Fishermans Bend Preliminary Community Infrastructure Needs...

July 2013 - CONFIDENTIAL

vo

lu

me

3

17/PRELIMINARY COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT - FINAL REPORT ( ASR RESEARCH)

Prepared by ASR Research Pty Ltd on behalf of Places Victoria

December 5, 2012

Fishermans Bend Preliminary Community

Infrastructure Needs Assessment

Stage 1 – Assessment of Development Scenarios

Addendum

Fishermans Bend - Final Report - Background Documents

Addendum Fishermans Bend Preliminary Community Infrastructure Needs Assessment Stage 1 – Assessment of Development Scenarios

2

Introduction

Places Victoria commissioned ASR Research to prepare an addendum to the Fishermans Bend Preliminary

Community Infrastructure Needs Assessment Stage 1 – Assessment of Development Scenarios (November,

2012) due to a revision of two development scenarios: 1) Scenario A (referred to as “Scenario A” in the original

report which had assumed 20,000 dwellings) and Scenario B (referred to “Scenario B” in the original report

which had assumed 40,000 dwellings). Scenario A has been revised down to 15,000 dwellings and Scenario B

down to 30,000 dwellings. Table 1 below outlines the population / age cohort impact of these two revised

development scenarios, as well as including the unchanged Incremental scenario (referred to as “Incremental

Scenario” in the original report) and Scenario C (referred to as “Scenario C” in the original report). Tables 2

(quantitative demand / supply estimates) and 3 (qualitative discussion of impacts) provide a summary of the

community infrastructure impacts of the revised and unchanged development scenarios.

Table 1 – Revised Development Scenarios

Age Cohort

Community Infrastructure Forms Age Cohort is Relevant to

Incremental

Scenario Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

0-3 MCH, Playgroups 329 988 1,975 3,950

4 4 Year Old Kindergarten 62 186 371 743

0-6 Long Day Child Care & Occasional Child Care 502 1,506 3,013 6,026

5-11 Primary School enrolments, out of school hours care 341 1,024 2,049 4,097

5-14 Participation in organised sports (5 to 14 years) 479 1,437 2,874 5,747

15+ Participation in organised sports (15 + years) 8,914 26,743 53,485 106,971

12-25 Youth Infrastructure 2,697 8,090 16,180 32,359

15-24 Participation in higher education (15 to 24 Years) 2,203 6,608 13,216 26,431

25+ Participation in higher education (25 + years) 6,712 20,135 40,270 80,540

12-17 Secondary School enrolments 311 934 1,869 3,737

70+ Residential & home based aged care services 581 1,743 3,486 6,972

Total Population 9,784 29,353 58,706 117,411

Total Dwellings 5,000 15,000 30,000 60,000

Net Developable Area (Ha) 180 180 180 180


vo

lu

me

3


3

Table 2 - Community Infrastructure Demand / Supply Estimates for Each Development Scenario

Community Infrastructure Category

Provision

Ratio

Unit of Measure

Demand / Supply Estimates

Incremental Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

5000

Dwellings

15,000

dwellings

30,000

dwellings

60,000

dwellings

Pop. 9,784 Pop. 29,353 Pop. 58,706 Pop. 117,411

1. Affordable Housing

All affordable housing 20% % of all dwellings within a proposed development area. 1000 3000 6000 12000

Social housing (public and or community) 6% % of all dwellings within a proposed development area 300 900 1800 3600

2. Unencumbered Public Open Space Estimates

Montague Precinct Structure Plan: Consultation Draft, June 2012 10.0% % of Developable Land 18 18 18 18

Melbourne Open Space Planning Scheme Requirement 8.0% % of Developable Land 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4

Port Phillip Open Space Planning Scheme Requirement 5.0% % of Developable Land 9 9 9 9

3. Organised Sport Facility & Participation Estimates

3.1 Indoor facilities

Indoor recreation centres / courts 10,000 Total population per court 1.0 2.9 5.9 11.7

Council aquatic / leisure centres(indoor aquatic + gym only) 120,000 Total population per facility 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0

Council aquatic / leisure centres members (indoor aquatic + gym

only) 3.4%

% of Population who are members of a Council aquatic /

leisure centre 333 998 1996 3992

3.2 Outdoor sports facilities

Tennis courts 2,500 Total population per court 4 11.7 23.5 47.0



4


Provision

Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000

Dwellings

15,000

dwellings

30,000

dwellings

60,000

dwellings

Pop. 9,784 Pop. 29,353 Pop. 58,706 Pop. 117,411

Cricket ovals 4,000 Total population per playing field 2 7.3 14.7 29.4

Football ovals 4,000 Total population per playing field 2 7.3 14.7 29.4

Outdoor netball courts 7,000 Total population per court 1 4.2 8.4 16.8

Soccer fields 7,000 Total population per playing field 1 4.2 8.4 16.8

3.3 Organised Sports Participation: People aged 15 years +

Aerobics / fitness 8.2% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 731 2193 4386 8772

AFL 4.1% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 365 1096 2193 4386

Golf 3.6% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 321 963 1925 3851

Tennis 3.4% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 303 909 1819 3637

Basketball 3.4% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 303 909 1819 3637

Netball 3.3% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 294 883 1765 3530

Cricket (outdoor) 2.6% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 232 695 1391 2781

Yoga 2.4% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 214 642 1284 2567

Soccer (outdoor) 2.2% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 196 588 1177 2353

Running 1.9% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 169 508 1016 2032

3.4 Organised Sports Participation: Children aged 5 to 14 years


vo

lu

me

3


5


Provision

Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000

Dwellings

15,000

dwellings

30,000

dwellings

60,000

dwellings

Pop. 9,784 Pop. 29,353 Pop. 58,706 Pop. 117,411

Swimming 22.5% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 108 323 647 1293

Australian Rules football 18.5% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 89 266 532 1063

Basketball 13.8% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 66 198 397 793

Tennis 11.7% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 56 168 336 672

Other organised sports 9.7% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 46 139 279 557

Netball (indoor and outdoor) 9.4% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 45 135 270 540

Cricket (outdoor) 7.4% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 35 106 213 425

Soccer (outdoor) 6.0% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 29 86 172 345

Martial arts 5.5% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 26 79 158 316

Gymnastics 4.6% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 22 66 132 264

Athletics, track and field 4.2% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 20 60 121 241

Soccer (indoor) 3.2% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 15 46 92 184

Hockey 1.1% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 5 16 32 63

Rugby league 0.0% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 0 0 0 0

At least one organised sport 68.5% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 328 984 1968 3937

Organised sports and/or dancing 72.0% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 345 1035 2069 4138



6


Provision

Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000

Dwellings

15,000

dwellings

30,000

dwellings

60,000

dwellings

Pop. 9,784 Pop. 29,353 Pop. 58,706 Pop. 117,411

4. Multipurpose Community Centre Component Analysis

(see below)

4.1 Kindergartens

% of 4 year olds participating in 4 year old Kindergarten 87% % of all eligible children participating in 4 Year Old Sessional

Subsidised Kindergarten(not in a Long Day Child Care Setting) 54 162 323 646

Total number of enrolments in 4 year old sessional Kindergarten 90% % of participating children (see above) enrolled at a Sessional

Kindergarten service 48 145 291 582

Number of Kindergarten rooms in current policy environment 75 Number of sessional Kindergarten rooms required if 1

Kindergarten room accommodates 75 enrolments per week 0.6 1.9 3.9 7.8

Number of Kindergarten rooms when proposed policy changes are

implemented 66

Number of sessional Kindergarten rooms required if 1


% of 3 year olds participating in 3 year old activity groups 40% % of 3 year olds participating in 3 year old activity groups 25 83 166 296

Number of 3 year old activity groups per week 2

Number of 3 year old activity groups per week (based on 20

children per group, 2 sessions per week @ 3 hours per

session) 2 8 17 30

Number of rooms required to accommodate 3 year old activity

groups 2 Based on 2 sessions per day, per room

0.2 0.8 1.7 3.0

4.2 Maternal & Child Health


vo

lu

me

3


7


Provision

Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000

Dwellings

15,000

dwellings

30,000

dwellings

60,000

dwellings

Pop. 9,784 Pop. 29,353 Pop. 58,706 Pop. 117,411

Number of MCH sessions per week 60 1 session per 60 children aged 0-3 years 5 16 33 66

Number of MCH consulting units 10 Number of MCH consulting units required based on number

of sessions per week (see above) 0.5 1.6 3.3 6.6

4.3 Playgroup

Number of 2 hr playgroup sessions per week 50 Total number of children aged 0-3 years required to generate

demand for a 2 hour playgroup session per week 7 20 40 79

4.4 Community meeting spaces

Amount of sqms of community meeting space 30 Total number people per sqm of Council community meeting

space 326 978 1957 3914

4.5 Occasional Child Care

Number of occasional child care places @ 1 place per 48 children

aged 0-6 years 48 Total number people aged 0 to 6 years per licensed place

10 31 63 126

Number of occasional child care centres 30 Total number of facilities required based on number of

licensed places generated (see above) 0.3 1.0 2.1 4.2

4.6 Long Day Child Care Centres

Number of Long Day Child Care places 6.8 Total number people aged 0 to 6 years per licensed place 74 222 443 886

Number of Long Day Child Care centres 120 Total number of facilities required based on number of

licensed places generated (see above) 0.6 1.8 3.7 7.4



8


Provision

Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000

Dwellings

15,000

dwellings

30,000

dwellings

60,000

dwellings

Pop. 9,784 Pop. 29,353 Pop. 58,706 Pop. 117,411

4.7 Neighbourhood Houses

Number of Neighbourhood Houses 12,000 Total number of dwellings per facility 0.4 1.3 2.5 5.0

4.8 Planned Activity Group

Number of Planned Activity Group centres 18,000 Total number of dwellings per facility 0.3 0.8 1.7 3.3

5. Libraries

Number of library loans per annum 11.9 Total loans per person 116,433 349,299 698,597 1,397,194

Number of library visits per annum 7.5 Total loans per person 73,382 220,146 440,292 880,585

Number of sqms of library floorspace 30 Total library sqms per 1,000 people 294 881 1,761 3,522

6. Education Enrolment & Facility Estimates

6.1 Govt Specialist School 60,000 Total population per facility 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0

6.2 Primary Schools

Govt Primary Enrolment- High Rise Context 43.0% % of 5-11 year old population 147 440 881 1762

Govt Primary Enrolment- Greater Melbourne 59.0% % of 5-11 year old population 201 604 1209 2417

Catholic Primary Enrolment - High Rise Context 10.0% % of 5-11 year old population 34 102 205 410

Catholic Primary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 20.0% % of 5-11 year old population 68 205 410 819

Catholic Primary School 5,000 Total number of dwellings per facility 1.0 3.0 6.0 12.0


vo

lu

me

3


9


Provision

Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000

Dwellings

15,000

dwellings

30,000

dwellings

60,000

dwellings

Pop. 9,784 Pop. 29,353 Pop. 58,706 Pop. 117,411

Non Govt Primary Enrolment - High Rise Context 11.0% % of 5-11 year old population 38 113 225 451

Non Govt Primary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 22.0% % of 5-11 year old population 75 225 451 901

Total Primary Enrolment - High Rise Context 75.0% % of 5-11 year old population 256 768 1536 3073

Total Primary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 90.0% % of 5-11 year old population 307 922 1844 3688

Govt Primary School 3,000 Total number of dwellings per facility 1.7 5.0 10.0 20.0

6.3 Secondary Schools

Govt Secondary Enrolment - High Rise Context 31.0% % of 12-17 year old population 97 290 579 1159

Govt Secondary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 47.0% % of 12-17 year old population 146 439 878 1756

Catholic Secondary Enrolment - High Rise Context 10.0% % of 12-17 year old population 31 93 187 374

Catholic Secondary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 20.0% % of 12-17 year old population 62 187 374 747

Catholic Secondary School 15,000 Total number of dwellings per facility 0.3 1.0 2.0 4.0

Non Gov Secondary Enrolment - High Rise Context 39.0% % of 12-17 year old population 121 364 729 1457

Non Gov Secondary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 19.0% % of 12-17 year old population 59 178 355 710

Total Secondary Enrolment - High Rise Context 80.0% % of 12-17 year old population 249 747 1495 2990

Total Secondary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 87.0% % of 12-17 year old population 271 813 1626 3251

Govt Secondary School 9,000 Total number of dwellings per facility 0.6 1.7 3.3 6.7



10


Provision

Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000

Dwellings

15,000

dwellings

30,000

dwellings

60,000

dwellings

Pop. 9,784 Pop. 29,353 Pop. 58,706 Pop. 117,411

6.4 Higher Education

TAFE FT Enrolment 15-24: High Rise Context 5.0% % of 15-24 year old population 110 330 661 1322

TAFE FT Enrolment 25+: High Rise Context 1.00% % 25 + year old population 67 201 403 805

TAFE PT Enrolment 15-24: High Rise Context 1.00% % of 15-24 year old population 22 66 132 264

TAFE PT Enrolment 25 +: High Rise Context 1.00% % 25 + year old population 67 201 403 805

Total TAFE Enrolments: High Rise Context 266 799 1598 3197

Uni FT Enrolment 15-24: High Rise Context 49.0% % of 15-24 year old population 1079 3238 6476 12951

Uni FT Enrolment 25+: High Rise Context 5.0% % 25 + year old population 336 1007 2013 4027

Uni PT Enrolment 15-24: High Rise Context 2.0% % of 15-24 year old population 44 132 264 529

Uni PT Enrolment 25+: High Rise Context 3.0% % 25 + year old population 201 604 1208 2416

Total University Enrolment: High Rise Context 1660 4981 9962 19923

TAFE FT Enrolment 15-24: Greater Melbourne 5.0% % of 15-24 year old population 110 330 661 1322

TAFE FT Enrolment 25+: Greater Melbourne 1.00% % 25 + year old population 67 201 403 805

TAFE PT Enrolment 15-24: Greater Melbourne 3.00% % of 15-24 year old population 66 198 396 793

TAFE PT Enrolment 25 +: Greater Melbourne 1.00% % 25 + year old population 67 201 403 805

Total TAFE Enrolments: Greater Melbourne 310 931 1863 3725


vo

lu

me

3


11


Provision

Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000

Dwellings

15,000

dwellings

30,000

dwellings

60,000

dwellings

Pop. 9,784 Pop. 29,353 Pop. 58,706 Pop. 117,411

Uni FT Enrolment 15-24: Greater Melbourne 22.0% % of 15-24 year old population 485 1454 2907 5815

Uni FT Enrolment 25+: Greater Melbourne 1.0% % 25 + year old population 67 201 403 805

Uni PT Enrolment 15-24: Greater Melbourne 2.0% % of 15-24 year old population 44 132 264 529

Uni PT Enrolment 25+: Greater Melbourne 2.0% % 25 + year old population 134 403 805 1611

Total University Enrolment: Greater Melbourne 730 2190 4380 8760

7. Health Services

7.1 Community Health Service Sites

Community Health - Occasions of service 221 Number of occasions of service per 1,000 people 2159 6476 12953 25906

Community Health Registered clients 32 Number of registered clients per 1,000 people 313 939 1878 3757

Dental health program visits 155 Number of dental health program visits per 1,000 people 1517 4552 9104 18208

Number of Community Health service sites 21,000 Total dwellings per facility 0.2 0.7 1.4 2.9

7.2 Acute Health

Number of public and private hospital beds 3.8 Number of public and private beds per 1,000 people 37 112 223 446

Number of public hospital beds 2.3 Number of public beds per 1,000 people 23 68 135 270

Number of public hospital separations 219.3

Number of public hospital separations per 1,000 people

(Victorian Data) 2146 6437 12874 25748



12


Provision

Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000

Dwellings

15,000

dwellings

30,000

dwellings

60,000

dwellings

Pop. 9,784 Pop. 29,353 Pop. 58,706 Pop. 117,411

Number of private hospital separations 144.3

Number of private hospital separations per 1,000 people

(Victorian Data) 1412 4236 8471 16942

Number of public and private hospital separations 363.6

Number of public and private hospital separations per 1,000

people (Victorian Data) 3558 10673 21345 42691

Number of public and private hospital admissions 432.0

Number of public and private hospital admissions(Inner

South East) 4227 12680 25361 50722

Number of projected public and private hospital admissions 542.0

Number of projected public and private hospital

admissions(Inner South East) 5303 15909 31818 63637

7.3 Other Health Services

Number of general practices 0.35

Number of general practices per 1,000 people (Inner South

East) 3 10 21 41

Number of dental services 0.29

Number of dental services per 1,000 people (Inner South

East) 3 9 17 34

Number of pharmacies 0.24 Number of pharmacies per 1,000 people (Inner South East) 2 7 14 28

Number of drug & alcohol clients 4.30

Number of drug & alcohol clients per 1,000 people (Inner

South East) 42 126 252 505

Number of mental health clients 8.50

Number of mental health clients per 1,000 people (Inner

South East) 83 249 499 998


vo

lu

me

3


13


Provision

Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000

Dwellings

15,000

dwellings

30,000

dwellings

60,000

dwellings

Pop. 9,784 Pop. 29,353 Pop. 58,706 Pop. 117,411

8. Residential Aged Care & HACC

8.1 Residential Aged Care

Number of High Care beds 44 Number of high care beds per 1000 people aged 70 years + 26 77 153 307

Number of Low Care beds 44 Number of low care beds per 1000 people aged 70 years + 26 77 153 307

Number of Community Aged Care Packages 25

Number of Community Aged Care Packages per 1000 people

aged 70 years + 15 44 87 174

8.2 Home & Community Care Services (HACC)

All people receiving HACC services 4.9%

% All people receiving services at any time in 12 months

(Victoria) 479 1438 2877 5753

People aged 70 Years and over receiving HACC services 33.4%

% People aged 70 Years and over receiving services at any

time in 12 months (Victoria) 194 582 1164 2329

Number of Instances of HACC Assistance 0.101 Number of Instances of Assistance (Victoria) per person 988 2965 5929 11859



14

Table 3 – Discussion of Community Infrastructure Impacts for Each Development Scenario

Community Infrastructure Type Discussion of

Incremental Scenario Impacts Discussion of

Scenario A Impacts Discussion of

Scenario B Impacts Discussion of

Scenario C Impacts

Affordable Housing Port Phillip Council has signalled its affordable housing strategy intentions within Fishermans Bend very clearly through the Montague Precinct Structure Plan: Consultation Draft (June 20121). It is seeking 20% of all dwellings within the PSP be “affordable housing” – delivered as a combination of community (30% of the 20%) and private housing. To achieve this the PSP intends to: • Incorporate the delivery of affordable housing as a requirement through new planning scheme provisions applied to the Montague Precinct, on the basis of the value

uplift created through the rezoning of land. • Work in collaboration with local community housing organisations and private developers to identify suitable opportunities for affordable housing delivery at an early

stage in the land disposal and development process. • Pursue innovative ‘models of provision’ and partnership arrangements which enable the successful delivery of community housing as part of larger scale private

residential development. Potential options include Community Land Trusts and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS). • Investigate opportunities to deliver demonstration projects which showcase innovative, affordable housing formats and models of provision. • Specifically encourage the provision of one bedroom units and bed-sits within private residential development with consideration to reducing the requirement for on-

site car parking and provision of shared open space areas as a means of reducing housing costs. While this assessment broadly supports these affordable housing targets it recognises that other stakeholders including Places Victoria and Melbourne City Council will need to confirm their respective positions on both the issue of targets and the implementation process.

