Minutes - Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council - 20 March 2024
MINUTES OF THE Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council HELD 20 March 2024 IN St Kilda Town Hall AND VIRTUAL VIA TEAMS
The meeting opened at 6:33pm.
IN ATTENDANCE
Cr Cunsolo (Chairperson), Cr Baxter, Cr Bond, Cr Clark, Cr Crawford, Cr Martin, Cr Nyaguy, Cr Pearl, Cr Sirakoff.
Chris Carroll, Chief Executive Officer, Brian Tee, General Manager City Growth and Development, Taryna McKenzie, Interim General Manager Community Wellbeing and Inclusion, Lachlan Johnson, General Manager, Operations and Infrastructure, Claire Stevens, General Manager Organisational Capability and Experience, Joanne McNeill, Executive Manager Governance and Organisational Performance, Simon Hill, Executive Manager Waste and City Maintenance Dana Pritchard, Manager Open Space, Recreation and Community Resilience, Lauren Bialkower, Executive Manager City Growth and Culture, Peter Liu, Chief Financial Officer, Xavier Smerdon, Head of Governance, Rebecca Purvis, Senior Council Business Advisor, Emily Williams, Council Business Advisor.
The City of Port Phillip respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Owners of this land, the people of the Kulin Nations. We pay our respect to their Elders, past and present. We acknowledge and uphold their continuing relationship to this land.
1. Apologies
Nil.
2. Confirmation of Minutes
|
That the minutes of the Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council held on 6 March 2024 be confirmed. |
3. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Councillor Bond declared an interest in item 7.2 Petition: Esplanade Hotel Grand Prix Street Party 22-24 March 2024 as they reside within the Espy apartments which is where the petition originated from. Councillor Bond did not determine this to be a conflict of interest as they derive no financial benefit from the Espy Hotel Grand Prix or believe there is any amenity impact to them as a resident of the apartments as a result of the street party or had any discussions relating to the petition with any residents in their building.
Councillor Clark declared an interest in relation to confidential item 17.1 Independent Waste Review. They have previously declared material and general conflicts of interest when Council has considered matters directly related to waste issues due to their employment within the waste sector. Having reviewed the report being considered, they did not determine they had a conflict of interest in line with the Local Government Act and Council’s Governance Rules. Out of an abundance of caution and in the interest of transparency, Cr Clark declared the interest to ensure the community is aware of their considerations. Councillor Clark advised they would continue to monitor the discussions of the item and should a conflict arise they would disclose it and remove themselves from discussion or decision at that point.
Chris Carroll, Chief Executive Officer, declared a potential perceived general or material conflict of interest in relation item 10.4 Council Submission to the Victorian Government's Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area Development Contributions Plan (Planning Scheme Amendment GC224) as they have recently become a director of a trust and that trust holds an interest in a managed fund. That fund holds a small interest in a very large company – Goodmans – one of the key land owners in Fishermans Bend. The CEO advised that they are seeking further advice as they do not believe it is a conflict. They have not taken part in the finalisation of the report when they became aware of that interest but would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the item as they do not have a decision-making role.
4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME and submissions
Public Questions are summarised below. The submissions were made verbally and can be listened to in full on our website: http://webcast.portphillip.vic.gov.au/archivephp.
Public Question Time:
· Helen Taylor: Can council please clarify if Lagoon Reserve will be considered a specialised sports field and are there any plans to change the current open space usage of this facility? You have 263 sporting members currently for Lagoon reserve. Can Council clarify of these members the number who are actual rate paying residents of Port Phillip?
Dana Pritchard, Manager Open Space, Recreation and Community Resilience advised that the specialised sports grounds that are specified in the dog off leash report are grounds which are maintained to host premier level sports. These grounds are North Port Oval and pitch 1 at JL Murphy Reserve and both of these grounds are currently not dog off lead areas. Lagoon Reserve will not be considered a specialised sports ground as it is being built to community level competition. Lagoon Reserve is an important element in our open space network that provides for a range of users including sports clubs. Spots clubs across Port Phillip are comprised of a number of Port Phillip residents as sports participants are more readily connected to clubs within their local area. Council does not currently collect statistics as to who is a resident and who isn’t in regards to members of sports clubs. There are no changes proposed for the existing dogs off leash status at Lagoon Reserve.
