan for the main hall will provide greater flexibility for use by community groups (schools, etc.). Council does have some concerns about the potential impact on the heritage elements in the main hall but defers to the relevant authority, HV, on this matter. As such, Council provides conditional approval for the stage modifications as outlined subject to HV approval.
3. The Project Brief allowed for the refurbishment of the apartment studios, not the demolition of the apartment and reconstruction of a new performance space and stairwell as detailed in the Tenant’s Schematic Design.	This is a substantial departure from the Project Brief. The demolition and construction of a new building in this area will have impacts on existing heritage elements. The proposed extension will provide a significantly improved space, with the roof top terrace, that will provide benefit to community hirers, but this may have been achievable through refurbishment instead of demolition. Council defers to HV to consider the extension, the impact on the relevant heritage elements, including the façade. Council provides conditional approval for the demolition and extension subject to HV feedback and all conditions being met. It is noted that it is anticipated that some modifications to the Schematic Design will be made through this process.
Schematic Design Variance	Council Response
4. The Project Brief included a requirement for an external goods lift from the Courtyard to the Supper Room Terrace however this was a ‘to be confirmed’ item. The design has allowed for the expansion of the existing lift to cater for goods and larger items to the Level 1 and the Performance Studio.	This is considered an acceptable non-compliance with the Project Brief as it still ensures practical use of the first-floor.
5. The Project Brief requires the installation of a goods lift to transport goods from the basement to the Main Hall and stage levels however this was listed as a ‘to be confirmed’ item.	This is not being provided however this is considered an acceptable non-compliance with the Project Brief, because of the planned upgrades and increased size of the other lifts in the building ensuring practical use of the upper levels of the building.
6. The Project Brief requires replacement of blinds and painting throughout however the design only allows for where required.	It is accepted that some windows may not require painting and that it does not make sense for some windows to have blinds fitted. It is recommended that Council provides conditional approval subject to a detailed listing and inventory of each window be provided and agreed.
7. The Project Brief requires double glazing throughout the SMTH. The design specifies double glazing only to areas required for acoustic performance.	The current approach to only replace windows with double glazing in areas where improved acoustic performance is required is not in keeping with the Project Brief. The intent of the glazing upgrades was to improve acoustics but also, importantly, to improve the thermal efficiency of the building helping to deliver on the environmental sustainability outcomes from the lease. It is accepted that a few windows may not require double glazing, but the vast majority are expected to be double glazed. It is recommended that Council provides feedback that the current approach is not acceptable and that, similar to the window painting and blinds requirement, that an audit of all windows be provided through the Joint-PCG where individual exceptions to the double-glazing requirement are considered and approved by Council representatives.
8. The Project Brief requires external building rendering (west, north, and east facades). This is at risk as this is a ‘to be confirmed’ item in the design and is subject to sufficient budget being available.	It is a requirement that the rendering be provided. Noting this is a requirement subject to Stage 2 funding and that Council would require this requirement to be met prior to final specification approval for Stage 2 works.
9. Solar batteries are advised to be dependent on assessment on roof strength and amount of excess power, if any generated by the solar panels.	Council approval to these works is conditional on this requirement being met prior to approval of the final specifications.

4.21 Considering the nature of deviations from Project Brief approval of the design to date can only be conditional as described against each non-compliance and to cover other design issues identified below.

Schematic Design – Key Issues

4.22 Aside from the key deviations from the Project Brief, the following issues have been identified that are continuing to be resolved through the Joint PCG.

4.23 Key areas that remain to be further documented, pending design evolution and HV feedback and approval, include:

· Introduction of acoustic treatment and audiovisual equipment and impact on internal heritage fabric – ceiling mouldings and windows.

· Introduction of new services mezzanines, acoustic treatment and AV equipment and impact on existing structure due to additional weight.

· Liability concerns with design outside of the property boundary (access ramp at the front of the building) and impacts on public safety and public realm cleaning.

· Removal of significant flooring and change of floor levels.

· Removal of flooring and introduction of OSD (on-site detention) / rainwater under the building.

Asset Management Considerations

4.24 As part of finalising the AFL, ANAM and Council officers worked together to finalise an asset management plan for the SMTH. The Asset Management Plan (AMP) included in the agreement allowed for update post the completion of the capital works (Landlord’s Works and Tennant’s Works).

4.25 Tenant and Council responsibility for the maintenance and renewal of spaces will be considered and addressed in the Lease.

4.26 Consistent with the AMP, under Schedule 3 of the Lease it is proposed that Council and the Lessee will have respective responsibilities for maintenance, repair, and replacement. To assist in the monitoring and management of these works, Council’s AMP for an up to 50-year period includes:

· A 50-year Capital Expenditure and associated Repairs & maintenance forecast.

· A Routine Maintenance Schedule.

· An Asset Register including Minimal Maintenance Items.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 The key areas of stakeholder consultation are:

· ANAM – weekly design interface meetings and monthly Joint Project Control Group (JPCG) meetings to coordinate design, address any change requests, provide progress updates, and discuss any decisions required.

· Heritage Victoria (HV) – a Heritage Permit for the landlord works has been received, and there is ongoing communication with HV to manage approvals needed for the proposed changes. The submission of an application for a Heritage Permit for ANAM’s Tenant’s Works is imminent.