Affordable housing yield - combination of private and community housing

(@20% of all dwellings) 1,000 dwellings 3,000 dwellings 6,000 dwellings 12,000 dwellings

Community housing yield (@6% of all dwellings)

300 community / public housing dwellings


1,800 community / public housing dwellings


Public Open Space Municipalities collect open space contributions under the Subdivision Act 1988. Where a contribution is assessed as payable, it is collected at the time of subdivision as a percentage rate on the value of undeveloped land. Unless there is a higher rate included in the planning scheme, the assessed contribution cannot exceed five per cent. The Port Phillip Planning Scheme nominates 5%. Although the Melbourne Planning Scheme does not currently include a rate, it has requested a planning scheme amendment to include two types of rates (the rate can vary between locations in the municipality provided there is a sound basis for adopting this approach and the basic principles of need, nexus/relationship, equity and accountability are met): 8% for areas of transformation and / or significant growth (including Docklands and Southbank), and 5% for areas of minimal and moderate growth. It should also be noted that a precedent has been set to allow for a higher negotiated rate for subdivisions of 10 lots of more as part of a negotiated site layout and design. Port Phillip Council has nominated 10% for the Montague Precinct Structure Plan: Consultation Draft (June 2012), but

1 It should be noted that while the Montague Precinct Structure Plan has been endorsed by the City of Port Phillip, it has not been incorporated into the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.


vo

lu

me

3


15





Scenario C Impacts

the Plan does not form part of the Planning Scheme. Open space statutory requirements are an example of an “area based” standard (i.e. percentage of developable land). In contrast to the conventional low density residential environment of much of metropolitan Melbourne, these area based standards pose challenges for higher density urban renewal areas: 1) a much higher number and concentration of open space users places greater pressure on a scarce and much valued resource; 2) the capacity to set aside a sufficient amount of open space land associated with urban renewal sites, particularly for organised outdoor sporting needs requiring larger open space “footprints”, is much more difficult, forcing planning authorities and agencies to consider both on-site and off-site solutions, including how to use existing open space assets and other community infrastructure (e.g. schools) better. Three standards have been used for this assessment: 1) The 10% open space requirement proposed by the Montague Precinct Structure Plan: Consultation Draft (June 2012); 2) the 8% proposed by the City of Melbourne for high growth / change locations within the municipality, and 3) the 5% nominated in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme (Schedule to Clause 52.01).

All unencumbered public open space 18 hectares @ 10% 14.4hectares @ 8% 9 hectares @ 5%

18 hectares @ 10% 14.4 hectares @ 8% 9 hectares @ 5%



Active open space & other outdoor sporting needs

Because of its typically larger land area requirements the provision of active open space in urban renewal areas is challenging. In Melbourne’s growth areas 6% of the NDA would typically be set aside for active open space in a Precinct Structure Plan. If this were applied to Fishermans Bend at the 10% rate, then 11 hectares of land would be required for active open space. This assessment recommends that a more detailed open space needs analysis be undertaken to evaluate both on-site and off-site opportunities for active open space provision. It should be noted that Sport & Recreation Victoria (SRV) have also identified a number of sporting priorities for the area surrounding Fishermans Bend including a proposal to establish a Mountain Bike circuit at Westgate Park, and a new criterium cycling circuit in the vicinity of Fishermans Bend.

Passive open space Passive open space is relatively easier open space deliverable compared to active open space. Again, in the context of Melbourne’s growth areas 4% of the NDA would typically be set aside for passive open space. If this were applied to Fishermans Bend then 7 hectares of land would be required for passive open space.

Playgrounds The provision of playgrounds within Fishermans Bend will be an integral component of the open space strategy yet to be developed for the area. Playground provision should consider all playground forms (i.e. local play spaces, neighbourhood play spaces and regional play spaces as per the City of Port Phillip Playspace Strategy) and be easily accessible to families with young children.

Indoor recreation centres / courts While significant indoor court provision exists at Albert Park for sports such as Basketball, Netball and Badminton, additional demand pressure from urban renewal locations such as Fishermans Bend (particularly at the upper end of the development scenarios) is likely to be significant. There is an opportunity to examine both on-site and off-site provision strategies, particularly in association with existing and / or other proposed community infrastructure provision strategies such schools.



16





Scenario C Impacts

Sport & Recreation Victoria (SRV) have identified the need for additional indoor multipurpose courts as a current priority for inner Melbourne given Albert Park facilities are considered to be at capacity. The development of Fishermans Bend and the remaining development to occur at both Docklands and Southbank will only continue to increase demand.

Approximately 1 court Approximately 3 courts Approximately 6 courts Approximately 12 courts

Public aquatic leisure centres Given the relatively close proximity of MSAC at Albert Park (within 2 kilometres of Fishermans Bend), a compelling argument will be required to justify an additional public / Council aquatic leisure centre at / or near to Fishermans Bend. This issue will require further discussion with Port Phillip Council and Melbourne City Council to determine the most appropriate response. Demand pressures on MSAC will reduce if private gymnasiums are encouraged to establish themselves within Fishermans Bend and future residential development projects incorporate private pools and gymnasiums.

Approximately 300 new members Approximately 1,000 new members Approximately 2,000 new members Approximately 4,000 new members

Early Years Services

4 Year Old Kindergartens Approximately 1 kindergarten room with a licensed capacity of 33 children

Approximately 2 kindergarten rooms with a licensed capacity of 33 children

Approximately 4 to 5 kindergarten rooms with a licensed capacity of 33 children


3 Year Old Kindergartens The equivalent of 1 Kindergarten room being used 1 day per week.

Approximately 1 kindergarten room with a licensed capacity of 33 children



All Kindergarten rooms Approximately 2 kindergarten rooms, but potentially with some spare capacity during the week

Approximately 3 kindergarten rooms Approximately 8 kindergarten rooms Approximately 12 kindergarten rooms

Maternal & Child Health Approximately 1 MCH consulting room, used 50% of the week

Approximately 2 MCH consulting units Approximately 6 to 7 MCH consulting units

Approximately 7 MCH consulting units

Long Day Child Care Centres The equivalent of 1 large long day child care centre (or 2 smaller facilities)

The equivalent of 2 large long day child care centres (or 4 smaller facilities)



Public community meeting space Fishermans Bend Incremental Scenario will potentially generate: • An additional 300 sqm of flexible

community meeting space. Although it is too early to determine how

Fishermans Bend Scenario A will potentially generate: • An additional 1,000 sqm of flexible


Fishermans Bend Scenario B will potentially generate: • An additional 2,000 sqm of flexible


Fishermans Bend Scenario C will potentially generate: • An additional 3,900 sqm of flexible



vo

lu

me

3


17





Scenario C Impacts

this space should be configured and / or allocated, this level of floorspace would typically be accommodated within 1 multipurpose community centre or some other type of Council facility (e.g. Library).

this space should be configured and / or allocated, this level of floorspace would typically be accommodated within 2 to 3 multipurpose community centres, and / or some other type of Council facility (e.g. Library).



Libraries Fishermans Bend Incremental Scenario will potentially generate: • An additional 300 sqm of library

space. Although it is too early to determine how this space should be configured and / or allocated, this level of floorspace would be considered too small to justify a ne library.

Fishermans Bend Scenario A will potentially generate: • An additional 900 sqm of library

space. Although it is too early to determine how this space should be configured and / or allocated, this level of floorspace equates to a small library facility.

Fishermans Bend Scenario B will potentially generate: • An additional 1,800 sqm of library

space. Although it is too early to determine how this space should be configured and / or allocated, this level of floorspace equates to 1 large main library facility.

Fishermans Bend Scenario C will potentially generate: • An additional 3,500 sqm of library

space. Although it is too early to determine how this space should be configured and / or allocated, this level of floorspace would equate to 1 very large, or 2 medium sized library facilities.

Neighbourhood Houses Fishermans Bend Incremental Scenario is likely to generate the equivalent of half a Neighbourhood House and therefore unlikely to trigger the need for new facility.

Fishermans Bend Scenario A is likely to generate the equivalent of 1 to 2 Neighbourhood House facilities. Given the high population density levels and relatively close geographic proximity to future services and facilities, it may be more efficient to consider 1 larger facility integrated with other services.

Fishermans Bend Scenario B is likely to generate the equivalent of 3 Neighbourhood House facilities. Given the high population density levels and relatively close geographic proximity to future services and facilities, it may be more efficient to consider 2 larger facilities integrated with other services.

Fishermans Bend Scenario C is likely to generate the equivalent of 5 Neighbourhood House facilities. Given the high population density levels and relatively close geographic proximity to future services and facilities, it may be more efficient to consider 3 larger facilities integrated with other services.

Multipurpose community centres A discussion about the provision of multipurpose community centres in Fishermans Bend is complex at this early stage of planning, and will be dependent on how various stakeholders assess the demand estimates for services typically accommodated within a community centre (e.g. early years services, community meeting spaces etc), and what combination of services and activities they consider to be appropriate under the “one roof”. This discussion is also made more challenging without clear guidelines such as those prepared for Wyndham City Council (i.e. Wyndham City Council Multipurpose Community Centre Provision Model (2011), described in Section 7.3.2 of this



18





Scenario C Impacts

report). Issues to resolve with Port Phillip and Melbourne City Councils include: • What services to include for consideration within a community facility; • Their position on standards and demand estimates; • Whether Council wishes to be involved in the provision of a particular service (e.g. Long Day Child Care); and • What combination of services and activities they see as desirable (i.e. the “model” of provision). It should be noted that the City of Port Phillip developed a Community Hubs Policy in 2004 which is relevant to the discussion of multipurpose community centre provision, but is currently being reviewed and will be updated by 2013. The following estimates are provided as a very crude guideline and are subject to change. They provide no clear indication of floor area requirements at this stage.

Fishermans Bend Incremental Scenario is likely to generate the equivalent 1 small scale multipurpose community centre.

Fishermans Bend Scenario A is likely to generate the equivalent 2 large scale multipurpose community centres.

Fishermans Bend Scenario B is likely to generate the equivalent 4 large scale multipurpose community centres.

Fishermans Bend Scenario C is likely to generate the equivalent 7 large scale multipurpose community centres.

Education facilities

Government Primary Schools Excluding consideration of the broader projected growth of Inner Melbourne the and current capacity issues at existing schools, Fishermans Bend Incremental Scenario may not trigger the need for a new Government Primary School but will certainly add significant pressure to existing and proposed new schools (approximately 147 to 201 enrolments).

Fishermans Bend Scenario A is likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 1 Government Primary School (approximately 440 to 600 enrolments). A high density format school is recommended to achieve this.

Fishermans Bend Scenario B is likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 2 Government Primary Schools (approximately 880 to 1,200 enrolments). A high density format school is recommended to achieve this.

Fishermans Bend Scenario C is likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 4 to 5 Government Primary Schools (approximately 1,760 to 2,400 enrolments). A high density format school is recommended to achieve this.

Government Secondary Schools Excluding consideration of the broader projected growth of Inner Melbourne the and current capacity issues at existing schools, Fishermans Bend Incremental Scenario may not trigger the

Fishermans Bend Scenario A is not likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 1 Government Secondary School (approximately 290 to 440 enrolments), but will place significant pressure on

Fishermans Bend Scenario B is likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 1 Government Secondary School (approximately 580 to 890 enrolments).

Fishermans Bend Scenario C is likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 2 Government Secondary Schools (approximately 1,760 to 2,400 enrolments).


vo

lu

me

3


19





Scenario C Impacts

need for a new Government Primary School but will certainly add significant pressure to existing and proposed new schools (approximately 100 to 150 enrolments).

existing nearby schools.

A high density format school is recommended to achieve this.


Catholic Primary Schools Excluding consideration of the broader projected growth of Inner Melbourne the and current capacity issues at existing schools, Fishermans Bend Incremental Scenario is not likely to trigger the need for a new Catholic Primary School (approximately 30 to 70 enrolments).

Fishermans Bend Scenario A is likely to trigger the need for a new Catholic Primary School (approximately 100 to 200 enrolments), or significant expansion to the capacity of existing nearby schools.

Fishermans Bend Scenario B is likely to trigger the need for one new Catholic Primary School (approximately 200 to 400 enrolments).

Fishermans Bend Scenario C is likely to trigger the need for at least one new Catholic Primary School (approximately 410 to 820 enrolments), and large enough to cater for a very high enrolment figure.

Catholic Secondary Schools Excluding consideration of the broader projected growth of Inner Melbourne the and current capacity issues at existing schools, Fishermans Bend Incremental Scenario is not likely to trigger the need for a new Catholic Secondary School (approximately 30 to 60 enrolments).

Fishermans Bend Scenario A is not likely to trigger the need for a new Catholic Secondary School (approximately 90 to 190 enrolments), but may act as catalyst to expand the capacity of existing nearby schools.

Fishermans Bend Scenario B has the potential to trigger the need for a new Catholic Secondary School (approximately 190 to 370 enrolments), but may also act as catalyst to expand the capacity of existing nearby schools.

Fishermans Bend Scenario C is likely to trigger the need for at least one new Catholic Secondary School (approximately 370 to 750 enrolments).

Higher Education

If the demographic profile of Southbank, Docklands and the Melbourne CBD are to be used as a guide, the population of Fishermans Bend is likely to contain a substantial proportion of University students. Despite this, the significant concentration of higher education facilities in Melbourne’s CBD and inner North may deter high education institutions from investing in new campus sites within, or near to Fisheramns Bend. However, this will require further confirmation from the higher education institutions themselves, once they have had an opportunity to fully assess the implications of this Stage 1 assessment. The University enrolment implications, particularly at the upper end of the development scenarios (Scenarios 3 and 4), clearly indicate significant demand pressure. It is unclear at this stage whether existing campuses can absorb the scale of additional enrolment pressure these estimates imply with the existing facilities they contain, or whether it will compel institutions to expand at these sites.

Fishermans Bend Incremental Scenario will potentially generate: • An additional 270 to 310 TAFE

Fishermans Bend Incremental Scenario will potentially generate: • An additional 800 to 930 TAFE

Fishermans Bend Incremental Scenario will potentially generate: • An additional 1,600 to 1,900 TAFE

Fishermans Bend Incremental Scenario will potentially generate: • An additional 3,200 to 3,725 TAFE



20





Scenario C Impacts

enrolments (Full-time & Part-time); and

• An additional 730 to 1,660 University enrolments (Full-time & Part Time).


• An additional 2,200 to 5,000 University enrolments (Full-time & Part Time).





Health services

Community health Although there is relatively little literature about the planning of community health services this assessment uses some recently prepared draft health service guidelines prepared by the GAA, and community health floorspace targets presented in the Wyndham Social Infrastructure Planning - 2040 Framework, 2011 Update (refer to section 1.5.1 of this report). The Wyndham report advocates for a provision target of 35 m2 per 1,000 people for a community health service and the GAA guidelines link provision to an activity centre hierarchy. Irrespective of which development scenario is likely to be endorsed, the floorspace requirements for community health indicated below are best achieved via an integrated facility model that includes other health services (see Acute health discussion below), and / or a Council multipurpose community centre.

350 sqm of community health floorspace.

1,000 sqm of community health floorspace.



Acute health Using a combination of the draft GAA Health Hierarchy guidelines and measures of demand and supply identified in the Victorian Metropolitan Health Plan (2011) it is possible to conceptualise the relationship between each of the four development scenarios and the health service profile it is likely to generate. However, similar to other higher order services discussed, the questions remains as to whether the strong acute health service profile that currently exists within inner Melbourne (from the Alfred Hospital in the inner south east to the Royal Melbourne, Royal Children’s and Royal Women’s Hospital in the inner north west) can accommodate the additional demands generated by urban renewal sites such as Fisheramans Bend. Preliminary discussions with the Department of Health indicate that the provision of additional hospital sites for inner Melbourne is currently not a priority, nor likely to be in future. The Department indicated, however, that additional community health provision may potentially provide a better response option in urban renewal locations such as Fishermans Bend, but that this option is further discussed directly with local community health service providers (Inner South Community Health for the City of Port Phillip and Doutta Galla for the City of Melbourne). This Stage 1 assessment will be distributed to the Department and community health service providers to allow them to more fully asses the implications of each development scenario.

Using the GAA draft health hierarchy guidelines indicates that Incremental Scenario equates to: • The lower end of a Level 1 Local Town

Centre (10,000 – 20,000 people) • = Level 1 medical, dental & allied

health services, health promotion &

Using the GAA draft health hierarchy guidelines indicates that Scenario A equates to: • The middle level of a Level 2 Major

Town Centre (20,000 – 60,000 people) • = Level 2 community health,

rehabilitation & diagnostic services

Using the GAA draft health hierarchy guidelines indicates that Scenario B equates to a: • Slightly higher that the Level 2 Major


rehabilitation & diagnostic services

Using the GAA draft health hierarchy guidelines indicates that Scenario C equates to the: • Lower end of a Level 3 Principal Town

Centre (100,000 – 200,000 people) • = Level 3 specialist services with a high

critical mass to be delivered without


vo

lu

me

3


21





Scenario C Impacts

prevention • Indicative facility requirements:

medical centre (8 FTE GPs:10,824 people), dental clinic

• Indicative facility requirements: community health centre, diagnostic facilities

• = Level 2 residential aged care services

• Indicative facility requirements: high and low care residential facilities




inpatient backup including day procedures, renal dialysis, CAMHS, ACAS

• Indicative facility requirements: integrated primary care centre/GP super clinic/Day Procedure Centre / Day Hospital

Residential aged care Fishermans Bend Incremental Scenario will potentially generate demand for: • An additional 30 low care beds; and • 30 high care beds. This potentially equates to 1 small to medium facility offering both low and high care beds. These are services typically provided by the private or non-governments sector. Places Victoria’s role would be to facilitate and / or seek expressions of interest from these providers (subject bed approval funding from the Federal Government) to establish a facility within Fishermans Bend.

Fishermans Bend Scenario A will potentially generate demand for: • An additional 80 low care beds; and • 80 high care beds. This potentially equates to 1 large facility, or 2 smaller facilities offering both low and high care beds. Places Victoria’s role would be to facilitate and / or seek expressions of interest from existing providers (subject bed approval funding from the Federal Government) to establish facilities within Fishermans Bend.

Fishermans Bend Scenario B will potentially generate demand for: • An additional 150 low care beds; and • 150 high care beds. This potentially equates to 2 large facilities, or 4 smaller facilities offering both low and high care beds. Places Victoria’s role would be to facilitate and / or seek expressions of interest from existing providers (subject bed approval funding from the Federal Government) to establish facilities within Fishermans Bend.

Fishermans Bend Scenario C will potentially generate demand for: • An additional 300 low care beds; and • 300 high care beds. This potentially equates to 3 large facilities, or 6 smaller facilities offering both low and high care beds. Places Victoria’s role would be to facilitate and / or seek expressions of interest from existing providers (subject bed approval funding from the Federal Government) to establish facilities within Fishermans Bend.