· Alex Darton: We had a heatwave recently and a recent study showed that it is three degrees hotter within rented apartments as it is those owned by the individual. At night, when heatwaves do the most damage to the health of our residents, what can the City of Port Phillip do to help those in social housing, both long term and in the immediate? A recent report showed that 70% of social housing do not have air con or fans. The lack of air con or even fans mandated in these houses, though not our Council’s responsibility, has a massive impact on the health of our residence. Can we be focusing our greening projects in and around these places of residence?
Tarnya McKenzie, Interim General Manager Community Wellbeing and Inclusion advised that as part of Council’s extreme weather response, Council provides heat response information and links and hot weather preparation advice. Our important partnerships with services supports us in actively responding through the course of the heatwave. Council is also working on a new Urban Forest Strategy which is currently under development and is considering how greening can be used to cool the City. This will include focusing attention for greening projects on areas of most need.
· Janet Conwell: The increase in homelessness in Melbourne is a significant social issue. It's crucial to address the root causes and provide support rather than just "moving people on", which does not solve the underlying problem. "Move on" directions are often given to people sleeping rough and can result in legal charges if escalated. These laws have been criticised for potentially being discriminatory and not addressing the real needs of homeless individuals. Enforcing such laws can have a detrimental effect on those without a home, leading to a cycle of fines, legal issues, and further entrenchment of poverty. What are the "move on" rules or laws for homeless people sleeping rough on the streets of Port Melbourne and actively homeless people living in their cars?
Brian Tee, General Manager City Growth and Development advised that Council has a proud record of supporting the most vulnerable within our community including rough sleepers. Council also understands and believes in the importance of addressing the underlying causes. Council officers, including through our local laws officers, are in regular contact with rough sleepers and look to engage them with services, including homelessness services and drug and alcohol support, and provide other support where we can. In 2023, Council opened up 30 apartments near Balaclava Station within a former Council car park for those most at risk. This year construction has commenced on another housing project in Wellington Street for an additional 30 new apartments which has got a substantial funding contribution from Council. Specifically in relation to move on powers, Council’s Local Law does not have any move on powers, this is primarily the responsibility of Victoria Police. In relation to people sleeping in cars, Council does have a Local Law no.42 which deals with camping, which makes it illegal or a breach of the local law to camp in a car on public land including car parks. However there is an exception within that Local Law which provides that it is not an offence if you are homeless.
Mayor Cunsolo advised that due to several questions being received in relation to the Pickles Street safety improvements trial, where Council voted to not continue with the trial and to not make the installation permanent at the 21 February Council Meeting. Under rule 51.8 of Council’s Governance Rules, questions were grouped together and a joint officer response provided.
· Philip Edmands: My question really is whether will more time will be allowed to determine what will happen given the recent decision in relation to that Pickles St median treatment? There seems to be a view now that because the permanent vote wasn’t carried, nothing can be done, and perhaps without more that might be true. But clearly Council can do more. It is the responsible authority so it has the statutory duty of care to make the intersection safe. So it obviously must have the power to control what is done there and that part to fulfil its statutory obligation would never be abrogated by a procedural rule. It could rescind its earlier decision and replace it with a more nuanced one, it could add to it etc. Council needs to do more. This potentially a life and death issue. Council has addressed the safety issues at the intersection with the median treatment. If it is simply removed with no replacement mitigation that will recreate the hazard as a positive act by Council in breach of its duty of care under the Road Management Act. This is not to say that the main objection, preserving right access into Bridge from Pickles, shouldn’t be looked at, it should. But more thought, consultation and analysis is required and in the interim that the protection the median provides should remain. Otherwise objectively the exercise would look like a tactical means of quickly getting rid of the median for non-safety related reasons, knowing that getting something else up may take another 10 years. If the median is to be removed, reasons for doing so need to withstand examination and cross examination as justifying any result and serious injury or death. In any event, as a minimum, it’s hard to understand why you wouldn’t just allow a few extra months to review, analyse, and stay anything until that can be done.
Chris Carroll, Chief Executive Officer, provided a clarifying statement, in accordance with rule 76 of the Governance Rules, that the previous decision of Council could not be rescinded as a Notice of Rescission would have been required within 24 hours of the resolution being passed. The CEO confirmed there were other avenues for Council to consider if it wishes to revisit that decision.
· Katrina Barlow: Will Council consider holding off on making a decision about the current median treatment at the intersection of Pickles, Bridge and Glover Streets, for community consultation? I believe that the current state has been successful in removing Bridge Street as a thoroughfare and has reduced the bottleneck at the intersection. As an affected resident previously boxed in at peak hour, is there a way we might be consulted about any change with any decision to be held off?