· Local Community / Residents – General messaging to public and site closure signage/notifications at time of building closure due to potential impact both works, and reactivation of building may have on them.

· Councillors – Endorsed overall project, several updates, and briefings over last few years following building closure, design, and recent budget update and contract award for Landlord’s Works. ANAM presented their schematic design at a briefing of Councillors on 22 May 2024.

· Other Council departments (internal delivery partners): Planning, Building Services, Sustainability, and Heritage – Regularly updated and engaged to ensure design and construction complies with relevant regulations and standards.

· Other Council departments (directly impacted by works/site): Waste Management, Building Maintenance, Access and Inclusion, Arts (heritage register) – Have been updated and engaged as required throughout the project, especially during design to review and identify opportunities within the project.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 There is a risk that ANAM and Council may not reach consensus on how to address key variances and issues. This could delay the Tenant’s Works.

6.2 The SMTH is an historically significant building and heritage approval will be required. The position of HV is paramount and will guide Council’s view on the Tenant’s Works.

6.3 ANAM are yet to confirm funding for the Stage 2 Tenant’s Works. There is a risk that ANAM may not progress with Stage 2 Tenant’s Works due to insufficient funding.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 The AFL sets out the financial commitments required from ANAM for each stage of the Tenant’s Works. The required capital investment for Stage 1 and Stage 2 Tenant’s Works is $20.5m and $19.5m respectively.

7.2 ANAM are yet to confirm funding for the Stage 2 Tenant’s Works.

7.3 ANAM is designing both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Tenant’s Works concurrently and Council is currently awaiting ANAM’s formal advice on the quantum of funding raised to date for Stage 2.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 An initial Sustainability Report has been provided as part of the designer’s concept design which will continue to be developed in more detail through the design process.

8.2 Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) opportunities been identified for inclusion in the design, and opportunities for the ANAM works have been identified in the Schematic Design report. The opportunities will be further detailed as the design progresses.

8.3 ESD requirements for the Council renewal works have been incorporated in the renewal construction documentation to be implemented by the contractor.

8.4 Council’s Sustainability Team have been identified as a stakeholder for design consultation to assist in ensuring that project outcomes incorporate Council’s sustainability outcomes in the proposed works as much as reasonably possible.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 The Schematic Design allows for the upgrade and addition of several spaces within the SMTH including the Main Hall and other performance, recording, and event spaces that will facilitate benefits to the community from a social, economic, cultural heritage, and civic point of view. Such benefits include:

· The refurbishment of the Council Chambers and ancillary services, which provides the opportunity for Council to hold Council meetings at the SMTH. The lease in the AFL allows for up to 9 Council meetings annually within the facility.

· The refurbishment of the Main Hall and provision of other performance spaces with much improved acoustics, provision of a commercial kitchen, refurbishment and expansion of toilet facilities and an outdoor terrace provides for flexible event hire spaces available for the public or Council for community or private events as well as ANAM specific events. The lease in the AFL allows for Council to conduct up to 5 citizenship ceremonies annually within the main hall.

· The refurbishment of the Main Hall and performance spaces for hire facilitates the AFL requirement for an access licence to be provided by the Tenant to permit the South Melbourne Symphony Orchestra access to the main hall and other performance spaces for performances and rehearsals and storage of equipment.

· The AFL also provides for ANAM to provide free annual memberships for Port Phillip residents to experience ANAM events.

· Once the works are completed ANAM is obligated under the AFL to establish the South Melbourne Town Hall Cultural Fund. The fund’s purpose is funding the presentation of arts and cultural activities including subsidising venue hire charges at the SMTH.

· The design in general includes preservation of the historical features of the SMTH in accordance with the Conservation Management Plan.

9.2 The local community and stakeholders that utilise the site have been impacted due to the closure of the SMTH.

9.3 Council Assist services at the town hall have been temporarily closed due to building closure.

9.4 Other community stakeholders who utilise space at the town hall have been advised of the closure, with many in the process of moving to or identifying alternate locations in the interim while repairs and renewal works are undertaken.

10. Gender Impact Assessment

10.1 A gender impact assessment has been undertaken on the redevelopment of the SMTH and the results of the assessment have been incorporated into the Landlord’s works.

11. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

11.1 The South Melbourne Town Hall renewal and upgrade aligns to the following Council Plan Strategic Direction:

· Strategic Direction 4 – Vibrant Port Phillip

11.2 An upgraded and re-opened open Town Hall fosters creative, diverse and inclusive participation in our arts and culture while supporting community activation as well as the heritage and unique identity of Port Phillip.

12. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

12.1 TIMELINE

12.1.1 Council and ANAM will continue to work on key variances and issues.

12.1.2 Council’s Landlord works are underway and will continue through 2024 and 2025 with works forecast to be completed in the first half of 2026.

12.1.3 ANAM’s Tenant Works would commence immediately on completion of the Landlord’s Works or earlier if early access or staged handover of the building can be achieved.

12.2 COMMUNICATION

12.2.1 The conditional approval of the Schematic Design will be formally conveyed to ANAM through the Joint PCG.

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. ANAM South Melbourne Town Hall Renewal Project - Schematic Design⇩