Police & Emergency Services No generic provision planning guidelines for Victoria Police or any other of the major emergency services were identified as part of this assessment. This may yet be obtained as part of ongoing dialogue with these stakeholders. In the absence of this information it would appear that current provision for Police and all other emergency services within a 2 kilometre radius of Fishermans Bend is quite significant, and most likely adequate. However, this observation will be subject to confirmation from these agencies once the Stage 1 report is distributed to them for further assessment. Major future proposals include: • A proposed new City West Police Station located at 313 Spencer street at the site of the former Australia Post Mail Centre (consolidating the Crime and Intelligence

departments with a new police station for Melbourne West, housing 1,600 police members); and



22





Scenario C Impacts

• The MFB is planning to relocate the Station 39 Port Melbourne facility to Lorimer Street.


vo

lu

me

3

Executive Summary Fishermans Bend Preliminary Community Infrastructure Needs Assessment Stage 1 – Assessment of Development Scenarios

2

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 2

1.2 STAGE 1 ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 DEFINITION OF COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................................................................... 2

1.4 SCOPE OF COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE ITEMS ASSESSED & FUNDING IMPLICATIONS .................................................... 3

1.5 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE HIERARCHY ........................................................................................................... 5

2 SITE DESCRIPTION & SURROUNDING DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ................................................................... 10 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF FISHERMANS BEND .................................................................................................................. 10

2.2 SURROUNDING SUBURBS ................................................................................................................................. 11

2.3 INNER MELBOURNE URBAN RENEWAL PLANNING CONTEXT .................................................................................... 12

2.4 2011 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF PORT MELBOURNE, DOCKLANDS / SOUTHBANK ....................................................... 13

2.5 A COMPARISON OF PORT MELBOURNE, DOCKLANDS / SOUTHBANK, & GREATER MELBOURNE CHARACTERISTICS ................ 16

2.6 IMPLICATIONS OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ..................................................................................................... 19

3 CURRENT SERVICE AND FACILITY PROVISION WITHIN OR CLOSE TO FISHERMANS BEND ........................... 20 3.1 EXISTING AND PLANNED SUPPLY OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES WITHIN 2 KILOMETRES OF FISHERMANS BEND ....................... 20

3.2 PRELIMINARY COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE UTILISATION DATA WITHIN THE CITY OF PORT PHILLIP ................................. 31

4 REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ............................................................................................................. 33 4.1 MATERIAL REVIEWED ..................................................................................................................................... 33

4.2 IMPLICATIONS OF REVIEW ................................................................................................................................ 34

5 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS & PROVISION STANDARDS ......................................................................... 36 5.1 DWELLING, POPULATION & NET DEVELOPABLE AREA ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................ 36

5.2 AGE PROFILE ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 37

5.3 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH RISE DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE DEMAND: THE CASE STUDY OF

EDUCATIONAL ATTENDANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 43

5.4 THE USE OF COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE STANDARDS TO ESTIMATE DEMAND AND SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS ................... 49

6 DETAILED COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 60 6.1 OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT PROCESS ........................................................................ 60

6.2 HYPOTHETICAL SCHEDULE OF DCP COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS .................................................................. 78

6.3 LIST OF COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES ................................................................................................ 82

7 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE VISION, PRINCIPLES & MODELS ................................................................ 84 7.1 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE VISION ............................................................................................................... 84

7.2 COMMUNITY HUB OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES .................................................................................................... 84

7.3 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION MODELS .............................................................................................. 87

8 PROCESS RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 92 APPENDIX 1 – DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE (2011 ABS CENSUS) ............................................................................................. 94

APPENDIX 2 – REVIEW OF RELEVANT MUNICIPAL LITERATURE .......................................................................................... 108

APPENDIX 3 - AN OVERVIEW OF THE STATUTORY LAND USE PLANNING MECHANISMS USED TO FUND & DEVELOP COMMUNITY

INFRASTRUCTURE IN VICTORIA ................................................................................................................................... 161

APPENDIX 4 – KEY EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS IDENTIFIED FOR ONGOING DIALOGUE ............................................................... 165

APPENDIX 5 - COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE AUDIT MAPS.............................................................................................. 168

APPENDIX 6 - PRELIMINARY COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE AUDIT DATA PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF PORT PHILLIP ....................... 185

Prepared by ASR Research Pty Ltd on behalf of Places Victoria

November 19, 2012

Fishermans Bend Preliminary Community

Infrastructure Needs Assessment

Stage 1 – Assessment of Development Scenarios

Final Report



4

Figure 24 - Hospitals .................................................................................................................................................................... 183

Figure 25 – Community Health .................................................................................................................................................... 184


3

List of Tables

Table 1 – Adapted Community Infrastructure Hierarchy Used by Wyndham City Council (Indicative Only) ................................... 7

Table 2 – Community Infrastructure Audit .................................................................................................................................... 20

Table 3 - Proposed Development Scenarios by Number and Type of Dwellings (Indicative Only) ................................................. 36

Table 4 - Proposed Development Scenarios by % of Dwellings in Each Precinct (Indicative Only) ................................................ 37

Table 5 - Net Developable Area Preliminary Assumptions for Fishermans Bend by Precinct ........................................................ 37

Table 6 – Scenario 1 (Incremental) Indicative Age Cohort Profile .................................................................................................. 39

Table 7 – Scenario 2 (Low) Indicative Age Cohort Profile .............................................................................................................. 40

Table 8 – Scenario 3 (Medium) Indicative Age Cohort Profile ....................................................................................................... 41

Table 9 – Scenario 4 (High) Indicative Age Cohort Profile .............................................................................................................. 42

Table 10 – The Relationship between the Prevalence of High Rise Development and Attendance at Different Types of

Educational Institutions Using 2011 ABS Census Data ................................................................................................................... 44

Table 11 - 2011 Educational Attendance Rates Compared ............................................................................................................ 46

Table 12 – Community Infrastructure Standards / Demand Estimates Used ................................................................................. 51

Table 13 - Community Infrastructure Demand / Supply Estimates for Each Development Scenario ............................................. 61

Table 14 – Discussion of Community Infrastructure Impacts for Each Development Scenario...................................................... 69

Table 15 – Comparison of Standard & New Urban Government Primary School Building Models ................................................ 89

Table 16 – List of Relevant City of Port Phillip Policies, Strategies & Plans .................................................................................. 108

Table 17 – List of Relevant City of Melbourne Policies, Strategies & Plans .................................................................................. 131

Table 18 – List of Other Relevant Policies, Strategies & Plans ..................................................................................................... 156

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Fishermans Bend Precincts ........................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2 – Nearest Suburbs to Fishermans Bend ........................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 3 - Inner Melbourne Urban Renewal Context ..................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4 - Photo of The Harbour Family and Children's Centre outdoor play area ........................................................................ 88

Figure 5 – Example of Medium Urban Government Primary School Model .................................................................................. 89

Figure 6 - proposed additional major open spaces ...................................................................................................................... 136

Figure 7 – Proposed Docklands Open Space Strategies ............................................................................................................... 137

Figure 8– Proposed Port Melbourne (City of Melbourne) Open Space Strategies ....................................................................... 138

Figure 9 - Proposed City of Melbourne Open Space Contributions Rates .................................................................................... 142

Figure 10 - Passive Open Space Reserves .................................................................................................................................... 169

Figure 11 - Active Open Space Reserves ...................................................................................................................................... 170

Figure 12 – Public Indoor Recreation Centres.............................................................................................................................. 171

Figure 13 – Tennis Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 172

Figure 14 - Libraries ..................................................................................................................................................................... 173

Figure 15 – Neighbourhood Houses ............................................................................................................................................ 174

Figure 16 – Sessional Kindergartens (excludes provision within Long Day Child Care) ................................................................ 175

Figure 17 – Maternal & Child Health Centres .............................................................................................................................. 176

Figure 18 – Long Day Child Care Centre ....................................................................................................................................... 177

Figure 19 – Government & Non-Government Schools ................................................................................................................ 178

Figure 20 - Universities ................................................................................................................................................................ 179

Figure 21 - TAFEs ......................................................................................................................................................................... 180

Figure 22 – Victoria Police ........................................................................................................................................................... 181

Figure 23 – Emergency Services .................................................................................................................................................. 182


vo

lu

me

3


6

be prepared once the most likely development scenario is determined. It should be noted that the

dwelling breakdowns for each scenario are indicative only and presented for the purposes of

preparing this Stage 1 assessment report. The scenarios will require further refinement with the

Fishermans Bend Planning & Design working group overseen by Places Victoria.

Proposed Development Scenarios by Number and Type of Dwellings (Indicative Only)

Type of Dwellings % of Dwelling

Types

Scenario 1 (Incremental)

Total Dwellings

Scenario 2 (Low)

Total Dwellings

Scenario 3 (Medium)

Total Dwellings

Scenario 4 (High)

Total Dwellings

Bedsits & Studios 3% 150 600 1,200 1,800

One-bedroom 10% 500 2,000 4,000 6,000

Two-bedroom 65% 3,250 13,000 26,000 39,000

Three-bedroom 20% 1,000 4,000 8,000 12,000

Four-bedroom 2% 100 400 800 1,200

Total Dwellings 100% 5,000 20,000 40,000 60,000


The table below indicates the percentage of dwellings each of the four precincts within Fishermans

Bend will accommodate under each of the four development scenarios. The Montague precinct will

most likely be the largest precinct (50% at the low scenario down to 30% at the highest scenario),

followed by Sandridge (25 to 30%, Wirraway (15 to 30%). The Lorimer precinct located in the City of

Melbourne will most likely account for 10% of all dwellings under all four scenarios.

Proposed Development Scenarios by % of Dwellings in Each Precinct (Indicative Only)

Precinct


% of Dwellings by Precinct

Scenario 2 (Low)


Scenario 3 (Medium) % of Dwellings by

Precinct

Scenario 4 (High)


Montague 50% 45% 40% 30%

Sandridge 25% 25% 25% 30%

Wirraway 15% 20% 25% 30%

Lorimer 10% 10% 10% 10%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Detailed Community Infrastructure Analysis, Indicative Priorities & Costs

The community infrastructure standards adopted for the assessment were then applied to the build-

out dwelling and population estimates for each of the four development scenarios. Quantitative

estimates of either the demand and / or supply requirement associated with each community

infrastructure item was provided. The following table summarises the indicative quantum of

community infrastructure likely to be generated under each development scenario. It should be

noted that these estimates are a guide only and are not to be interpreted as a final provision

recommendation under each development scenario.


5

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Victorian State Government has nominated approximately 240 hectares of land at Fishermans

Bend as an urban renewal project area in its planning policy, for details refer to the attached plan.

The Government has requested Places Victoria to lead the master planning and consultation of the

Fishermans Bend project area and in doing so has commenced a due diligence phase for the project.

ASR Research was engaged by Places for Victoria to undertake a preliminary community infrastructure

needs assessment as part of this due diligence phase.

The following report represents a Stage 1 assessment largely focused on identifying potential

community infrastructure impacts and response requirements for a number of development

scenarios. The report is not intended to reflect a final and definitive community infrastructure plan

for each development scenario. The findings of this report are to be used as a reference document

for ongoing dialogue with key stakeholders identified in Appendix 4.

The objectives of the Stage 1 assessment process were:

• To recommend a preliminary list of community infrastructure requirements for the

Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Precinct over the next 20 years, based on four different

urban growth scenarios;

• To identify potential timing and staging of delivery of the preliminary requirements;

• To provide indicative costings for the identified priorities;

• To provide principles for the provision of community infrastructure as part of ongoing

planning and design processes for Fishermans Bend; and

• To provide recommendations for next steps and subsequent stages of community

infrastructure analysis for Fishermans Bend.

Development Assumptions & Provision Standards

The due diligence phase of the assessment involves understanding the impact of various development

scenarios on community infrastructure demand and community infrastructure supply requirements.

At the time of writing this assessment there was no preferred development scenario. The four

development scenarios outlined below in the table below clearly shows the significant variation of

dwelling and population assumptions from Scenario 1 (Incremental) at the low end, to Scenario 4

(High) at the high end. Consequently, a clear and definitive community infrastructure plan can only



7

Indicative Quantum of Community Infrastructure Required under Each Development Scenario

Community Infrastructure Type Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Affordable Housing








Public Open Space Three standards have been used for this assessment: 1) The 10% open space requirement proposed by the Montague Precinct Structure Plan: Consultation Draft (June 2012); 2) the 8% proposed by the City of Melbourne for high growth / change locations within the municipality, and 3) the 5% nominated in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme (Schedule to Clause 52.01).









Indoor recreation centres / courts Approximately 1 court Approximately 4 courts Approximately 8 courts Approximately 12 courts

Public aquatic leisure centres Given the relatively close proximity of MSAC at Albert Park (within 2 kilometres of Fishermans Bend), a compelling argument will be required to justify an additional public


vo

lu

me

3


8


/ Council aquatic leisure centre at / or near to Fishermans Bend. This issue will require further discussion with Port Phillip Council and Melbourne City Council to determine the most appropriate response. Demand pressures on MSAC will reduce if private gymnasiums are encouraged to establish themselves within Fishermans Bend and future residential development projects incorporate private pools and gymnasiums.




















Public community meeting space Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 will potentially generate: • An additional 300 sqm of flexible

community meeting space. Although it is too early to determine how this space should be configured and / or allocated, this level of floorspace would typically be accommodated within 1 multipurpose community centre or some other type of Council facility (e.g.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 will potentially generate: • An additional 1,300 sqm of flexible

community meeting space. Although it is too early to determine how this space should be configured and / or allocated, this level of floorspace would typically be accommodated within 2 to 3 multipurpose community centres, and / or some other type of Council facility







9


Library).

(e.g. Library).

(e.g. Library).

(e.g. Library).

Libraries Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 will potentially generate: • An additional 300 sqm of library

space. Although it is too early to determine how this space should be configured and / or allocated, this level of floorspace would be considered too small to justify a new library.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 will potentially generate: • An additional 1,200 sqm of library






Neighbourhood Houses Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 is likely to generate the equivalent of half a Neighbourhood House and therefore unlikely to trigger the need for new facility.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 is likely to generate the equivalent of 1 to 2 Neighbourhood House facilities. Given the high population density levels and relatively close geographic proximity to future services and facilities, it may be more efficient to consider 1 larger facility integrated with other services.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 3 is likely to generate the equivalent of 3 Neighbourhood House facilities. Given the high population density levels and relatively close geographic proximity to future services and facilities, it may be more efficient to consider 2 larger facilities integrated with other services.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 4 is likely to generate the equivalent of 5 Neighbourhood House facilities. Given the high population density levels and relatively close geographic proximity to future services and facilities, it may be more efficient to consider 3 larger facilities integrated with other services.

Multipurpose community centres Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 is likely to generate the equivalent 1 small scale multipurpose community centre.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 is likely to generate the equivalent 2 large scale multipurpose community centres.




Government Primary Schools Excluding consideration of the broader projected growth of Inner Melbourne

Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 is likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 1




vo

lu

me

3


10


the and current capacity issues at existing schools, Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 may not trigger the need for a new Government Primary School but will certainly add significant pressure to existing and proposed new schools (approximately 147 to 201 enrolments).

Government Primary School (approximately 587 to 806 enrolments). A high density format school is recommended to achieve this.

Government Primary Schools (approximately 1,175 to 1,612 enrolments). A high density format school is recommended to achieve this.

to 5 Government Primary Schools (approximately 1,760 to 2,400 enrolments). A high density format school is recommended to achieve this.

Government Secondary Schools Excluding consideration of the broader projected growth of Inner Melbourne the and current capacity issues at existing schools, Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 may not trigger the need for a new Government Primary School but will certainly add significant pressure to existing and proposed new schools (approximately 100 to 150 enrolments).

Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 is not likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 1 Government Secondary School (approximately 390 to 590 enrolments), but will place significant pressure on existing nearby schools.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 3 is likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 1 Government Secondary School (approximately 770 to 1,170 enrolments). A high density format school is recommended to achieve this.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 4 is likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 2 Government Secondary Schools (approximately 1,760 to 2,400 enrolments). A high density format school is recommended to achieve this.

Catholic Primary Schools Excluding consideration of the broader projected growth of Inner Melbourne the and current capacity issues at existing schools, Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 is not likely to trigger the need for a new Catholic Primary School (approximately 30 to 70 enrolments).

Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 is likely to trigger the need for a new Catholic Primary School (approximately 140 to 270 enrolments), or significant expansion to the capacity of existing nearby schools.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 3 is likely to trigger the need for one new Catholic Primary School (approximately 270 to 550 enrolments).

Fishermans Bend Scenario 4 is likely to trigger the need for at least one new Catholic Primary School (approximately 410 to 820 enrolments), and large enough to cater for a very high enrolment figure.

Catholic Secondary Schools Excluding consideration of the broader projected growth of Inner Melbourne the and current capacity issues at existing schools, Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 is not likely to trigger the need for a new Catholic Secondary School (approximately 30 to 60

Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 is not likely to trigger the need for a new Catholic Secondary School (approximately 130 to 250 enrolments), but may act as catalyst to expand the capacity of existing nearby schools.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 3 has the potential to trigger the need for a new Catholic Secondary School (approximately 250 to 500 enrolments), but may act as catalyst to expand the capacity of existing nearby schools.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 4 is likely to trigger the need for at least one new Catholic Secondary School (approximately 370 to 750 enrolments).



11


enrolments).

Higher Education

Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 will potentially generate: • An additional 270 to 310 TAFE



Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 will potentially generate: • An additional 1,070 to 1,240 TAFE









Health services

Community health 350 sqm of community health floorspace.




Acute health Using the GAA draft health hierarchy guidelines indicates that Scenario 1 equates to: • The lower end of a Level 1 Local Town


health services, health promotion & prevention

• Indicative facility requirements: medical centre (8 FTE GPs:10,824 people), dental clinic

Using the GAA draft health hierarchy guidelines indicates that Scenario 2 equates to: • The middle level of a Level 2 Major


rehabilitation & diagnostic services • Indicative facility requirements:

community health centre, diagnostic facilities



Using the GAA draft health hierarchy guidelines indicates that Scenario 3 equates to a: • Slightly higher that the Level 2 Major






Using the GAA draft health hierarchy guidelines indicates that Scenario 4 equates to the: • Lower end of a Level 3 Principal Town


critical mass to be delivered without inpatient backup including day procedures, renal dialysis, CAMHS, ACAS


Residential aged care Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 will potentially generate demand for:

Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 will potentially generate demand for:




vo

lu

me

3


12


• An additional 30 low care beds; and • 30 high care beds. This potentially equates to 1 small to medium facility offering both low and high care beds. These are services typically provided by the private or non-governments sector. Places Victoria’s role would be to facilitate and / or seek expressions of interest from these providers (subject bed approval funding from the Federal Government) to establish a facility within Fishermans Bend.

• An additional 100 low care beds; and • 100 high care beds. This potentially equates to 1 large facility, or 2 smaller facilities offering both low and high care beds. Places Victoria’s role would be to facilitate and / or seek expressions of interest from existing providers (subject bed approval funding from the Federal Government) to establish facilities within Fishermans Bend.

• An additional 200 low care beds; and • 200 high care beds. This potentially equates to 2 large facilities, or 4 smaller facilities offering both low and high care beds. Places Victoria’s role would be to facilitate and / or seek expressions of interest from existing providers (subject bed approval funding from the Federal Government) to establish facilities within Fishermans Bend.

• An additional 300 low care beds; and • 300 high care beds. This potentially equates to 3 large facilities, or 6 smaller facilities offering both low and high care beds. Places Victoria’s role would be to facilitate and / or seek expressions of interest from existing providers (subject bed approval funding from the Federal Government) to establish facilities within Fishermans Bend.


departments with a new police station for Melbourne West, housing 1,600 police members); and • The MFB is planning to relocate the Station 39 Port Melbourne facility to Lorimer Street.



13

The following table summarises the list of community infrastructure priorities (alongside cost

estimates) in terms of indicative short-term (up to 5,000 dwellings), medium term (5,000 to 15,000

dwellings) and long term needs (15,000 dwellings and over). The Fishermans Bend assessment has

focused on the items listed. Items with an “*” indicate infrastructure that may typically form part of a

Development Contributions Plan (DCP) or associated with some other form of statutory requirement

(e.g. an open space planning scheme requirement). These typical DCP items form the bulk of high

priority short term needs.


vo

lu

me

3


14

Likely Short, Medium & Long Term Community Infrastructure Needs and Indicative Cost Estimates

Short term need (Up to 5,000 dwellings)

Medium term need (5,000 to 15,000

dwellings)

Long term need (15,000 dwellings

and over) Indicative Cost Estimates for Typical Items (as per Section 6.2) Open space and recreation • Local passive open space* x Typical local public open space contribution requirement • Local Playgrounds* x Typical local public open space contribution requirement • Local active open space* x Approximately $2,000,000 for basic development of a 10 ha reserve

Approximately $2,400,000 for construction of 2 Australian Rules / Cricket fields Approximately $2,000,000 for construction of 3 soccer fields

Approximately $1,400,000 for a 500 sqm sporting pavilion • Regional Playspace / Activity Node x Approximately $1,300,00 for a Regional play space, youth activity node and public art • Indoor multipurpose stadium* x Approximately $9,000,000 for a 4 court stadium

Approximately $14,000,000 for an 8 court stadium • Tennis facilities* x Approximately $1,200,000 for 12 courts

Approximately $840,000 for a 300 sqm tennis pavilion Early years and other components of typical Council community centres

Approximately $4,000,000 for a multi-purpose community centre (1,200 sqm building, & 100 car parking spaces)

Or

Approximately $6,640,000 for an early years hub consisting of 4 MCH consulting units, 120 long day child care places & 66 place kindergarten (1,600 sqm building, 1,300 sqm regulated outdoor

area & 64 car parking spaces)

• 4 & 3 year old kindergartens* x • Maternal & Child Health* x • Playgroup venues* x • Long Day Child Care Centres* x • Occasional Child Care* x • Council Community Centres* x • Public venues for hire* x • Neighbourhood house / adult ed.* x Educational facilities • Primary Schools x $15,280,000 • Secondary Schools x Not identified Libraries* x Approximately $6,500,000 for a 1,900 sqm library Residential and aged care services • Planned Activity Group (PAG)* x Not identified • Residential aged care x Not identified Health services • Community health x Not identified



16

• To ensure that they are easily accessible by foot, bicycle or public transport for the majority

of residents in the surrounding neighbourhood;

• To reduce the number of buildings and sites that the developer / Council has to maintain;

• To provide opportunities for services and clubs to co-locate as a way of sharing resources,

increasing the level of service integration and encouraging greater resident utilisation and

participation;

• To embrace sustainability principles and objectives such as reducing the number of trips

(e.g. by car) people need to make to access services, attend meetings and social gatherings

or participate in formal and informal recreation activities;

• To actively encourage, where appropriate, equity in participation and governance by local

residents in the development and decision making of community infrastructure as a means

of encouraging community ownership, maximising utilisation, encouraging resident

interaction, and increasing community identity and sense of place;

• To provide opportunities for integrated service delivery (e.g. clusters of co-located,

complementary services for families such as early childhood education and care, health

services, education facilities all working in a more seamless way to meet community

needs);

• To ensure inclusion and equitable access for all, taking into account social, economic,

cultural barriers; and

• To ensure a strong relationship between privately provided ‘community infrastructure’,

such as shops, and more conventional infrastructure, such as community centres, in order

to maximise community building opportunities.