· Mariese O’Neill: We are incredulous that the median strip in Pickles Street has been removed. Previously cars accelerating across Pickles Street could reach speeds of up to 60km or more by the time they passed our house and would then have to break sharply to avoid sliding into the Iffla Street intersection. The median Strip stopped that almost immediately. We right angle park, so backing out is now much safer. Albert Park College has resulted in increased number of children on bikes and scooters etc. Removing the median strip would put those children at greater risk. In the 34 years that we have lived in Glover Street, the median strip has been the single greatest initiative for our neighborhood safety. Given the unequivocal evidence of no more accidents and reduced speeds since it was introduced, who is going to take responsibility for the inevitable consequences of this wreckless and dangerous decision?
· Jefferson Penberthy: I first raised concerns about this intersection in 2016 at a meeting at the Port Melbourne Town Hall convened by former Mayor Bernadene Voss. I simply felt that the dangers of that intersection had an immense impact on me at the time. I simply co join my request, that further consideration be given to the safety initiatives that can be instituted and if the Council will consider withholding the removal of the divider until a satisfactory alternative is found?
· Paul Field: I have kids who attend Albert Park College, and my concern is that when they are walking to the college, this intersection is dangerous if the median strip is removed. The question simply is, can Council just leave the median strip in place?
· David Reed: My question to Council is whether the decision to potentially remove the median strip at the intersection of Pickles, Bridge and Glover Streets in the best interest of safety? No doubt everyone has read the engineers reports and technical submissions, but there is a more personal element than this. I have lived close to the intersection close to 11 years with my wife and now nine-year-old son. We feel very passionate about the safety of the junction having witnessed many incidents over the years. The six accidents that occurred within the monitoring period I feel don’t accurately reflect the full story. There were many more within this period that were not reported. Prior to any investigation into improving the junction, there were too many to count. From my experience most accidents or near misses were due from traffic wanting to turn right out of Bridge Street onto Pickles or similarly turning right out of Glover Street onto Pickles Street crossing 4 lanes of high-volume traffic with limited visibility in both directions. To me and my family, the median strip has been a resounding success. It has achieved exactly what it set out to achieve, zero accidents. We appreciate it’s a slight inconvenience, including to the residents of Glover Street, but we must prioritise safety over convenience. Removing the median street in Pickles Street and opening the road to its original controlled state, especially as this junction falls within a designated School Zone, would not be in the interest of safety both for the road users and pedestrians.
· Terrence Coyne: Ethics and values are extremely important in all decision making, ethics and values as a general quote trump convenience and expediency. Has the Council’s decision been based on an ethics fact based rationale or has it been more likely to have been driven by expediency and convenience? Is the decision that has been made consistent with Council values, and I have studied Council’s values about health, safety and wellbeing of people. Even though a decision has been made, is it still not too late to change that? It may be difficult, but it’s important.
· Dale Perkin: I live four properties from the intersection and I have two children. Regarding the motion to make the safety improvements being lost in a split vote, Council should consider that removing a safety improvement, given the successful trial, may breach its duty of care under the Road Management Act 2004 by reverting the intersection to a known dangerous state. Instead, will Council leave the safety improvement in place, until an alternative approach addressing any remaining concerns can be agreed and trialled?
· Jennifer Taylor: Why, if the objectives of the pilot island on Pickles St/Glover Street have been met, namely to avoid life-threatening accidents from occurring and highly dangerous speeds of vehicles driving down non-arterial roads, did the Council vote against the recommendation of the traffic engineers to make the island permanent? Why was there no consultation with the affected, given the importance of such a decision? I moved to South Melbourne 14 years ago, and crossing that road was terrifying. It was utterly dangerous to turn right and to cross over the road and dangerous living at that end of Glover Street due to the speed that people reached as they crossed that intersection. Children were at risk, cats were continuously being killed and dogs were unsafe and it was a relief when the island came in. It was safer, it was calmer, it may have not been convenient but it was a total relief in terms of safety. A few weeks prior to the vote, I was told on the grapevine that the island was going to be removed prior to any Council meeting or decision being made. I would like to know why that was the case before any vote had been made?
Mayor Cunsolo foreshadowed that they intend to raise a Notice of Motion at an upcoming Council Meeting which may address some of the issues raised and referred to Brian Tee, General Manager City Growth and Development to provide a response to the questions raised.