Process Related Recommendations & Next Steps

The following process related steps are recommended to further assess and refine the community

infrastructure priorities for Fishermans Bend:

1. An unambiguous community infrastructure plan (Stage 2) will need to be based on a

specific dwelling yield (and therefore population yield) for the subject area. Given the long

(15-20 year) duration of the proposed development the plan will need to be based on an

agreed yield range or maximum. Estimates of dwelling yield targets should be decided

upon as early as possible and, preferably, before the commencement of the detailed

community infrastructure plan.

2. Distribute Stage 1 assessment to all relevant stakeholders for comment. Stakeholders

should be also invited to provide additional information about future provision strategies,

existing utilisation data, current capacity constraints, and provision opportunities

generated by Fishermans Bend as part of the Stage 2 report.


15

Community Infrastructure Vision

Community infrastructure plays a critical role in influencing the demographic composition and

community functioning of an area. This assessment proposes that once specific community

infrastructure recommendations are confirmed as part of future planning stages for Fishermans Bend,

they be configured or assembled into a number of community infrastructure hubs, each of which will

accommodate a diverse range of services and facilities.

Community Hub Objectives and Principles

A community hub is a geographic location within a neighbourhood containing a diverse range of

Council and non-Council community infrastructure within close proximity to one another. Typical

infrastructure may include children’s services, health services, education facilities, recreation facilities

and passive open space. It functions as a place where a broad cross section of a community gathers

for the purpose of social interaction and learning and accessing services (e.g. retail, group meetings,

health services, recreation and education).

The final number of community infrastructure hubs and the composition of each will be dependent, in

part, by the development scenario most likely to be realised. In short, the higher the development

scenario, the greater the number of hubs and the more diverse each is likely to be in terms of its

composition.

As a general principle each of the four precincts identified for Fishermans Bend should contain at least

one or more hubs.

Community Hub Objectives

The objectives of a designated community hub are:

• To meet the functional needs of local communities (e.g. education, community services,

recreation and open space etc.);

• To provide a vibrant focal point for neighbourhood life by offering a diverse range of

community infrastructure;

• To ensure that the community infrastructure contained within them are creatively and

efficiently constructed and redeveloped over time to meet changing needs;

• To ensure that the amenity and aesthetic character of community infrastructure contained

within them are of a high quality;


vo

lu

me

3

Fishermans Bend Preliminary Community Infrastructure Needs Assessment Stage 1 – Assessment of Development Scenarios

1

1 Introduction

The Victorian State Government has nominated approximately 240 hectares of land at Fishermans

Bend as an urban renewal project area in its planning policy, for details refer to the attached plan.

The Government has requested Places Victoria to lead the master planning and consultation of the

Fishermans Bend project area and in doing so has commenced a due diligence phase for the project.

ASR Research has been engaged by Places for Victoria to undertake a preliminary community

infrastructure needs assessment as part of this due diligence phase.

The following report represents a Stage 1 assessment largely focused on identifying potential

community infrastructure impacts and response requirements for a number of development

scenarios. The report is not intended to reflect a final and definitive community infrastructure plan

for each development scenario. The findings of this report are to be used as a reference document

for ongoing dialogue with key stakeholders identified in Appendix 4 of this report. Although some

contact and discussion of a preliminary nature was undertaken as part of the preparation of this Stage

1 assessment1, the contents of the report will be distributed to stakeholders for comment, and as the

basis for ongoing discussion about provision strategies at a more detailed qualitative level. Further

information about the capacity levels of existing infrastructure are still to be obtained and assessed as

part of future planning work.

Because of its strong relationship to dwelling and population estimates, a final and definitive

Community Infrastructure Plan will not be possible until a preferred development scenario is

determined. The community infrastructure assessment is one of a number of key planning

considerations in determining what the preferred development scenario will be, but an important

one. Concurrent assessments being commissioned by Places Victoria associated with transport,

environmental and economic issues will also be critical in informing the preferred development

scenario.

1 High level initial preliminary discussions were undertaken with Department of Health, Victoria Police, State Emergency Services Victoria, Catholic Education Office, City of Melbourne, City of Port Phillip, Department of Planning & Community Development - Urban Development Division, Department of Education & Early Childhood Development, Sport & Recreation Victoria and Parks Victoria – Albert Park.


17

3. The Community Infrastructure Plan (Stage 2) should be prepared as part of the preparation

of a structure plan/s, including obtaining agreement on the appropriate level of developer

contributions.

4. In developing the Stage 2 Community Infrastructure Plan, Places Victoria should give

consideration to establishing smaller service specific portfolio areas as part of the larger

Fisherman’s Bend Community Infrastructure Working Group. These portfolio areas would

cover:

• Early years service provision;

• School provision;

• Open space and recreation;

• Other Council based community service provision forms; and

• Other State agency service provision forms (e.g. police & emergency services, health

etc).

5. The community infrastructure plan should also address the staging of the community

infrastructure contributions as the development evolves over the 15-20 year development

period, including trigger points and a hierarchy for provision of various different types

contributions.



3

1.4 Scope of Community Infrastructure Items Assessed & Funding Implications

1.4.1 Scope of Community Infrastructure Items Assessed

As can be seen in the definition presented above, community infrastructure is a broad term

encompassing a very large range of services, activities and facilities, some of which are beyond the

scope of the assessment. It is therefore necessary to limit any community infrastructure assessment

to a selection of services, infrastructure and activities, particularly those public services and

infrastructure that are the responsibility of government or require some form of government

assistance. The Fishermans Bend assessment focuses on the following broad social infrastructure

items (items with an * indicate infrastructure that may typically form part of a Development

Contributions Plan (DCP) or associated with some other form of statutory requirement (open space

planning scheme requirement):

Open space and recreation

• Passive open space*

• Active open space*

• Playgrounds*

• Public aquatic leisure centres*

• Private gymnasiums

• Tennis facilities*

Early years and other components of typical Council community centres

• 4 & 3 year old kindergartens*

• Maternal & Child Health*

• Playgroup venues*

• Long Day Child Care Centres*

• Occasional Child Care*

• Council Community Centres*

• Public venues for hire*

Educational facilities

• Neighbourhood house / adult education / U3A*

• Primary Schools

• Secondary Schools

• Special Education Schools


2

1.1 Overall Objectives of the Community Infrastructure Assessment

The overall objectives of the Fishermans Bend community infrastructure assessment are:

• To provide an assessment of likely community infrastructure impacts and requirements for

the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Precinct over the next 20 years, based on four

development scenarios;







1.2 Stage 1 Assessment Objectives

The objectives of the Stage 1 assessment process were:

• To recommend a preliminary list of community infrastructure requirements for the

Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Precinct over the next 20 years, based on four different

urban growth scenarios;







1.3 Definition of Community Infrastructure

For the purposes of this assessment community infrastructure is defined as both public and private,

Council and non-Council facilities (e.g. buildings and open spaces) likely to be required to support

social services, programs, activities and accessibility to them (e.g. Kindergarten services, child care,

community meetings, sporting competition, informal recreation and community transport etc).


vo

lu

me

3


5

In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Ministerial Direction on

Development Contributions, the DCP makes a distinction between “development” and “community”

infrastructure. The timing of payment of contributions is linked to the type of infrastructure in

question.

Using the example of recently prepared Precinct Structure Plans (PSPs) in Melbourne Growth

Corridors as a guide, the development infrastructure levy (DIL) will typically be used to fund, either in

part or in full, the acquisition of land for active open space reserves and multipurpose community

centres, as well as the development of the active open space reserve (excluding sporting pavilions)

and construction of all, or part of, a multipurpose community centre.

For the community infrastructure (CIL), contributions are to be made by the home-builder at the time

of building approval. Contributions relating to community infrastructure will be paid for at a “per

dwelling” rate.

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 stipulates that the amount that may be contributed under a

community infrastructure levy is no more than $900 per dwelling. If the cap is ever increased and the

increased amount is equal to or less than the amount required by the Development Contributions

Plan, this higher amount will be collected from the date a change to the cap is introduced.

The CIL is typically used to fund sporting pavilions, libraries or some other functional component of

the multipurpose community centre not classed a DIL item.

The provision of local passive open space, including its development (e.g. landscaping, pathways,

playgrounds and other amenities) is usually provided for as part of statutory public open space

obligations.

For more information on the use of statutory planning mechanisms to fund community infrastructure

refer to Appendix 3 of this report.

Service and facilities provided by the State Government such as government education facilities,

police and emergency services and health do not generally form part of a DCP. However, this does

not diminish the importance of their involvement in the planning process, nor their inclusion in the

overall Structure Plan to be prepared for Fishermans Bend.

1.5 Community Infrastructure Hierarchy


4

Libraries*

Residential and aged care services

• Planned Activity Group (PAG) facilities*

• Residential aged care

• Home & community care

Police & emergency services

• Police

• Metropolitan Fire Brigade

• Ambulance Victoria

• State Emergency Services (SES)

Health services

• Community health

• Hospitals & Day Procedure facilities

1.4.2 Community Infrastructure Funding

Places Victoria intends to prepare a DCP for the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal area at later stages

of the planning process, once a preferred development scenario is identified and a final detailed

Community Infrastructure Plan prepared. While it is anticipated that the final Community

Infrastructure Plan will not be limited to services and facilities that will form part of the DCP it will be

important for stakeholders to understand how priorities identified will be funded.

In the context of land use planning in Victoria, development (predominantly residential) may

contribute toward community infrastructure initiatives via one or more of the following statutory

mechanisms.

• Development Contributions Plans (Planning and Environment Act 1987);

• Section 173 Agreements (Planning and Environment Act 1987); and

• Clause 52.01 - Public Open Space Contribution and Subdivision (Planning and Environment

Act 1987 & Section 18 of the Subdivision Act 1988).

It is typically the responsibility of the Planning Authority (generally Local Councils or agencies such as

Planning Victoria) to determine which mechanism or mechanisms will be used.



7

Table 1 – Adapted Community Infrastructure Hierarchy Used by Wyndham City Council (Indicative

Only)

Population

Hierarchy

Level

Alternative terms used Items

Level 1

Up to 10,000

people

• Local • Government Primary Schools (including out of schools hours care)/Early Years

Facility

• Level 1 Council Community Centres/ Early Years Facility

• Level 1 Active Open Space (defined as “Local Active Open Space” by the

Growth Areas Authority)

• Level 1 Passive Open Space (defined as “Local Passive Open Space” by the

Growth Areas Authority)

• Long Day Child Care Centres

• Social housing

Level 2

Between 10

and 30,000

people

• District • Government Secondary Colleges

• Catholic Primary Schools

• Level 2 indoor recreation centres

• Level 2 Council Community Centres/Early Years Facility / Neighbourhood

Houses

• Low Order Tennis Facilities

• Low Order Youth Facilities

• Maternal & Child Health (within every second level 1 early years facility)

• Occasional Child Care (as part of every neighbourhood house and leisure

centre)

• Residential Aged Care

Level 3

Between 30

and 60,000

people

• Low sub-Municipal • Libraries

• Community Arts Centres

• Catholic Secondary Colleges

• Higher Order Active Open Space Reserves (defined as “District Active Open

Space” by the Growth Areas Authority)

• Competition standard indoor recreation centres

• High Order Tennis Facilities

• High Order Dedicated Youth Facilities

• Level 3 Council Community Centres

• Early Childhood Intervention Service

• Planned Activity Group facility

• Delivered meals facility

• Adventure playgrounds

• Other independent schools

Level 4

Between

60,000 and

200,000

people

• High sub-municipal • Aquatic Leisure Centres

• Community-based health precincts (dedicated outreach health precinct sites)

• Police & emergency services

• Lawn bowls facility


6

Since the establishment of the Growth Areas Authority in 2006 there has been increasing research

into the development of community infrastructure standards that can be applied to the planning of

Melbourne’s outer growth areas.

In contrast, relatively little research of an equivalent nature has been undertaken for Inner

Melbourne. While inner Melbourne presents a very different community infrastructure profile to

outer Metropolitan Melbourne, some of the material prepared for the growth areas provides a useful

reference point.

The community infrastructure items selected for this assessment are based on those identified in the

Planning for Community Infrastructure in Growth Area Communities: Standards Project (“Standards”

project) prepared by ASR Research in April 2008 on behalf of the Shire of Melton and the Cities of

Wyndham, Whittlesea, Casey and Hume (with funding also provided by the Department Planning and

Community Development and the Growth Areas Authority), and described in more detail in the

appendices of the final report. As illustrated in the “Standards” project, different forms of community

infrastructure can be very broadly organised into a population catchment hierarchy.

Table 1 below represents an adaptation of the hierarchy prepared for Wyndham City Council

(Wyndham Social Infrastructure Planning - 2040 Framework, 2011 Update) in order for it to plan for

its enormous projected population growth over the next 30 years. It should be noted that the “real

world” picture for many of the community infrastructure items shown below can be very different

from one part of Melbourne to another and should therefore be interpreted with caution and be

viewed as indicative only.


vo

lu

me

3


9

• Indicative facility requirements: integrated primary care centre/GP super clinic/Day

Procedure Centre / Day Hospital

Level 4 Central Activity Area (up to 500,000 people)

= community based hospital care providing services to a large population catchment

• Indicative facility requirements: acute hospital, emergency services


8

Population

Hierarchy

Level

Alternative terms used Items

• Regional Parks (Parks Victoria)

Level 5

Municipal +

(i.e. one or

municipalities)

Between

200,000 and

500,000

people

• Municipal / Regional • Highest order Performing Arts / Gallery facilities

• Main Council Civic Centre

• Universities / TAFEs

• Acute public and private hospitals, day procedure facilities

1.5.1 DRAFT GAA Health & Aged Care Hierarchy2

Wyndham Social Infrastructure Planning - 2040 Framework, 2011 Update also includes a more

developed draft health and aged care community infrastructure hierarchy prepared by the Growth

Areas Authority which is summarised below.

Level 1 Local Town Centre (10,000 – 20,000 people)

= Level 1 medical, dental & allied health services, health promotion & prevention


Level 2 Major Town Centre (20,000 – 60,000 people)

= Level 2 community health, rehabilitation & diagnostic services


= Level 2 residential aged care services


Level 3 Principal Town Centre (100,000 – 200,000 people)

= Level 3 specialist services with a high critical mass to be delivered without inpatient backup

including day procedures, renal dialysis, CAMHS, ACAS

2 The Growth Areas Authority has prepared this draft hierarchy using the following key reference documents:

• Growth Areas Authority (2010), Draft Growth Corridor Plasn; • Department of Human Services (2006), Care in Your Community; • Growth Areas Authority (2009) – Ernst & Young consultation and analysis of medical centre delivery models and GP

ratios; • Department of Health & Ageing residential aged care planning benchmarks



11

2.2 Surrounding Suburbs

The majority of the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area is located in the suburb of Port Melbourne,

but a smaller eastern portion is located (particularly the Montague Precinct) within the suburb of

South Melbourne. As shown in Figure 2 below within a 1 kilometre radius of Fishermans Bend are the

suburbs of Port Melbourne, South Melbourne, Docklands and Southbank. Together, these suburbs

are defined as the primary catchment for the purposes of this assessment. Between 1 and 2

Kilometres of Fishermans Bend are the suburbs of Albert Park, Middle Park, Melbourne and West

Melbourne (South Yarra also has small portion that falls within this 2 kilometre catchment). Together,

these suburbs are defined as the secondary catchment for the purposes of this assessment.

According to the 2011 ABS Census the total population of the entire catchment was approximately

83,000 people, with approximately 41,000 living within the Primary Catchment Area and 42,000 living

in the Secondary Catchment Area.

Figure 2 – Nearest Suburbs to Fishermans Bend

Primary Catchment Population 2011 Secondary Catchment Population 2011

Port

M

elbo

urne

Dock

land

s

Sout

hban

k

Sout

h M

elbo

urne

Tota

l Prim

ary

Catc

hmen

t

Mel

bour

ne

Albe

rt P

ark

(Vic

.)

Wes

t M

elbo

urne

Mid

dle

Park

(V

ic.)

Tota

l Se

cond

ary

Catc

hmen

t

Tota

l

14,521 5,789 11,236 9,318 40,864 28,371 5,954 3,744 4,059 42,128 82,992

Fishermans Bend

Middle Park

Port Melbourne

Albert Park

Docklands

West Melbourne

Melbourne

South Melbourne

Southbank

1 km Radius

2 km Radius


10

2 Site Description & Surrounding Demographic Profile

2.1 Description of Fishermans Bend

The Minister for Planning has announced the largest urban renewal area in Australia, located

approximately 3km south west of Melbourne's central business district. The 240 hectares Fishermans

Bend Urban Renewal Area has been declared a site of State significance and rezoned as part of an

expanded Capital City Zone.

As shown in Figure 1, the Fishermans Bend urban renewal area has four precincts. Lorimer Precinct is

located in the City of Melbourne on the eastern side of the Bolte Bridge between Lorimer Street and

the Westgate Freeway and was named after Sir James Lorimer, who was President of the Melbourne

Chamber of Commerce in 1868-70, founding chairman of the Melbourne Harbour Trust, a founder of

the Free Trade League, and member of the Victorian Parliament. Montague, Sandridge, and

Wirraway Precincts are in the City of Port Phillip. Sandridge was the original name for Port

Melbourne. Wirraway is named for the iconic Australian military aircraft built by the Commonwealth

Aircraft Corporation at Fishermans Bend.

Figure 1 – Fishermans Bend Precincts

Lorimer Precinct

WirrawayPrecinct

SandridgePrecinct

MontaguePrecinct


vo

lu

me

3


13

This broader inner Melbourne planning context is important for many community infrastructure

forms with population catchments larger than the population yields likely to be generated by a single

urban renewal site (e.g. hospitals, higher education facilities and regional parks). For a number of key

stakeholder agencies understanding this broader future picture, as well as current provision

characteristics, will be the basis of providing Places Victoria with an informed strategic planning

response to the Fishermans Bend development.

2.4 2011 Demographic Profile of Port Melbourne, Docklands / Southbank

The Fishermans Bend site is located in Port Melbourne and includes a portion of South Melbourne. It

also adjoins the more recently developed higher density communities of Southbank and Docklands.

This section provides an analysis of the demographic characteristics of Port Melbourne, Docklands

and Southbank combined, and compares these areas to the Greater Melbourne Metropolitan area.

Appendix 1 of this report contains more detailed tabular Census data.

Based on the 2011 ABS Census the demographic characteristics of the combined Docklands /

Southbank area include the following:

• There were approximately 14,500 people living in Port Melbourne and 17,000 people living

in Docklands / Southbank area.

• The median age of people living in Port Melbourne was 38 years, but Docklands /

Southbank had a much younger median age of 30 years.

• The largest age cohort populations in Docklands / Southbank were those aged 20-24 years

(17%), 25-29 years (22%) and 30-34 years (15%). The largest age cohort populations in Port

Melbourne were those aged 30-34 years (12%), 35-39 years (12%) and 25-29 years (10%).

• Of people aged 15 years and over living in Docklands / Southbank, 34% were married, 9%

were either divorced or separated, and 56% had never been married. Of people aged 15

years and over living in Port Melbourne, 39% were married, 14% were either divorced or

separated, and 43% had never been married.

• Of people aged 15 years and over living in Docklands / Southbank, 32% of people were in a

registered marriage and 16% were in a de facto marriage. Of people aged 15 years and

over living in Port Melbourne, 40% of people were in a registered marriage and 16% were

in a de facto marriage.

• Approximately 65% of Port Melbourne residents were born in Australia. The most common

overseas countries of birth for people living in Port Melbourne were England, New Zealand,

Greece, USA and China (excludes SARs and Taiwan). In contrast, only 36% of people living

Docklands / Southbank were born in Australia. The most common overseas countries of


12

2.3 Inner Melbourne Urban Renewal Planning Context

The recently prepared Montague Precinct Structure Plan: Consultation Draft (June 2012) provides a

summary of the significant urban renewal occurring and proposed for Inner Melbourne (refer to

Figure 3 below). The Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal site is one of a number of inner city areas

where substantial urban renewal is being planned or is underway. These areas include:

• E Gate (on Footscray Road in West Melbourne);

• Arden Macaulay (North Melbourne / Kensington);

• City North (Carlton);

• Southbank; and

• Docklands.

It is estimated that:

• E Gate (20-25 ha) – will accommodate up to 12,000 residents in 8,500 dwellings;

• Arden Macaulay (147 ha) - 22,500 residents and 20,500 jobs;

• City North (130 ha) - 28,400 residents and 22,000 jobs;

• Southbank (160 ha) - 74,000 residents in 57,000 dwellings and 56,000 workers by 2040; and

• Docklands (146 ha) – 17,000 residents in 8,300 dwellings and 40,000 workers by 2020.

Figure 3 - Inner Melbourne Urban Renewal Context

Source: Montague Precinct Structure Plan: Consultation Draft (June 2012)



15

• Of family households living in Docklands / Southbank, 19% were couple families with

children, 65% were couple families without children and 7% were one parent families. Of

family households living in Port Melbourne, 32% were couple families with children, 53%

were couple families without children and 13% were one parent families.

• 16% of single parents living in Port Melbourne were male and 84% were female. 22% of

single parents living in Docklands / Southbank were male and 78% were female.

• In Port Melbourne 87% of private dwellings were occupied and 13% were unoccupied. In

Docklands / Southbank 81% of private dwellings were occupied and 19% were unoccupied.

• Of private dwellings in Port Melbourne 10% were separate houses, 40% were semi-

detached, row or terrace houses, townhouses etc, and 49% were flats, units or apartments.

Of private dwellings in Docklands / Southbank none were separate dwellings, 2% were

semi-detached, row or terrace houses, townhouses etc, and 98% were flats, units or

apartments.

• Of occupied private dwellings in Port Melbourne less than 1% was classified as bedsitters,

15% had 1 bedroom, 42% had 2 bedrooms and 33% had 3 bedrooms and 7% had 4

bedrooms or more. The average number of bedrooms per occupied private dwelling in Port

Melbourne was 2.3. The average household size in Port Melbourne was 2.0 people. Of

occupied private dwellings in Docklands / Southbank 1% was classified as bedsitters, 23%

had 1 bedroom, 54% had 2 bedrooms and 19% had 3 bedrooms. The average number of

bedrooms per occupied private dwelling in Docklands / Southbank was 2. The average

household size in Docklands / Southbank was 1.9 people.

• Of occupied private dwellings 15% were owned outright, 23% were owned with a mortgage

and 60% were rented.

• Of all households in Port Melbourne, 57% were family households, 36% were single person

households and 7% were group households. Of all households in Docklands / Southbank,

51% were family households, 35% were single person households and 14% were group

households.

• Approximately 17% of households in Port Melbourne had a weekly household income of

less than $600 and 25% of households had a weekly income of more than $3,000.

Approximately 15% of households in Docklands / Southbank had a weekly household

income of less than $600 and 19% of households had a weekly income of more than

$3,000.

• The median weekly rent in Port Melbourne was $450. For 13% of households in Port

Melbourne, their rent was more than 30% of their income. The median weekly rent in

Docklands / Southbank was $500. For 23% of households in Docklands / Southbank, their

rent was more than 30.0% of their income.

• The median monthly mortgage repayment was in Port Melbourne was $2,535. For 8.2% of

households in Port Melbourne, their mortgage repayment was more than 30.0% of their


14

birth for people living in Docklands / Southbank were China (excludes SARs and Taiwan),

Indonesia, Malaysia, England and New Zealand.

• Approximately 73% of Port Melbourne residents only spoke English at home. Other

languages spoken at home included Greek, Italian, Mandarin, Cantonese and Russian. In

contrast, a much lower 49% of Docklands / Southbank residents only spoke English at

home. Other languages spoken at home included Mandarin, Indonesian, Cantonese, Arabic

and Korean.

• Approximately 46% of Port Melbourne residents had both parents born in Australia. In

contrast, a much lower 26% of people living in Docklands / Southbank had both parents

born in Australia and 66% of people had both parents born overseas.

• In Port Melbourne, 23% of the population were attending an educational institution. Of

these, 19% were in primary school, 12% in secondary school and 24% in a tertiary or

technical institution. In Docklands / Southbank a much higher percentage (34%) of people

were attending an educational institution. Of these however, only 3% were in primary

school, only 5% in secondary school but a much higher percentage (45%) were attending a

tertiary or technical institution.

• The most common responses for religion in Port Melbourne were “No religion” 29%,

Catholic 24%, Anglican 14%, Eastern Orthodox 9% and Uniting Church (3%). The most

common responses for religion in Docklands / Southbank were “No religion” 30%, Catholic

18%, Anglican 8%, Buddhism 7% and Hinduism (5%).

• The median weekly personal income for people aged 15 years and over living in Docklands /

Southbank was $1,022 and $1,091 in Port Melbourne.

• Of people aged 15 years and over in Docklands / Southbank, 62% did unpaid domestic work

in the week before the Census. During the two weeks before the Census, 10% provided

care for children and 5% assisted family members or others due to a disability, long term

illness or problems related to old age. In the year before the Census, 14% of people did

voluntary work through an organisation or a group.

• Of people aged 15 years and over in Port Melbourne, 73% did unpaid domestic work in the

week before the Census. During the two weeks before the Census, 21% provided care for

children and 10% assisted family members or others due to a disability, long term illness or

problems related to old age. In the year before the Census, 17% of people did voluntary

work through an organisation or a group.

• Of people living in Docklands / Southbank who did unpaid domestic work in the week

before the Census, 31% worked less than 5 hours per week, 23% worked 5 to 14 hours, 5%

worked 15 to 29 hours and 3% worked 30 hours or more. In Port Melbourne, 31% worked

less than 5 hours per week, 28% worked 5 to 14 hours, 9% worked 15 to 29 hours and 5%

worked 30 hours or more.


vo

lu

me

3


17

• A slightly lower percentage of occupied private dwellings (87% compared to 91%).

• A significantly lower percentage of dwellings that were separate houses (10% compared to

73%) and a significantly higher percentage of flats, units or apartments (49% compared to

15%).

• A much higher percentage of one-bedroom dwellings (15% compared to 5%), a much

higher percentage of two-bedroom dwellings (42% compared to 20%), but a much lower

percentage of three-bedroom dwellings (33% compared to 45%).

• A much lower percentage of people owned their home outright (24% compared to 33%),

but a significantly higher percentage of people were renting (47% compared to 27%).

• A much lower percentage of family households (51% compared to 72%), and a much higher

percentage of single person households (35% compared to 23%).

• A much lower percentage of households had a weekly household income of less than $600

(17% compared to 21%).

• A much higher median weekly rent ($450 compared to $300) and a slightly higher

percentage of people whose rent payments were greater than 30% of household income


• A higher median monthly mortgage repayment ($2,535 compared to $1,810) and a lower

percentage of households whose mortgage repayment was more than 30.0% of their

income (8% compared to 11%).

• A slightly higher percentage of occupied private dwellings that had no registered motor

vehicle (12% compared to 9%) and a much higher percentage that had one registered

motor vehicle garaged or parked at their address (49% compared to 35%).

In comparison to Greater Melbourne the Docklands / Southbank area has:

• A much younger median age (30 years compared to 36).

• A much lower percentage of children and young people aged 0-19 years (10% compared to

25%).

• A much higher percentage of younger adults aged 20 to 34 years (53% compared to 23%).

• A much lower percentage of people aged 70 years and over (2% compared to 9%).

• A lower percentage of people who are married (42% compared to 49%).

• A much lower percentage of people were born in Australia (36% compared to 63%).

• A much lower percentage of people where both parents were born in Australia (26%

compared to 46%).

• A higher percentage of people who have no religious affiliation (30% compared to 24%), a

lower percentage of Catholic followers (18% compared to 27%), a lower percentage of


16

income. The median monthly mortgage repayment was in Docklands / Southbank was

$2,500. For 9.1% of households, their mortgage repayment was more than 30.0% of their

income.

• Approximately 12% of occupied private dwellings in Port Melbourne had no motor vehicles,

49% had one registered motor vehicle garaged or parked at their address, 30% had two

registered motor vehicles and 6% had three or more registered motor vehicles. In contrast,

27% of occupied private dwellings in Docklands / Southbank had no motor vehicles, 54%

had one registered motor vehicle garaged or parked at their address, 15% had two

registered motor vehicles and 3% had three or more registered motor vehicles.

2.5 A Comparison of Port Melbourne, Docklands / Southbank, & Greater Melbourne

Demographic Characteristics

In summary the demographic differences between the Greater Melbourne metropolitan area and the

Docklands / Southbank area are very significant. The differences between Greater Melbourne and

Port Melbourne are also significant but less than the Docklands / Southbank demographic profile.

In comparison to Greater Melbourne Port Melbourne has:

• A slightly older median age (38 years compared to 36).

• A much lower percentage of children and young people aged 0-19 years (15% compared to

25%).

• A slightly higher percentage of younger adults aged 20 to 34 years (26% compared to 23%).

• A similar percentage of people aged 70 years and over (8% compared to 9%).

• A similar percentage of people who are married (49% each).

• A slightly higher percentage of people were born in Australia (65% compared to 63%).

• A higher percentage of people where both parents were born in Australia (46% compared

to 46%).

• A higher percentage of people who have no religious affiliation (29% compared to 24%), a

lower percentage of Catholic followers (24% compared to 27%), a higher percentage of

Anglican followers (14% compared to 11%) and a higher percentage of people who are

Eastern Orthodox (9% compared to 6%).

• A higher percentage of people who only spoke English at home (73% compared to 66%).

• A much higher median weekly personal income ($1,091 compared to $591), median weekly

family income ($2,616 compared to $1,576) and median weekly household income

($1,995compared to $1,333).

• A much lower percentage of couple families with children (32% compared to 48%) and a

slightly lower percentage of one parent families (13% compared to 15%).



19

2.6 Implications of the Demographic Profile

Although the demographic profile has been presented for the purpose of indicating what the

potential future population of Fishermans Bend may look like, it can also be used as means to

influence future planning directions and achieve different demographic outcomes to these adjoining

areas. The following are presented as examples of how this may work in practice:

• If one planning goal is to encourage a relatively larger proportion of family households to

establish themselves in Fishermans Bend compared to Docklands and Southbank, Places

Victoria may wish to encourage developers to construct a higher proportion of 3 or more

bedroom dwellings, advocate for the establishment of a school, or schools within or close

to Fishermans Bend, and carefully plan for the inclusion of family friendly amenities within

the area (e.g. accessible, child-friendly passive open spaces).

• If another planning goal is to encourage a relatively larger proportion of older people to

settle in Fishermans Bend compared to Docklands and Southbank, Places Victoria may wish

to encourage developers to construct housing stock more suitable for older persons

including the strategic inclusion of independent living and residential aged care facilities.


18

Anglican followers (7% compared to 11%) and a higher percentage of people who are

Buddhists (8% compared to 4%).

• A much lower percentage of people who only spoke English at home (49% compared to

66%).

• A much higher median weekly personal income ($1,022 compared to $591), median weekly

family income ($2,339 compared to $1,576) and median weekly household income ($1,869

compared to $1,333).

• A much lower percentage of couple families with children (19% compared to 48%) and a

much lower percentage of one parent families (7% compared to 15%).

• A much lower percentage of occupied private dwellings (81% compared to 91%).

• A significantly lower percentage of dwellings that were separate houses (0% compared to

73%) and a significantly higher percentage of flats, units or apartments (98% compared to

15%).

• A much higher percentage of one-bedroom dwellings (23% compared to 5%), a much

higher percentage of two-bedroom dwellings (54% compared to 20%), but a much lower

percentage of three-bedroom dwellings (19% compared to 45%).

• A much lower percentage of people owned their home outright (15% compared to 33%),

but a significantly higher percentage of people were renting (60% compared to 27%).

• A much lower percentage of family households (51% compared to 72%), and a much higher

percentage of single person households (35% compared to 23%).

• A much lower percentage of households had a weekly household income of less than $600


• A much higher median weekly rent ($500 compared to $300) and a much higher

percentage of people whose rent payments were greater than 30% of household income


• A higher median monthly mortgage repayment ($2,500 compared to $1,810) and a lower

percentage of households whose mortgage repayment was more than 30.0% of their

income (9% compared to 11%).

• A much higher percentage of occupied private dwellings that had no registered motor

vehicle (27% compared to 9%) and a much higher percentage that had one registered

motor vehicle garaged or parked at their address (54% compared to 35%).

More detailed ABS Census tables are provided in Appendix 1 of this report.


vo

lu

me

3


21

Community Infrastructure Type Name of Facility / Service

Quantity / Description of Supply within 1 km of subject site

Quantity / Description of Supply between 1 to 2 kms of subject site Total Supply

• Page Reserve • Park-Eastern Reserve • Perce White Reserve • Port Melbourne Foreshore • Point Park • Queens Warehouse • R F Julier Reserve • Sangster Reserve • Seafarers Rest • Skinners Adventure Playground

South Melbourne • Smith Reserve • Sol Green Reserve • St Vincent Gardens • Turner Reserve • Victoria Green • Victoria Harbour Promenade • Walter Reserve • Westgate Park Parks between 1 km and 2 kms of Fishermans Bend include: • Ludwig Stamer Reserve • Danks Street Medians • Little Page Reserve • Little Finlay Reserve • Bowen Crescent Reserve • Royal Botanic Gardens • Kings Domain • Queen Victoria Gardens • Alexandra Gardens • Birrarung Marr • Federation Square • City Square • Flagstaff Gardens • Albert Park • Albert Park Foreshore

Reserves with active open space (including those without pavilions)

Nearest reserves are: • J L Murphy Reserve (5 playing

fields) • Port Melbourne Cricket Ground (1

playing field) • Lagoon Reserve (1 playing field) • R F Julier Reserve (1 playing field) • Albert Park has 21 playing fields (a

significant portion of Albert Park also exists beyond the 2 km radius of Fishermans Bend but has been included in this assessment for calculation purposes)

The City of Melbourne also proposes

• 4 reserves (8 playing fields)

• 1 reserve (21 playing fields)

• 5 reserves (29 playing fields)


20

3 Current Service and Facility Provision within or close to

Fishermans Bend

3.1 Existing and Planned Supply of Services and Facilities within 2 Kilometres of

Fishermans Bend

The following table identifies existing and planned community infrastructure within a 2 Kilometre

radius of the Fishermans Bend precinct including measures of quantity for each item. This audit is

presented as a first step in the process of identifying the current supply of communuity infrastructure

close to Fisheramns Bend and understanding current utilisation chracteristics, capacity constraints

and future opportunities (e.g. funding contributions from Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal toward

off-site community infrastructure improvements). While some basic utilisation data for certain

community infrastructure forms are presented, the table remains essentially a work in progress.

Stakeholders, particulalry the Cities of Port Phillip and Melbourne, will be further consulted about the

current utilsation of relevant community infrastructure identified in this table.

Table 2 – Community Infrastructure Audit




Open space

Passive open space Parks within 1 km of Fishermans Bend include: • Batman Park • Beacon Vista Reserve • Buckingham Reserve • Collins Landing • Crichton Reserve • Cumberland Reserve • Cyril Letts Reserve • Docklands Park • Edwards Park • Fennell Reserve • Flinders& Spencer Street Reserves • Garden City Reserve • Gasworks Arts Park • Gill Reserve • Hester Reserve • Howe Reserve • Lagoon Reserve • Lyell Reserve • Maritime Park • Moonee Ponds Creek • Morris Reserve • New Quay Promenade

• 40 reserves • 15 reserves • 55 reserves



23




Centre - Albert Park Reserve (10 courts available for basketball, 12 for badminton, 10 for squash & 30 table tennis tables)

• Albert Park Indoor Sports Centre (5 courts available for indoor netball & 5 for indoor soccer)

37 courts catering for badminton (12), indoor basketball (10), squash (10), indoor netball and indoor soccer (5 shared). In addition there are 30 table tennis tables available.

Public aquatic leisure centres

Nearest public / semi-public facilities are: • Melbourne Sports & Aquatic

Centre (State Government Owned / State Sports Centre Trust operated) located within the Albert Park

• Lakeside Stadium

• 0 • 2 facilities • 2 facilities

Private gymnasiums (note: this data may not be comprehensive as it was sourced via a google internet search, and should be used with caution)

Nearest facilities are: • Southport Health Club Genesis • Group Exercise Therapy • Corporate Fitness Club • Fitness First Collins Street • Fernwood Melbourne City • Fitness First Melbourne Central • Fitness First QV Platinum • Fitness First Bourke Street

• 4 • 4 • 8 private gyms

Tennis Facilities (data sourced from Port Phillip website and Melbourne Park website and individual tennis clubs)

Nearest facilities are: • Port Melbourne Tennis Club (3

courts) • Albert Park Lawn Tennis Club (2

tennis courts) • Melbourne Park Tennis Complex

(22 outdoor courts & 7 indoor courts)

A significant number of tennis facilities also exist just beyond the 2 km radius of Fishermans Bend.

• 2 facilities (5 outdoor courts)

• 1 facility (22 outdoor courts & 7 indoor courts)

• 3 facilities (27 outdoor courts and 7 indoor courts)


4 Year Old Kindergartens (sessional Kindergarten facilities only. Does not include Long day Child Care centres offering Kindergarten programs) Data sourced from DEECD Children’s Services Register March 2011

Nearest facilities are: • Port Melbourne Uniting

Kindergarten; • Albert Park Preschool Centre; • Lady Forster Kindergarten; • Lilian Cannam Kindergarten; • Civic Kindergarten; and • Middle Park Kindergarten.

• 4 Sessional Kindergartens (170 sessional Kindergarten places)

• 2 Sessional Kindergartens (58 sessional Kindergarten places)

• 6 Sessional kindergartens (228 sessional Kindergarten places)


22




additional active open space provision at Southbank and Docklands.