Brian Tee, General Manager City Growth and Development advised that the questions generally related to the extent of community engagement, safety issues and the request seeking more time for further consideration of these matters. By way of background and context the decision was made by Council to commence the trial having received three petitions in August 2021 – One for, one against, and one seeking an alternative solution. The trial has been in place since June 2022 and residents were informed of the trial prior to it commencing. At the 21 February 2024 Council meeting, Council reviewed the facts, community feedback received before during and after the trial, the crash statistics before and during the trial (noting that the median strip is still in place) and considered other matters such as the impact on the surrounding streets. Council made a decision at that Council meeting to not continue with the trial and to not make the installation permanent. The usual course would then be for that trial to be removed noting that the Mayor has indicated that they have foreshadowed a Notice of Motion. Council officers intend to leave the current position in place until that Notice of Motion has been brought to Council for their consideration and an outcome is determined by Council. In essence, the trial/status quo will continue until the matter has been considered again by Council, which as the Mayor has indicated, cannot be before the next Council meeting which is scheduled after Easter on 17 April 2024.
Council Report Submissions:
Item 7.1 Petition: Request extension of Elwood Beach off-lead access
|
· Jen Bishop |
· Kat John |
· Lisa Gumbleton |
|
· Jan Nicholson |
|
|
Item 7.2 Petition: Esplanade Hotel Grand Prix Street Party 22-24 March 2024
|
· Richie McFarlane |
· David Blakeley |
|
Item 10.1 Inkerman Safety Improvement Project - Engagement Findings
|
· Cassie Johnstone |
· Anna Lindars |
|
Item 10.2 Draft Dog Off-Leash Guideline for Public Consultation
|
· Louisa Larkin |
· Alex Makin |
· Kathleen Murphy |
Item 14.1 Notice of Motion Councillor Rhonda Clark – Rates Freeze
|
· Alex Darton |
· Penny Nichol |
· Rodney Hardy |
|
· Campbell Spence |
· Rhonda Small |
· Justin Halliday |
|
· Beti Jay |
· Jack Halliday |
|
The Mayor adjourned the meeting for a break at 7.54pm.
The meeting resumed at 8.01pm.
5. Councillor question time
Nil.
6. Sealing Schedule
Nil.
7. Petitions and Joint Letters
|
7.1 Petition - Request extension of Elwood Beach Dog off-lead access |
|
A Petition containing 309 signatures, was received from local residents. |
|
That Council: Receives and notes the Petition and provides a response to a future Council meeting. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
8. Presentation of CEO Report
Nil.
9. Inclusive Port Phillip
Nil.
10. Liveable Port Phillip
|
Purpose 1.1 To consider release of the draft Dog Off-Leash Guideline for community consultation. |
|
That Council: 3.1 Releases the draft Dog Off-Leash Guideline for community consultation. 3.2 Authorises the CEO, or their delegate, to make amendments to the draft Dog Off-Leash Guideline to reflect any changes through this resolution and to make minor editorial adjustments to prepare the document for consultation. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
The Mayor adjourned the meeting for a break at 8.40pm.
The meeting resumed at 8.46pm.