Playgrounds (Data sourced from Cities of Port Phillip and Melbourne websites)

Nearest playgrounds are: Port Melbourne • Buckingham Reserve, Port Melb • Crichton Reserve, Port Melb • Cyril Letts Reserve, Port Melb • Edwards Park, Port Melb • Garden City Reserve, Port Melb • J L Murphy Reserve, Port Melb • Morris Reserve Tennis Club, Port

Melb • Port Melbourne Foreshore • R F Julier Reserve, Port Melb • Sangster Reserve, Port Melb • Walter Reserve, Port Melb South Melbourne • Gasworks Park, Sth Melbourne • Ludwig Stamer Reserve, Sth Melb • Park-Eastern Reserve, Sth Melb • Skinners Adventure Playground,

Sth Melb • Sol Green Reserve, Sth Melb Docklands & Southbank • New Quay Promenade • Docklands Park • Grant St, Southbank Albert Park (may include playgrounds beyond the 2 km radius) • Albert Park Foreshore • Albert Park Lake • Danks St Medians, Albert Park • Little Finlay Reserve, Albert Park • Little Page Reserve, Albert Park • Lyal/Iffla Reserve, Albert Park • St Vincent Gardens, Albert Park Middle Park (may include playgrounds beyond the 2 km radius) • Ashworth St Reserve, Middle Park • Frank & Mary Crean Reserve,

Middle Park • H R Johnson Reserve, Middle Park • Jacoby Reserve, Middle Park • Neville St Reserve, Middle Park

• 19 playgrounds • 12 playgrounds • 31 playgrounds

Indoor recreation centres / courts

Nearest facilities: • Melbourne Sports & Aquatic

• 0 • 2 facilities • 2 facilities with a combined total of


vo

lu

me

3


25




• South Melbourne Kids Station Childcare

• South Melbourne Mission Free Kindergarten

• WonderKindy Port Melbourne • A.B.C. Developmental Learning

Centre - Melbourne Central • Clarendon Children's Centre Co-op • Dot 2 Dot Early Learning Centre • Emerald Hill Child Care Centre • Kids on Collins • Little Stars at Bourke Children's

Centre • Melbourne City Child Care • Melbourne City Childcare and

Kindergarten • QV Children's Centre • Sentia Early Learning • South Melbourne Child Care • Defence & ABC Child Care Centre

Occasional Child Care Nearest facilities: • Genesis Port Melbourne • Southport Playhouse • Montessori Community Preschool • ReCreation Child Minding • Charlton Brown Group • Event Child Care • MAC Early Learning Centre • Melbourne Sports & Aquatic

Centre

• 5 Occasional Child Care Service (149 places)

• 2 Occasional Child Care Service (91 places)

• 7 Occasional Child Care Services (240 places)

Council Community Centres (Data sourced from Cities of Melbourne and Port Phillip websites)

Nearest facilities are: • The Hub @ Docklands (Melbourne

City Council) • Boyd Community Centre

Southbank (Melbourne City Council)

• Fishermans Bend Community Centre(City of Port Phillip)

• Liardet Community Centre Port Melbourne (City of Port Phillip & Major Hub)

• Port Melbourne Community Centre and Trugo Club (City of Port Phillip)

• Port Melbourne Community Room (City of Port Phillip)

• Sandridge Community Centre and Trugo Club (City of Port Phillip)

• Sol Green Community Centre South Melbourne (City of Port Phillip)

• South Melbourne Community

• 10 facilities • 2 facilities • 12 facilities


24




3 Year Old Kindergartens (data sourced from websites of each individual Kindergarten)

Nearest facilities are: • Albert Park Preschool Centre (2

groups per week) • Lady Forster Kindergarten (1

group per week) • Lilian Cannam Kindergarten (2

groups per week) • Port Melbourne Uniting

Kindergarten (1 group per week) • Civic Kindergarten (1 group per

week) • Middle Park Kindergarten (2

groups per week)

• 4 Sessional Kindergartens (6 groups per week)

• 2 Sessional Kindergartens (3 groups per week)

• 6 Sessional kindergartens (9 groups per week)

Maternal & Child Health Nearest facilities are: • Port Melbourne MCH • South Melbourne MCH • Docklands MCH - The Harbour

Family and Children's Centre • Albert Park MCH • Middle Park MCH

• 4 MCH facilities • 1 MCH facility • 5 MCH facilities

Playgroup venues (data sourced from Playgroups Victoria website)

Nearest facilities accommodating playgroups are: • Port Melbourne Primary School –

soon to cease operating (3 groups meeting once a week)

• Pyke Family Wellbeing Centre (1 group)

• The Hub @ Docklands (9 groups meeting once a week each)

• Boyd Community Centre (1 group) • St Johns Lutheran Church (1

group) • South Melbourne Community

Centre (3 groups meeting once a week)

• St Luke Anglican Church (1 group) • Middle Park Community Centre (5

groups meeting once a week each)

• 7 playgroup venues • 1 playgroup venues • 8 playgroup venues

Long Day Child Care Centres

Nearest facilities are: • City Kids Early Learning Centre • Ada Mary A'beckett Children's

Centre Inc • Albert Park College Childcare

Centre • Clark Street Children's Centre • Coventry Children's Centre • Lady Gowrie Child Centre (Melb)

Inc • Little Assets - Melbourne City Early

Learning Centre • Penguin Childcare Melbourne

• 11 LDC facilities (1,014 places)

• 12 LDC facilities (982 places)

• 23 existing facilities (1,996 places)



27




• Boyd Community Centre Southbank

Melbourne CBD • Melbourne Town Hall (10 rooms)

Educational facilities

Neighbourhood house / adult education / U3A

Nearest facilities are: • Port Melbourne Neighbourhood

House; • The Hub @ Docklands; • Mary Keogh (Middle Park) – which

accommodates a U3A & Learn for Yourself

• 2 Neighbourhood Houses



Primary Schools (enrolments numbers are 2011 figures sourced from the My School website (http://www.myschool.edu.au).

Nearest facilities are: • Albert Park Primary School

(Government) – 401 enrolments • Galilee Regional Catholic Primary

School (Catholic) – 304 enrolments

• Port Melbourne Primary School (Government) – 543 enrolments

• Melbourne City School (Independent) - 29 enrolments

At the time of writing this assessment, the State Government appears set announce a new Government Primary School site at Ferrars Street, South Melbourne.

• 3 primary schools (2 Government and 1 Catholic)

• 1 primary school (1 Independent)

• 4 primary schools (3 Government, 1 Catholic & 1 Independent)

Secondary Schools (enrolments numbers are 2011 figures sourced from the My School website (http://www.myschool.edu.au).

Nearest facilities are: • Victorian College of The Arts

Secondary School (Government) – 343 enrolments

• Mac Robertson Girls High School (Government) - 921

• Melbourne City School (Independent)

• Melbourne Grammar School (Independent) – 803 enrolments

• Melbourne Grammar School (Independent) – 335 enrolments

• New Generation College (Independent) – 121 enrolments

• Taylors College (Independent) – 311 enrolments

• Albert Park College (Government) – 151 enrolments (only Year 7 offered currently but will expand in future)

• 1 Secondary School (1 Government)

• 6 Secondary Schools (1 Government & 5 Independents)

• 7 Secondary Schools (2 Government and 5 Independent)


26




Centre • South Melbourne Town Hall

Community Hub (City of Port Phillip & Major Hub)

• Mary Kehoe Community Centre Albert Park (City of Port Phillip)

• Middle Park Community Centre (City of Port Phillip)

Public venues for hire (Data sourced from Cities of Port Phillip and Melbourne websites)

Nearest facilities are: Port Melbourne • Fishermans Bend Community

Centre (100 people) • Port Melbourne Community

Centre (includes the Port Melbourne Neighbourhood House) consists of three meeting venues with capacity for 100 people, 80 people and 60 people.

• Sandridge Community Centre (60 people).

South Melbourne • St Luke's Hall (80 people) • Sol Green Recreation Centre (80

people) • South Melbourne Community

Centre (100 people) • South Melbourne Commons (100-

180 people) Albert Park • Gasworks Theatre (220 people) • Mary Kehoe Community Centre

(80 people) • Power House Conference &

Corporate Training Room (15-100 people)

• Powerhouse Function Centre (150-1000 people)

• Melbourne Sports & Aquatic Centre (50-700 people)

Middle Park • Middle Park Community Centre

(20 to 80 people) • Middle Park Primary School (Hall

1, 100 people; Hall 2, 100 people) Docklands & Southbank • The Hub@Docklands

• 12 facilities • 7 facilities • 19 facilities


vo

lu

me

3


29




• Sol Green Community Centre (South Melbourne);

• Port Melbourne Bowls Club; and • Port Melbourne Town Hall.

Arts & Culture Arts & Culture is a very broad term that encompasses many different art forms. Because of this the assessment provides only a snapshot of the arts and cultural infrastructure surrounding the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal site. Given its proximity to the heart of Melbourne it is not surprising that Fishermans Bend is within close proximity to an impressive number of diverse performance facilities, galleries and other community art spaces. Of note is the site’s close proximity to the Melbourne Arts Precinct, the City of Melbourne theatre district and the local Gasworks Art Park in Albert Park. The Melbourne Arts Precinct The Melbourne Arts Precinct. It differs from the Melbourne theatre district in the city centre, as most of the galleries and venues in the precinct are publicly funded. The precinct is also a prime location for the administrative offices, broadcast studios, schools and training institutions of many arts organisations. Public venues and galleries include: • The Arts Centre, including Hamer Hall, the State Theatre and other venues • National Gallery of Victoria • Various venues at the University of Melbourne's Southbank campus (formerly the Victorian College of the

Arts), including Space 28, and the Margaret Lawrence Gallery • MTC Theatre • Melbourne Recital Centre • Iwaki Auditorium at the ABC Centre • Australian Centre for Contemporary Art (ACCA) • Chunky Move (part of ACCA) • Malthouse Theatre • Sidney Myer Music Bowl Arts administration and education infrastructure includes: • The Australian Ballet, including the Australian Ballet School • Chunky Move at ACCA • Melbourne Symphony Orchestra (MSO) at the ABC Centre • Melbourne Theatre Company (MTC). • Victorian College of the Arts Secondary School (VCASS) • Australian Broadcasting Commission at the ABC Centre • Arts Victoria • Arts Access Victoria • Malthouse Theatre • Melbourne Opera Centre, offices of Opera Australia • University of Melbourne, Southbank campus • Musica Viva • More Than Opera Gasworks Arts Park Gasworks Arts Park is a vibrant arts precinct in Albert Park, on the site of the former South Melbourne Gas Plant. The precinct houses four hectares of park, two theatres, three gallery spaces, a café, as well as function and workshop spaces. Gasworks has sixteen resident visual artists and a small team of staff who work to present an annual program of festivals and events including seasons with some of Melbourne’s prominent arts festivals, farmers’ markets, classes and workshops, creative and professional development


28




Tertiary Education Facilities (main Institutions only)

Nearest facilities are: • 4 Universities (RMIT; University of

Melbourne with 1 site; La Trobe University, and VU with 3 sites)

• 4 institutions offering TAFE courses (Kangan TAFE with 2 campus sites; RMIT; William Angliss, and VU with 4 CBD campus sites).

It should also be noted that a significant number of other University campus sites, particularly those belonging to Melbourne University, exit just beyond the 2 km catchment of Fishermans Bend. There are also a number of specialist arts based institutions close by such as the Australian National Academy of Music (South Melbourne) and the Tertiary Australian Academy of Design (Port Melbourne).

• 0 Universities • 1 TAFE institution

(1 site)

• 4 Universities (6 sites)

• 4 TAFE institutions (7 sites)

• 4 TAFE Institutions (8 sites)

Special Schools (enrolments numbers are 2011 figures sourced from the My School website (http://www.myschool.edu.au).

Nearest facilities are: • Montague Continuing Education

Centre (Government) – 36 enrolments

• Port Phillip Specialist School (Government) – 123 enrolments

• 2 special schools • 0 • 2 special schools – 159 enrolments

Other facilities

Libraries Nearest facilities are: • Port Melbourne (Port Phillip) • Southbank Library @ Boyd

(Melbourne City Council) • Emerald Hill (Port Phillip) • Albert Park (Port Phillip) • Middle Park (Port Phillip) • The Hub Library Access Point (not

included in count of facilities) • Proposed Southbank Library

(Melbourne City Council) • City Library Melbourne

(Melbourne City Council) • State Library of Victoria

• 5 • 3 • 8 libraries

Planned Activity Group (PAG) facilities

Nearest facilities are: • South Port UnitingCare, South

Melbourne (319 Dorcas Street, South Melbourne);

• Betty Day Senior Community Centre;

• 5 PAG facilities • 0 • 5 PAG facilities



31




and • St Kilda Unit.

Health Services

Community health Nearest facility is the Inner South Community Health Service (South Melbourne site) whose catchment includes the City of Port Phillip. Just beyond the 2 km catchment of Fishermans Bend is the Central City Community Health Service operated by Doutta Galla Community Health whose catchment includes the City of Melbourne.

• 1 facility • 0 facility • 1 facility

Hospitals & Day Procedure facilities

Nearest facilities: • Specialist Centre Docklands • The Albert Road Clinic It should be noted that a significant number of public and private health facilities are located just beyond the 2 km catchment of the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal site. These include: • The Alfred Hospital; • Royal Childrens Hospital • Royal Melbourne Hospital; • Royal Women’s Hospital; • St Vincents & Mercy Private

Hospital; • Epworth Hospital; • Freemasons Hospital; • St Vincent's Hospital; • The Royal Victorian Eye and Ear

Hospital.

• 1 facility • 1 facility • 2 facilities

A series of maps showing much of the community infrastructure identified above is presented in

Appendix 5 of this report.

3.2 Preliminary Community Infrastructure Utilisation Data within the City of Port

Phillip

A preliminary audit of basic utilisation data for community infrastructure owned and / or managed by

the City of Port Phillip was prepared by Port Phillip Council as part of finalising the Stage 1

assessment, and is summarised in Appendix 6 of this report. It should be noted that gaps remain in


30




opportunities for artists, children’s programming and more. In addition, over 200 performing arts events and 30 visual arts exhibitions are presented in the venue each year.

Residential aged care There are currently 4 residential aged care providers located within 2 kms of the subject site, offering a total of 60 high care places and 153 low care places. The facilities are: • Wintringham Hostel - Port

Melbourne; • Claremont Home Inc; • Napier Street Aged Care Services;

and • South Port Community Residential

Home.

• 3 facilities (97 low care beds, 60 high care beds)

• 1 facility (56 low care beds, 0 high care beds)

• 4 facilities (153 low care places and 60 high care places)

Police Nearest facilities are: • South Melbourne CIU • South Melbourne Police Station

(Bank Street) • Melbourne West Police Station • Melbourne East Police Station • St Kilda Road Police Station • Proposed new City West Police

Station located at 313 Spencer street at the site of the former Australia Post Mail Centre (consolidating the Crime and Intelligence departments with a new police station for Melbourne West, housing 1,600 police members)

• 4 • 2 • 6

Metropolitan Fire Brigade Nearest facilities are Stations: • Station 39 (Port Melbourne); • Station 38 (South Melbourne); and • Station 2 (West Melbourne). It should be noted that the MFB is planning to relocate the Station 39 Port Melbourne facility to Lorimer Street.

• 2 • 1 • 3

Ambulance Victoria Nearest facilities are: • Port Melbourne; • South Melbourne; • West Melbourne; • City; • Central (St Vincents Hospital); • Alfred Hospital; and • Epworth Hospital.

• 2 • 2 • 4

State Emergency Services (SES)

Nearest facilities are: • Southbank (State Headquarters);

• 2 • 0 • 2


vo

lu

me

3


33

4 Review of Relevant Literature

4.1 Material Reviewed

A number of Port Phillip Council, Melbourne City Council and other agency strategies, plans and

polices were identified as potentially relevant to community infrastructure needs assessment. These

were:

City of Port Phillip3

• City of Port Phillip Council Plan: 2009-2013 Year 4;

• City of Port Phillip Community Plan: 2007-2017;

• Montague Precinct Structure Plan: Consultation Draft (June 2012);

• City of Port Phillip’s Open Space Strategy 2006 & 2009 Review;

• City of Port Phillip Play Space Strategy;

• Foreshore Management Plan, City of Port Phillip;

• Perc White Reserve Landscape Management Plan And Master Plan;

• City of Port Phillip Early Years Plan: Creating a Child-Friendly Port Phillip (2012–2015);

• City of Port Philip Arts and Culture Policy;

• City of Port Phillip Youth Development Strategy;

• City of Port Phillip Housing Strategy (2007 to 2017);

• Fishermans Bend Planning and Economic Development Strategy;

• City of Port Phillip Walk Plan 2011–2020;

• Feet First: Making pedestrians the priority;

• City of Port Philip Health & Wellbeing Plan 2007–2013;

• Integrated Family and Children Centres (Liardet Street Family and Children’s Centre & St

Kilda Family and Children's Centre);

• City of Port Phillip Ageing Well Strategy in Port Phillip: 2006-2016;

• J. L. Murphy Reserve Master Plan Report; and

• North Port Oval Redevelopment.

3 The City of Port of Phillip (CoPP) have identified additional reports which should also be considered in the ongoing planning of

Fishermans Bend including: Kids Plan 2010; Child Care Policy 2006 City of Port Phillip Access Plan 2013-2018; CoPP Community

Hubs Policy and Supporting Documentation 2004 (This policy is in review presently and will be updated in 2013); CoPP

Community Spaces and Places Policy; CoPP Community Leadership Statement of Principles 2006; CoPP Social Justice Charter

2011; CoPP Life Long Learning Statement of Commitment 2012; CoPP Reconciliation Action Plan 2012-09-27; CoPP Gambling

Policy 2011; ISEPICH (Inner South East Partnership in Community and Health) – Improving Access to Community Facilities

Report – Focussed on Social Inclusion 2011,; and Vic Health’s – Participation for Health Framework (2009).


32

the utilisation data presented and more additional utilisation characteristics could also be obtained as

part of future planning processes, where thought to be appropriate. No utilisation data was obtained

for services and facilities located within the City of Melbourne. For these reasons the information

presented is considered preliminary. Acknowledging the data gaps it appears that a number of

community infrastructure forms are well utilised including:

• Albert Park outdoor playing fields and multipurpose indoor court stadiums;

• Early years services (includes Kindergartens, Maternal & Child Health and Long Day Child

Care Centres);

• Local Schools (Government, Catholic and other Non-Government); and

• Council community centres (including community meeting spaces contained within them).

However, for most community infrastructure forms it is too early to confirm the level of total spare

capacity which may or may not exist. Further analysis is required as part of the next stage of

planning.



35

- early years services;

- active and passive open space;

- health;

- indoor recreation and outdoor recreation;

- housing;

- arts and culture; and

- libraries.

3. In addition to specific recommendations that may be applicable to proposed

redevelopment area, many of these documents provide guiding values, principles, goals

and objectives that were used as a basis for formulating future recommendations.

A more detailed description of each of these reports is contained within Appendix 2.


34

City of Melbourne

• Melbourne City Council Plan 2009-2013 (Revised 2011);

• Public Health and Wellbeing Plan (Integrated within Council Plan);

• Docklands Community and Place Plan (July 2012);

• Open Space Strategy 2012;

• City of Melbourne Open Space Contributions Framework;

• City of Melbourne Community Infrastructure Plan 2007 – 2017;

• Community Infrastructure Implementation Framework (2011 Update);

• Active Melbourne Strategy;

• Empowering Young People Policy;

• Strategy for a Safer City 2011-13;

• Delivering for Docklands Strategy (2007-2010);

• Lifelong Melbourne Plan (2006-2016);

• Melbourne Library Service Strategic Plan (2008-2018);

• Southbank Structure Plan 2010;

• City of Melbourne’s Children’s Plan 2010-2013; and

• City of Melbourne Arts Strategy: 2010-2013.

Other Material Reviewed

• Inner City Government Primary School Provision: Port Melbourne Feasibility Analysis

(2012), DEECD;

• Port Interface Landscape Masterplan (2012), Port of Melbourne Corporation;

• Delivering diverse and affordable housing on infill development sites (2012), Australian

Housing & Urban Research Institute; and

• Vertical Living Kids (2009), by Whitzman, C & Mizrachi, D.

4.2 Implications of Review

Three broad implications arise from the literature reviewed above. These are:

1. There are clearly a number of key Council and other agency strategies, plans and polices

that need to be taken into consideration when planning for new or reconfigured

community infrastructure within or close to the subject site;

2. These documents cover a broad range of population target groups and community

infrastructure forms including:


vo

lu

me

3


37

Table 4 - Proposed Development Scenarios by % of Dwellings in Each Precinct (Indicative Only)

Precinct



Scenario 2 (Low)


Scenario 3 (Medium) % of Dwellings by

Precinct

Scenario 4 (High)


Montague 50% 45% 40% 30%

Sandridge 25% 25% 25% 30%

Wirraway 15% 20% 25% 30%

Lorimer 10% 10% 10% 10%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 5 provides current net developable area4 (NDA) estimates for each of the four precincts in

Fishermans Bend. While these estimates are preliminary and subject to change, they are considered

by Places Victoria as adequate for the purposes of this assessment. The NDA estimates are an

important component of determining how much unencumbered public open space should be set

aside as part of the future development of Fishermans Bend (refer to Section 5.4 of this report for

more details on the use of open space standards in this assessment).

Table 5 - Net Developable Area Preliminary Assumptions for Fishermans Bend by Precinct Montague Sandridge Wirraway Lorimer Total

Net Developable Area (Hectares) 30.3 67.2 58.2 25.2 180.9

5.2 Age Profile Assumptions

Using 2011 ABS Census data a single year age profile of people living in four storey and over dwellings

by the number of bedrooms across Greater Melbourne was constructed. This age profile was then

applied to each development scenario. Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9 which follow provide a hypothetical age

profile for each development scenario. The age cohorts shown reflect a requirement for (but not

necessarily restricted to) the following types of services and / or facilities:

• 0 - 3 Years - Maternal and Child Health Services, Playgroups;

• 4 Years - Preschool Services;

• 0-6 Years - Long Day Child Care, Occasional Child Care, Maternal and Child; Health Services,

Family Day Care, Specialist Early Intervention Services;

4 The Growth Areas Authority defines Net Developable Area (NDA) as the “total amount of land within the precinct that is made

available for development of housing and employment buildings, including lots, local and connector streets. Put simply, it is the

total precinct area minus community facilities, schools and educational facilities and open space, encumbered land and arterial

roads. Small local parks defined at the subdivision stage are included in NDA.” (Source: Diggers Rest Development Contributions

Plan, November 2011)


36

5 Development Assumptions & Provision Standards

5.1 Dwelling, Population & Net Developable Area Assumptions

The due diligence phase of the assessment involves understanding the impact of various development

scenarios on community infrastructure demand and community infrastructure supply requirements.

At the time of writing this assessment there was no preferred development scenario. The four

development scenarios outlined below in Table 3 clearly shows the significant variation of dwelling

and population assumptions from Scenario 1 (Incremental) at the low end, to Scenario 4 (High) at the

high end. Consequently, a clear and definitive community infrastructure plan can only be prepared

once the most likely development scenario is determined. It should be noted that the dwelling

breakdowns for each scenario are indicative only and presented for the purposes of preparing this

Stage 1 assessment report. The scenarios will require further refinement with the Fishermans Bend

Planning & Design working group overseen by Places Victoria.

Table 3 - Proposed Development Scenarios by Number and Type of Dwellings (Indicative Only)

Type of Dwellings % of Dwelling

Types

Scenario 1 (Incremental) Total Number

Dwellings

Scenario 2 (Low)

Total Number Dwellings

Scenario 3 (Medium)


Scenario 4 (High)


Bedsits & Studios 3% 150 600 1,200 1,800

One-bedroom dwellings 10% 500 2,000 4,000 6,000

Two-bedroom dwellings 65% 3,250 13,000 26,000 39,000

Three-bedroom dwellings 20% 1,000 4,000 8,000 12,000

Four-bedroom dwellings 2% 100 400 800 1,200

Total Dwellings 100% 5,000 20,000 40,000 60,000


Table 4 below indicates the percentage of dwellings each of the four precincts within Fishermans

Bend will accommodate under each of the four development scenarios. For the most scenarios, the

Montague precinct will most likely be the largest precinct (50% at the low scenario down to 30% at

the highest scenario), followed by Sandridge (25 to 30%, Wirraway (15 to 30%). The Lorimer precinct

located in the City of Melbourne will most likely account for 10% of all dwellings under all four

scenarios.



38

• 5-11 Years - Primary School, After Hours School Care, School Holiday; Programs, Family Day

Care;

• 5-14 Years – Participation by children in organised sport and leisure activities

• 12-17 Years - Secondary School, School Holiday programs;

• 15 years and over - Participation in organised sport and leisure activities

• 55+ Years- Senior Citizens Groups and Centres;

• 70+ Years - HACC Services, Nursing Homes/Aged Hostels / Retirement Villages;

• Centre Based Support Services (e.g. Planned Activity group); and

• All population age cohorts – Libraries, Neighbourhood Houses etc.


vo

lu

me

3


39

Table 6 – Scenario 1 (Incremental) Indicative Age Cohort Profile

Age Cohort Types of Community Infrastructure the Age Cohort is Relevant to Bedsits & Studios One-bedroom Two-bedrooms Three-bedrooms Four-bedrooms Total

0-3 MCH, Playgroups 2 10 203 106 9 329

4 4 Year Old Kindergarten 1 1 33 26 1 62

0-6 Long Day Child Care & Occasional Child Care 3 12 287 187 13 502

5-11 Primary School enrolments, out of school hours care 2 3 139 185 13 341

5-14 Participation in organised sports (5 to 14 years) 2 4 188 261 24 479

15+ Participation in organised sports (15 + years) 175 660 5,592 2,228 259 8,914

12-25 Youth Infrastructure 82 181 1,584 747 103 2,697

15-24 Participation in higher education (15 to 24 Years) 73 150 1,298 598 83 2,203

25+ Participation in higher education (25 + years) 102 510 4,294 1,630 175 6,712

12-17 Secondary School enrolments 2 4 116 166 22 311

70+ Residential & home based aged care services 8 38 356 169 10 581

Total Population 179 675 6,016 2,622 292 9,784

Dwellings 150 500 3,250 1,000 100 5,000



40

Table 7 – Scenario 2 (Low) Indicative Age Cohort Profile


0-3 MCH, Playgroups 8 39 811 424 35 1,317


0-6 Long Day Child Care & Occasional Child Care 13 47 1,148 747 53 2,009

5-11 Primary School enrolments, out of school hours care 7 10 555 741 53 1,366

5-14 Participation in organised sports (5 to 14 years) 8 15 752 1,046 94 1,916

15+ Participation in organised sports (15 + years) 699 2,642 22,368 8,914 1,034 35,657

12-25 Youth Infrastructure 327 725 6,335 2,989 411 10,786

15-24 Participation in higher education (15 to 24 Years) 291 602 5,193 2,393 332 8,810

25+ Participation in higher education (25 + years) 408 2,040 17,176 6,520 702 26,847

12-17 Secondary School enrolments 9 17 465 665 89 1,246

70+ Residential & home based aged care services 34 150 1,423 676 41 2,324

Total Population 717 2,700 24,064 10,488 1,167 39,137

Dwellings 600 2,000 13,000 4,000 400 20,000


vo

lu

me

3


41

Table 8 – Scenario 3 (Medium) Indicative Age Cohort Profile


0-3 MCH, Playgroups 16 78 1,622 847 70 2,634


0-6 Long Day Child Care & Occasional Child Care 27 94 2,296 1,495 106 4,017

5-11 Primary School enrolments, out of school hours care 13 21 1,110 1,481 106 2,732

5-14 Participation in organised sports (5 to 14 years) 16 31 1,504 2,092 189 3,831

15+ Participation in organised sports (15 + years) 1,398 5,284 44,737 17,827 2,068 71,314

12-25 Youth Infrastructure 653 1,450 12,669 5,978 822 21,573

15-24 Participation in higher education (15 to 24 Years) 581 1,203 10,385 4,786 665 17,621

25+ Participation in higher education (25 + years) 816 4,081 34,351 13,041 1,404 53,693

12-17 Secondary School enrolments 18 35 930 1,330 178 2,491

70+ Residential & home based aged care services 67 300 2,845 1,353 83 4,648

Total Population 1,435 5,400 48,129 20,976 2,335 78,274

Dwellings 1,200 4,000 26,000 8,000 800 40,000



42

Table 9 – Scenario 4 (High) Indicative Age Cohort Profile


0-3 MCH, Playgroups 24 117 2,434 1,271 105 3,950


0-6 Long Day Child Care & Occasional Child Care 40 141 3,443 2,242 159 6,026

5-11 Primary School enrolments, out of school hours care 20 31 1,665 2,222 159 4,097

5-14 Participation in organised sports (5 to 14 years) 24 46 2,256 3,138 283 5,747

15+ Participation in organised sports (15 + years) 2,097 7,926 67,105 26,741 3,103 106,971

12-25 Youth Infrastructure 980 2,176 19,004 8,967 1,233 32,359

15-24 Participation in higher education (15 to 24 Years) 872 1,805 15,578 7,180 997 26,431

25+ Participation in higher education (25 + years) 1,225 6,121 51,527 19,561 2,106 80,540

12-17 Secondary School enrolments 27 52 1,395 1,996 268 3,737

70+ Residential & home based aged care services 101 450 4,268 2,029 124 6,972

Total Population 2,152 8,100 72,193 31,464 3,502 117,411

Dwellings 1,800 6,000 39,000 12,000 1,200 60,000


vo

lu

me

3


44

• Conversely, the percentage of people attending university within the predominantly high

rise communities of Docklands, Melbourne and Southbank are significantly higher than very

low rise or moderately low rise communities such as Port Melbourne and South

Melbourne; and

• Overall, the significance of the relationship between residential dwelling stock profile and

community infrastructure demand is not simply linked to residential densities (i.e. the

number of people per square kilometre), but the combination of high rise, high density

living.

Table 10 – The Relationship between the Prevalence of High Rise Development and Attendance at Different Types of Educational Institutions Using 2011 ABS Census Data

Low Density /

Low Rise High Density /

Moderately High Rise High Density /

Predominantly High Rise

Greater

Melbourne Port

Melbourne South

Melbourne Docklands Melbourne Southbank

% of Dwellings 4 Storeys + 3 31 31 76 75 76

% of People Living in Dwellings 4 Storeys + 2 30 32 96 88 92

Square Kilometres 9,990 9.9 2.5 3 6.2 1.3

Population 3,999,982 14,521 9,317 5,791 28,370 11,235

People per square kilometre 400 1467 3727 1930 4576 8642

% Attending Pre-school 1.7% 1.4% 1.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.4%

% Attending Infants/Primary - Government 4.9% 2.9% 2.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

% Attending Infants/Primary - Catholic 1.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

% Attending Infants/Primary - Other Non-Government 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3%

% Attending Secondary - Government 3.4% 1.2% 1.0% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6%

% Attending Secondary - Catholic 1.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

% Attending Secondary - Other Non-Government 1.4% 1.0% 1.2% 0.7% 0.8% 0.7%

% Attending Technical or Further Educational Institution (including TAFE Colleges) 2.2% 1.2% 1.9% 2.2% 3.6% 2.4%

% Attending University or other Tertiary Institution 5.3% 4.4% 7.0% 10.7% 23.1% 15.4%

% Other 1.0% 0.9% 1.0% 1.1% 2.0% 1.5%

% Not stated 6.6% 8.1% 9.0% 17.2% 12.5% 11.3%

% Not applicable 69.2% 76.9% 72.8% 65.5% 56.2% 66.6%


43

5.3 The Relationship between High Rise Development and Community Infrastructure

Demand: The Case Study of Educational Attendance

This section presents the case study of educational attendance statistics to demonstrate how high rise

residential development (i.e. dwellings 4 storeys or more) within inner Melbourne can generate

significantly different community infrastructure demands from the more conventional low rise

residential development of most of Metropolitan Melbourne, and even high density (i.e. people per

square kilometre) and moderately high rise communities such as Port Melbourne and South

Melbourne.

Educational attendance statistics from the 2011 ABS Census were analysed and examined against

three key variables:

• The proportion of dwellings and people within a given geographic area that are defined as

living in residential apartments of four storeys or more;

• The educational participation rates as a percentage of specific age cohort populations

within a given geographic area; and

• The provision of existing schools within a given catchment area.

Table 10 below compares the percentage of people attending different types of educational

institutions in 6 geographic areas (Greater Melbourne, Port Melbourne, South Melbourne, Docklands,

Melbourne and Southbank) and the percentage of dwellings and people living in four storeys and over

residential apartments. Greater Melbourne is defined as predominantly low density (400 people per

square kilometre) and low rise (only 3% of all dwellings are defined as four storeys or more). Port

Melbourne and South Melbourne are defined as high density and moderately high rise (31% of all

dwellings are defined as four storeys or more). Docklands, Melbourne (the suburb) and Southbank

are defined as high density and high rise (75% of all dwellings are defined as four storeys or more).

The table shows that:

• Approximately 75% of the housing stock in Docklands, Melbourne and Southbank are

defined as dwellings 4 storeys or more, much higher than the Metropolitan Melbourne

average (3%) and even neighbouring inner suburbs such as Port Melbourne and South

Melbourne (31% each);

• The percentage of people children attending preschool, primary schools and secondary

schools within the predominantly high rise communities of Docklands, Melbourne and

Southbank are significantly less than very low rise or moderately low rise communities such

as Port Melbourne and South Melbourne;



46

In relation to TAFE participation rates the table shows:

• The percentage of people aged 15 to 24 years attending TAFE full-time are the same in

Inner High Rise / Density Melbourne and the Greater Melbourne Metropolitan area (5%);

• The percentage of people aged 25 and over attending TAFE full-time are the same in Inner

High Rise / Density Melbourne and the Greater Melbourne Metropolitan area (1%);

• The percentage of people aged 15 to 24 years attending TAFE part-time is lower in Inner

High Rise / Density Melbourne a (1%) compared to the Greater Melbourne Metropolitan

area (3%); and

• The percentage of people aged 25 and over attending TAFE part-time are the same in Inner

High Rise / Density Melbourne and the Greater Melbourne Metropolitan area (1%).

In relation to University participation rates the table shows:

• The percentage of people aged 15 to 24 years attending University full-time is significantly

higher in Inner High Rise / Density Melbourne (49%) compared to the Greater Melbourne

Metropolitan area (22%);

• The percentage of people aged 25 and over attending University full-time is higher in Inner

High Rise / Density Melbourne (5%) compared to the Greater Melbourne Metropolitan area

(1%);

• The percentage of people aged 15 to 24 years attending University part-time are the same

in Inner High Rise / Density Melbourne a (2%) and the Greater Melbourne Metropolitan

area (2%); and

• The percentage of people aged 25 and over attending University part-time is slightly higher

in Inner High Rise / Density Melbourne (3%) compared to the Greater Melbourne

Metropolitan area (2%).

Table 11 - 2011 Educational Attendance Rates Compared

High Density /

Predominantly High Rise Greater Melbourne

Persons

Attending Ed Institution

Population of Age Cohorts

% of Age Cohort


Persons Attending Ed

Institution


% of Age Cohort


4 to 5 Years 4 to 5 Years

Pre-school 166 254 65% 67,897 102988 66%

Infants/Primary:

5 to 11 Years

5 to 11 Years

Government 242 557 43% 197,319 336580 59%

Catholic 56 557 10% 68,018 336580 20%

Other Non Gov. 120 557 22% 37,000 336580 11%


45

Low Density /

Low Rise High Density /

Moderately High Rise High Density /

Predominantly High Rise

Greater

Melbourne Port

Melbourne South

Melbourne Docklands Melbourne Southbank

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 11 below compares the educational participation rates of the high density / predominantly high

rise communities of Docklands, Melbourne and Southbank with the Greater Melbourne Metropolitan

area.

In relation to Primary School participation rates the table shows:

• The percentage of children aged 5 to 11 years attending government primary schools is

much lower in Inner High Rise / Density Melbourne (43%) compared to the Greater

Melbourne Metropolitan area (59%);

• The percentage of children aged 5 to 11 years attending Catholic primary schools is much

lower in Inner High Rise / Density Melbourne (10%) compared to the Greater Melbourne

Metropolitan area (20%); and

• The percentage of children aged 5 to 11 years attending non-government primary schools

is much higher in Inner High Rise / Density Melbourne (22%) compared to the Greater

Melbourne Metropolitan area (11%).

In relation to Secondary School participation rates the table shows:

• The percentage of children aged 12 to 17 years attending government secondary schools is


Melbourne Metropolitan area (47%);

• The percentage of children aged 12 to 17 years attending Catholic secondary schools is


Melbourne Metropolitan area (20%); and

• The percentage of children aged 12 to 17 years attending non-government secondary

schools is much higher in Inner High Rise / Density Melbourne (39%) compared to the

Greater Melbourne Metropolitan area (19%).


vo

lu

me

3


48

High Density /


Persons



% of Age Cohort



Institution


% of Age Cohort


Full/Part-time student status not stated 43

1,253

Total 8889

213,648

These differential patterns of educational attendance rates have been taken into consideration when

estimating educational demand from each development scenario.

The participation rates shown above are also likely to be influenced by what and how many schools of

a particular type exist within the local catchment area. Generally across Melbourne, the largest

provider of education (both in terms of enrolments and campus sites) is the government sector,

followed by the Catholic Education sector and then other non-Government schools. However, inner

Melbourne has a significantly different education provision profile.

For example there are no conventional Government secondary colleges within a 2 kilometre radius of

Fishermans Bend (Mac Robertson Girls High School which is unique in its status as a statewide

provider for girls in years 9 to 12, and the Victorian College of The Arts Secondary School is a State

Government selective school), and the Catholic system has only one site within this catchment

(Galilee Regional Catholic Primary School).

Even more striking is the fact that within a 3 kilometre radius of Fishermans Bend are 13 secondary

school sites, 9 of which are non-Government, 3 Government and 1 Catholic. This provides a strong

correlation between the lack of Government and Catholic secondary schools in inner Melbourne, and

the relatively low participation rates in these schools.

In terms of higher education the significantly higher participation rates at University of people aged

15-24 years within in inner Melbourne appears clearly linked to the large concentration of higher

education facilities in the Melbourne CBD and Melbourne’s inner north (e.g. Parkville). Even though it

is a little further away in terms of proximity to these campuses, it can be anticipated that Fishermans

Bend will continue to attract a higher proportion of university students compared to the rest of

Melbourne.


47

High Density /


Persons



% of Age Cohort



Institution


% of Age Cohort


Total 418 557 75% 302,337 336580 90%

Secondary:

12-17 Years

12-17 Years

Government 277 892 31% 137,248 291101 47%

Catholic 91 892 10% 58,608 291101 20%

Other Non Gov. 348 892 39% 56,249 291101 19%

Total 716 892 80% 252,105 291101 87%

Technical or Further Educational Institution:

Full-time student:

Aged 15-24 years 692 12704 5% 25,509 552942 5%

Aged 25 years and over 358 30695 1% 14,977 2707854 1%

Part-time student:

Aged 15-24 years 96 12704 1% 19,149 552942 3%


Full/Part-time student status not stated 6

1,090

Total 1406

88,764

University or other Tertiary Institution:

Full-time student:

Aged 15-24 years 6253 12704 49% 122,019 552942 22%


Part-time student:

Aged 15-24 years 213 12704 2% 11,067 552942 2%




50

Addressing “knowledge gaps” becomes an important part of the ongoing community infrastructure

planning work required to deliver a meaningful and effective Community Infrastructure Plan for the

Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal area. For example, Places Victoria, in collaboration with Melbourne

City Council and Port Phillip Council, could undertake to survey people living in Docklands, Southbank

and other high density environments about their current leisure interests and future leisure priorities

for the local area.

Another important cautionary note relates to the use of some “bricks and mortar” or facility

standards, as opposed to demand based estimators. In this respect, the standard used by DEECD for

Government Primary School provision in outer Melbourne Growth areas provides the best illustration

of this point. DEECD typically indicates a need to provide a 3.5 hectare Government Primary School

site for every 3,000 dwellings in an outer growth area. However, if this were applied without

consideration to the likely enrolment yield from Fishermans Bend (using the demand estimators

provided by this assessment) it would result in a recommendation for a far higher number of schools

than actually required to accommodate the enrolment yield estimate.

With this in mind the standards used are presented not only to provide a preliminary understanding

of likely provision targets, but also as a means of engaging with key stakeholders such as Port Phillip

and Melbourne City Councils to discuss and refine, where necessary, standards and demand

estimators to be used.

Table 12 below shows the main community infrastructure demand and supply measures (and its

source) used for the purposes of this assessment. It should be noted that these measures reflect

what the ultimate needs of the community will be, and what the subject site (Fishermans Bend) or the

broader catchment should accommodate, but not necessarily what the Development Contributions

Plan (DCP) to be prepared for the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal site should fund.


49

5.4 The Use of Community Infrastructure Standards to Estimate Demand and Supply

Requirements

The community infrastructure provision standards used by this assessment were developed from a

variety of sources to assist with estimating both the demand for, and supply of community

infrastructure for each of the four development scenarios. The sources of these standards include:

• Port Phillip and Melbourne Planning Schemes and, where applicable, other Council

Strategies and Plans;

• Population and census data, and other survey data from sources such as the Australian

Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Sports Commission;

• Indicative guidelines provided by State Government Departments (e.g. Department of

Education & Early Childhood Development) and key non-Government agencies (e.g. the

Catholic Education Office of the Melbourne Archdiocese), some of which are identified

within the PCIGA report, but others were obtained during the course of the consultation

process undertaken as part of the update;

• Precinct Structure Plan Guidelines (PSP Guidelines) used by the Growth Areas Authority;

• Reports from major national data agencies such as the Australian Institute of Health &

Welfare (AIHW) and key State Strategies such as the Victorian Metropolitan Health Plan

(2011); and

• Other reference documents that include an analysis of community infrastructure standards

(e.g. Planning for Community Infrastructure in Growth Areas prepared by ASR research in

2008).