|
10.3 Council Submission to the Victorian Government's Montague Precinct Implementation Plan (Fishermans Bend) |
|
Purpose 1.1 This report provides an overview of the Victorian Government’s draft Montague Precinct Implementation Plan (MPIP), which has been released for public consultation. It seeks endorsement of a submission that sets out the City of Port Phillips response to the Draft MPIP, and the further work required for its completion. |
|
That Council: 3.1 Welcomes the Victorian Government’s development of and consultation on the Draft Montague Precinct Implementation Plan. 3.2 Endorses the attached submission to the Victorian Government’s Draft Montague Precinct Implementation Plan (Attachments 1 and 2). 3.3 Authorises the CEO, or their delegate, to write to the Victorian Government, notifying them of the Council Submission and seeking: 3.3.1 Confirmation of council involvement in any updates to the Montague Precinct Implementation Plan, planning scheme amendment and associated supporting material. 3.3.2 Receipt and review of the planning controls that will form part of a planning scheme amendment that implements the Montague Precinct Implementation Plan. 3.3.3 Receipt and review of the Making Montague supporting material prior to finalisation of the Montague Precinct Implementation Plan for the upcoming planning scheme amendment. 3.3.4 Involvement in aligning the government’s infrastructure funding strategy (including development contributions plan) and Montague Precinct Implementation Plan processes and outcomes, noting that Council has made a separate submission to the Planning Scheme Amendment GC224 Fishermans Bend Development Contributions Plan process. 3.4 Authorises the CEO, or their delegate, to make minor amendments to the submission that do not materially alter the intent. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
|
Purpose 1.1 To update Councillors on the current State Government e-scooter trial 1.2 Request further delegation to the CEO to enter into interim agreements for continuation of the shared e-scooter services whilst procurement is undertaken should the State Government determine to end the trial and legalise e-scooters. |
|
That Council: 3.1 Notes that the Mayor has written to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and the Minister for Public and Active Transport requesting the public release of the evaluation report for the e-scooter trial. 3.2 Notes the update to the Victorian Government led e-scooter trial including legislative changes that, once proclaimed, will empower Councils to manage shared e-scooter schemes through contractual arrangements that can address safety and amenity. 3.3 Notes that the e-scooter trial is due to end on 5 April 2024 and that, at the completion of the trial on 5 April 2024 or some other date as determined by the Victorian Government, Council will commence a procurement process to determine which e-scooter providers will operate in the City of Port Phillip and under what conditions. 3.4 Authorises the Chief Executive Officer (or their delegate) to extend existing agreements with e-scooter operators until the procurement process and transition to a new shared e-scooter agreement is completed. A vote was taken and the motion was carried unanimously. |
11. Sustainable Port Phillip
Nil.
12. Vibrant Port Phillip
Nil.
13. Well Governed Port Phillip
|
Purpose 1.1 To consider the release of proposed updates to Rating Strategy 2022-25 for community consultation. |
|
That Council: 3.1 Notes that the following land types are negatively impacting the municipality due to being under-utilised, causing safety and amenity concerns and not contributing to the overall purpose and objectives of the Council Plan: 3.1.1 Derelict Land 3.1.2 Un-activated Retail Land 3.1.3 Vacant Land 3.2 Notes proposed changes to the Rating Strategy 2022-2025 to include new property classes for differential rating purposes. These new property classes and differential rates will be set as follows: 3.2.1 Derelict Land rate in the dollar to be set at 4 times (400%) of the Residential Land rate. 3.2.2 Un-activated Retail Land rate in the dollar to be set at 4 times (400%) of the Residential Land rate. 3.2.3 Vacant Land rate in the dollar to be set at 3 times (300%) of the Residential Land rate. 3.3 Releases the draft updated Rating Strategy 2022-2025 (Attachment 1) for community consultation alongside the draft budget 2024/25 between 18 April 2024 and 13 May 2024 followed by the hearing of feedback for the draft budget at the Special Council meeting on 14 May 2024. 3.4 Notes that the draft Budget 2024/25, to be considered by Council on 17 April 2024, will be informed by the proposed Rating Strategy 2022-2025. 3.5 Notes that the proposed Rating Strategy 2022-2025 may be updated alongside the draft budget to reflect any feedback from the community consultation period prior to being brought back to Council for adoption. 3.6 Notes that the updated Rating Strategy 2022-25 will be considered for adoption alongside Budget 2024/25 at the Special Council Meeting on 26 June 2024. 3.7 Authorises the CEO to make amendments to the updated Rating Strategy 2022-2025 to reflect any changes through this resolution, and to make minor editorial adjustments to the document to prepare for publication and distribution including but not limited to minor wording updates to the proposed definitions. A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
|
Purpose 1.1 To report to Council the written records of Informal Meetings of Councillors at the City of Port Phillip as required by the Governance Rules. |
|
That Council A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED unanimously. |
14. Notices of Motion
15. Reports by Councillor Delegates
Nil.
16. URGENT BUSINESS
Nil.
17. Confidential Matters
|
That Council resolves to move into confidential to deal with the following matters pursuant to section 66(2) of the Local Government Act 2020: 17.1 Independent Waste Review 3(1)(a) Council business information, being information that would prejudice the Council's position in commercial negotiations if prematurely released 3(1)(e) legal privileged information, being information to which legal professional privilege or client legal privilege applies 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: This report will consider commercially and legally sensitive information that could impact Council’s ability to manage an ongoing contract. Council will consider what information is to be released publicly at the 20 March 2024 Council Meeting. |
The meeting closed to members of the public at 10:28pm.
The meeting reopened at 10:46pm.
As there was no further business the meeting closed at 10:46pm.
Chairperson ________________________________________