5.4.1 The Limitations of Community Infrastructure Standards

While providing a useful guide of demand and supply requirements generated by a given

development, community infrastructure standards and “demand estimators” do have limitations. For

example, the estimates of organised sporting participation are based on survey data from various

sources (Australian Sports Commission and the ABS) and generalised for the Victorian population as a

whole. In reality, little is known about the sporting preferences and participation levels of people

living in high density urban environments such as Docklands and Southbank. In the absence of such

information a reference back to high level National and State data becomes important, but needs to

be qualified by and tested against the “coal-face” strategic work undertaken by local councils, and the

anecdotal feedback from Council officers about local demand trends and current provision gaps.


vo

lu

me

3


51

Table 12 – Community Infrastructure Standards / Demand Estimates Used

Community Infrastructure Category Provision

Ratio Unit of Measure Source of Standard


All affordable housing5 20% % of all dwellings within a proposed development area. Inner Melbourne Action Plan

Social housing (public and or community) 6% % of all dwellings within a proposed development area Inner Melbourne Action Plan


Port Phillip Open Space Planning Scheme Requirement 5.0% % of Developable Land Port Phillip Planning Scheme

Proposed Melbourne Open Space Planning Scheme Requirements for high growth locations such as Docklands and Southbank6 8.0% % of Developable Land

Proposed Melbourne Planning Scheme open space requirement for high growth / change locations within the municipality (2012 amendment)

Montague Precinct Structure Plan: Consultation Draft, June 2012 10.0% % of Developable Land Montague Precinct Structure Plan: Consultation Draft, June 2012



Indoor recreation centres / courts 10,000 Total population per court Typical low density, Melbourne Growth Area provision standard used by ASR Research / Growth Area Councils

Council aquatic / leisure centres(indoor aquatic + gym only) 80 to

120,000 Total population per facility ASR Research calculation of actual Council indoor aquatic leisure centre provision across Metropolitan Melbourne (2011)

Council aquatic / leisure centres members (indoor aquatic + gym only) 3.4%

% of Population who are members of a Council aquatic / leisure centre

Based on 2010 CERM PI® Operational Management Benchmarks for Australian Public Sports & Aquatic Centres


Tennis courts 2,500 Total population per court Typical low density, Melbourne Growth Area provision standard used by ASR Research / Growth Area Councils

Cricket ovals 4,000 Total population per playing field Typical low density, Melbourne Growth Area provision standard used

5 ‘Affordable housing’ is housing that costs less than 30 per cent of income for households at the lower 40 per cent of household income. 6 This forms part of a planning scheme amendment endorsed by Melbourne City Council, but still waiting for Ministerial approval.



52



by ASR Research / Growth Area Councils

Football ovals 4,000 Total population per playing field Typical low density, Melbourne Growth Area provision standard used by ASR Research / Growth Area Councils

Outdoor netball courts 7,000 Total population per court Typical low density, Melbourne Growth Area provision standard used by ASR Research / Growth Area Councils

Soccer fields 7,000 Total population per playing field Typical low density, Melbourne Growth Area provision standard used by ASR Research / Growth Area Councils


Aerobics / fitness 8.2% % of people aged 15 + participating in organised sports Australian Sports Commission, Participation in Exercise, Recreation and Sport: Annual Report for States & Territories Victoria (2010)

AFL 4.1% % of people aged 15 + participating in organised sports Australian Sports Commission, Participation in Exercise, Recreation and Sport: Annual Report for States & Territories Victoria (2010)

Golf 3.6% % of people aged 15 + participating in organised sports Australian Sports Commission, Participation in Exercise, Recreation and Sport: Annual Report for States & Territories Victoria (2010)

Tennis 3.4% % of people aged 15 + participating in organised sports Australian Sports Commission, Participation in Exercise, Recreation and Sport: Annual Report for States & Territories Victoria (2010)

Basketball 3.4% % of people aged 15 + participating in organised sports Australian Sports Commission, Participation in Exercise, Recreation and Sport: Annual Report for States & Territories Victoria (2010)

Netball 3.3% % of people aged 15 + participating in organised sports Australian Sports Commission, Participation in Exercise, Recreation and Sport: Annual Report for States & Territories Victoria (2010)

Cricket (outdoor) 2.6% % of people aged 15 + participating in organised sports Australian Sports Commission, Participation in Exercise, Recreation and Sport: Annual Report for States & Territories Victoria (2010)

Yoga 2.4% % of people aged 15 + participating in organised sports Australian Sports Commission, Participation in Exercise, Recreation and Sport: Annual Report for States & Territories Victoria (2010)

Soccer (outdoor) 2.2% % of people aged 15 + participating in organised sports Australian Sports Commission, Participation in Exercise, Recreation and Sport: Annual Report for States & Territories Victoria (2010)

Running 1.9% % of people aged 15 + participating in organised sports Australian Sports Commission, Participation in Exercise, Recreation and Sport: Annual Report for States & Territories Victoria (2010)



vo

lu

me

3


53



Swimming 22.5% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009

Australian Rules football 18.5% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009

Basketball 13.8% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009

Tennis 11.7% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009

Other organised sports 9.7% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009

Netball (indoor and outdoor) 9.4% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009

Cricket (outdoor) 7.4% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009

Soccer (outdoor) 6.0% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009

Martial arts 5.5% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009

Gymnastics 4.6% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009

Athletics, track and field 4.2% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009

Soccer (indoor) 3.2% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009

Hockey 1.1% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009

Rugby league 0.0% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009

At least one organised sport 68.5% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009



54



Organised sports and/or dancing 72.0% % of people aged 5-14 participating in organised sports ABS (Cat. 4901.0 ) Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009

4. Multipurpose Community Centre Component Analysis (see below)

4.1 Kindergartens

% of 4 year olds participating in 4 year old Kindergarten 87% % of all eligible children participating in 4 Year Old Sessional Subsidised Kindergarten(not in a Long Day Child Care Setting)

ASR Research constructed standard using actual provision Melbourne Metropolitan provision levels as a guide

Total number of enrolments in 4 year old sessional Kindergarten 90% % of participating children (see above) enrolled at a Sessional Kindergarten service


Number of Kindergarten rooms in current policy environment 75 Number of sessional Kindergarten rooms required if 1 Kindergarten room accommodates 75 enrolments per week


Number of Kindergarten rooms when proposed policy changes are implemented 66

Number of sessional Kindergarten rooms required if 1 Kindergarten room accommodates 66 enrolments per week


% of 3 year olds particpating in 3 year old activity groups 40% % of 3 year olds participating in 3 year old activity groups ASR Research constructed standard using actual provision Melbourne Metropolitan provision levels as a guide

Number of 3 year old activity groups per week 2 Number of 3 year old activity groups per week (based on 20 children per group, 2 sessions per week @ 3 hours per session)


Number of rooms required to accommodate 3 year old activity groups 2 Based on 2 sessions per day, per room ASR Research constructed standard using actual provision Melbourne

Metropolitan provision levels as a guide


Number of MCH sessions per week 60 1 session per 60 children aged 0-3 years ASR Research constructed standard using actual provision Melbourne Metropolitan provision levels as a guide

Number of MCH consulting units 10 Number of MCH consulting units required based on number of sessions per week (see above)


4.3 Playgroup

Number of 2 hr playgroup sessions per week 50 Total number of children aged 0-3 years required to generate demand for a 2 hour playgroup session per

ASR Research constructed standard using actual participation data in various Growth Area Councils


vo

lu

me

3


55



week


Amount of sqms of community meeting space 30 Total number people per sqm of Council community meeting space



Number of occasional child care places @ 1 place per 48 children aged 0-6 years 48 Total number people aged 0 to 6 years per licensed place

ASR Research constructed standard using actual Melbourne Metropolitan provision levels as a guide (2011). Data source - Register of Licensed Children's Services in Victoria (abbreviated at 3 March 2011)

Number of occasional child care centres 30 Total number of facilities required based on number of licensed places generated (see above)

ASR Research constructed standard using provision models operating in Metropolitan Melbourne


Number of Long Day Child Care places 6.8 Total number people aged 0 to 6 years per licensed place

ASR Research constructed standard using actual Melbourne Metropolitan provision levels as a guide (2011). Data source - Register of Licensed Children's Services in Victoria (abbreviated at 3 March 2011)

Number of Long Day Child Care centres 120 Total number of facilities required based on number of licensed places generated (see above)

ASR Research constructed standard using provision models operating in Metropolitan Melbourne


Number of Neighbourhood Houses 12,000 Total number of dwellings per facility ASR Research suggested provision standard to integrate with multipurpose community centre provision standards


Number of Planned Activity Group centres 18,000 Total number of dwellings per facility ASR Research suggested provision standard to integrate with multipurpose community centre provision standards

5. Libraries

Number of library loans annum 11.9 Total loans per person Annual Survey of Victorian Public Libraries 2009-2010 (Port Phillip Data)

Number of library visits per annum 7.5 Total loans per person Annual Survey of Victorian Public Libraries 2009-2010 (Port Phillip Data)



56



Number of sqms of library floorspace 30 Total library sqms per 1,000 people Actual 2009-2010 City of Melbourne & Port Phillip sqms per 1,000 people calculation (Annual Survey of Victorian Public Libraries 2009-2010)


6.1 Govt Specialist School 60,000 Total population per facility Based on ASR Research calculation methodology

6.2 Primary Schools

Govt Primary Enrolment- High Rise Context 43.0% % of 5-11 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

Govt Primary Enrolment- Greater Melbourne 59.0% % of 5-11 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data

Catholic Primary Enrolment - High Rise Context 10.0% % of 5-11 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

Catholic Primary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 20.0% % of 5-11 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data

Catholic Primary School 5,000 Total number of dwellings per facility Catholic Education Office

Non Govt Primary Enrolment - High Rise Context 11.0% % of 5-11 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

Non Govt Primary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 22.0% % of 5-11 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data

Total Primary Enrolment - High Rise Context 75.0% % of 5-11 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

Total Primary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 90.0% % of 5-11 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data

Govt Primary School 3,000 Total number of dwellings per facility Department of Education & Early Childhood Development


Govt Secondary Enrolment - High Rise Context 31.0% % of 12-17 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

Govt Secondary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 47.0% % of 12-17 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data

Catholic Secondary Enrolment - High Rise Context 10.0% % of 12-17 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

Catholic Secondary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 20.0% % of 12-17 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data

Catholic Secondary School 15,000 Total number of dwellings per facility Catholic Education Office


vo

lu

me

3


57



Non Gov Secondary Enrolment - High Rise Context 39.0% % of 12-17 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

Non Gov Secondary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 19.0% % of 12-17 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data

Total Secondary Enrolment - High Rise Context 80.0% % of 12-17 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

Total Secondary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 87.0% % of 12-17 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data

Govt Secondary School 9,000 Total number of dwellings per facility Department of Education & Early Childhood Development


TAFE FT Enrolment 15-24: High Rise Context 5.0% % of 15-24 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

TAFE FT Enrolment 25+: High Rise Context 1.00% % 25 + year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

TAFE PT Enrolment 15-24: High Rise Context 1.00% % of 15-24 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

TAFE PT Enrolment 25 +: High Rise Context 1.00% % 25 + year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

Total TAFE Enrolments: High Rise Context

Uni FT Enrolment 15-24: High Rise Context 49.0% % of 15-24 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

Uni FT Enrolment 25+: High Rise Context 5.0% % 25 + year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

Uni PT Enrolment 15-24: High Rise Context 2.0% % of 15-24 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

Uni PT Enrolment 25+: High Rise Context 3.0% % 25 + year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data for people living in dwellings 4 storeys and over

TAFE FT Enrolment 15-24: Greater Melbourne 5.0% % of 15-24 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data

TAFE FT Enrolment 25+: Greater Melbourne 1.00% % 25 + year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data

TAFE PT Enrolment 15-24: Greater Melbourne 3.00% % of 15-24 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data



58



TAFE PT Enrolment 25 +: Greater Melbourne 1.00% % 25 + year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data

Uni FT Enrolment 15-24: Greater Melbourne 22.0% % of 15-24 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data

Uni FT Enrolment 25+: Greater Melbourne 1.0% % 25 + year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data

Uni PT Enrolment 15-24: Greater Melbourne 2.0% % of 15-24 year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data

Uni PT Enrolment 25+: Greater Melbourne 2.0% % 25 + year old population Based on 2011 Greater Melbourne Census Data

7. Health Services


Community Health - Occasions of service 221 Number of occasions of service per 1,000 people Victorian Department of Human Service. Primary Health Report 2005–06 (Victorian derived estimate)

Community Health Registered clients 32 Number of registered clients per 1,000 people Victorian Department of Human Service. Primary Health Report 2005–06 (Metropolitan Melbourne derived estimate)

Dental health program visits 155 Number of dental health program visits per 1,000 people Victorian Department of Human Service. Primary Health Report 2005–06 (Victorian derived estimate)

Number of Community Health service sites 21,000 Total dwellings per facility ASR Research suggested provision standard to integrate with multipurpose community centre provision standards

7.2 Acute Health

Number of public and private hospital beds 3.8 Number of public and private beds per 1,000 people Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2010. Australian hospital statistics 2008–09. AIHW cat. no. HSE 84

Number of public hospital beds 2.3 Number of public beds per 1,000 people Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2010. Australian hospital statistics 2008–09. AIHW cat. no. HSE 84

Number of public hospital separations 219.3 Number of public hospital separations per 1,000 people (Victorian Data)

Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2010. Australian hospital statistics 2008–09. AIHW cat. no. HSE 84

Number of private hospital separations 144.3 Number of private hospital separations per 1,000 people (Victorian Data)


Number of public and private hospital separations 363.6 Number of public and private hospital separations per 1,000 people (Victorian Data)


Number of public and private hospital admissions 432.0 Number of public and private hospital admissions(Inner South East) Metropolitan Health Plan Technical Paper (May 2011)


vo

lu

me

3


59



Number of projected public and private hospital admissions 542.0 Number of projected public and private hospital admissions(Inner South East) Metropolitan Health Plan Technical Paper (May 2011)


Number of general practices 0.35 Number of general practices per 1,000 people (Inner South East) Metropolitan Health Plan Technical Paper (May 2011)

Number of dental services 0.29 Number of dental services per 1,000 people (Inner South East) Metropolitan Health Plan Technical Paper (May 2011)

Number of pharmacies 0.24 Number of pharmacies per 1,000 people (Inner South East) Metropolitan Health Plan Technical Paper (May 2011)

Number of drug & alcohol clients 4.30 Number of drug & alcohol clients per 1,000 people (Inner South East) Metropolitan Health Plan Technical Paper (May 2011)

Number of mental health clients 8.50 Number of mental health clients per 1,000 people (Inner South East) Metropolitan Health Plan Technical Paper (May 2011)



Number of High Care beds 44 Number of high care beds per 1000 people aged 70 years + Australian Government Planning Ratio (2007)

Number of Low Care beds 44 Number of low care beds per 1000 people aged 70 years + Australian Government Planning Ratio (2007)

Number of Community Aged Care Packages 25 Number of Community Aged Care Packages per 1000 people aged 70 years + Australian Government Planning Ratio (2007)


All people receiving HACC services 4.9% % All people receiving services at any time in 12 months (Victoria)

Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (2009-2010), Ageing and Aged Care: Key Statistics - Programs

People aged 70 Years and over receiving HACC services 33.4% % People aged 70 Years and over receiving services at any time in 12 months (Victoria)

Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (2009-2010), Ageing and Aged Care: Key Statistics - Programs

Number of Instances of HACC Assistance 0.101 Number of Instances of Assistance (Victoria) per person Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (2009-2010), Ageing and Aged Care: Key Statistics - Programs



60

6 Detailed Community Infrastructure Analysis

6.1 Overview of Community Infrastructure Assessment Process

The community infrastructure standards adopted for the assessment were then applied to the build-

out dwelling and population estimates for each of the four development scenarios. Table 13 on the

following pages provides a quantitative estimate of either the demand and / or supply requirement

associated with each community infrastructure item.

It should be noted that these estimates are a guide only and are not to be interpreted as a final

provision recommendation under each development scenario. The estimates form only one part of

the assessment process, and are considered alongside the audit of existing and planned infrastructure

identified in Section 3 of this assessment, and the policy context described in Section 4.

Table 14 then provides an opportunity to draw on all the information from these various sources to

discuss the potential community infrastructure impacts and / or requirements associated with each

community infrastructure item, under each development scenario. Mitigation measures, possible

response options or recommended future processes are also identified.


vo

lu

me

3


61

Table 13 - Community Infrastructure Demand / Supply Estimates for Each Development Scenario


Provision Ratio

Unit of Measure


Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

5000 Dwellings

20,000 dwellings

40,000 dwellings

60,000 dwellings

9,784 People 39,137 People 78,274 People 117,411 People


All affordable housing 20% % of all dwellings within a proposed development area. 1000 4000 8000 12000

Social housing (public and or community) 6% % of all dwellings within a proposed development area 300 1200 2400 3600


Montague Precinct Structure Plan: Consultation Draft, June 2012 10.0% % of Developable Land 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1

Melbourne Open Space Planning Scheme Requirement 8.0% % of Developable Land 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5

Port Phillip Open Space Planning Scheme Requirement 5.0% % of Developable Land 9 9 9 9



Indoor recreation centres / courts 10,000 Total population per court 1.0 3.9 7.8 11.7

Council aquatic / leisure centres(indoor aquatic + gym only) 120,000 Total population per facility 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.0

Council aquatic / leisure centres members (indoor aquatic + gym only) 3.4%

% of Population who are members of a Council aquatic / leisure centre 333 1331 2661 3992


Tennis courts 2,500 Total population per court 4 15.7 31.3 47.0

Cricket ovals 4,000 Total population per playing field 2 9.8 19.6 29.4

Football ovals 4,000 Total population per playing field 2 9.8 19.6 29.4

Outdoor netball courts 7,000 Total population per court 1 5.6 11.2 16.8

Soccer fields 7,000 Total population per playing field 1 5.6 11.2 16.8


Aerobics / fitness 8.2% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 731 2924 5848 8772



62


Provision Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000 Dwellings

20,000 dwellings

40,000 dwellings

60,000 dwellings


AFL 4.1% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 365 1462 2924 4386

Golf 3.6% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 321 1284 2567 3851

Tennis 3.4% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 303 1212 2425 3637

Basketball 3.4% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 303 1212 2425 3637

Netball 3.3% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 294 1177 2353 3530

Cricket (outdoor) 2.6% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 232 927 1854 2781

Yoga 2.4% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 214 856 1712 2567

Soccer (outdoor) 2.2% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 196 784 1569 2353

Running 1.9% % of people aged 15 years + participating in organised sport 169 677 1355 2032


Swimming 22.5% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 108 431 862 1293

Australian Rules football 18.5% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 89 354 709 1063

Basketball 13.8% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 66 264 529 793

Tennis 11.7% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 56 224 448 672

Other organised sports 9.7% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 46 186 372 557

Netball (indoor and outdoor) 9.4% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 45 180 360 540

Cricket (outdoor) 7.4% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 35 142 283 425

Soccer (outdoor) 6.0% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 29 115 230 345

Martial arts 5.5% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 26 105 211 316

Gymnastics 4.6% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 22 88 176 264

Athletics, track and field 4.2% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 20 80 161 241

Soccer (indoor) 3.2% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 15 61 123 184


vo

lu

me

3


63


Provision Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000 Dwellings

20,000 dwellings

40,000 dwellings

60,000 dwellings


Hockey 1.1% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 5 21 42 63

Rugby league 0.0% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 0 0 0 0

At least one organised sport 68.5% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 328 1312 2624 3937

Organised sports and/or dancing 72.0% % of people aged 5-14 years participating in organised sport 345 1379 2758 4138

4. Multipurpose Community Centre Component Analysis (see below)

4.1 Kindergartens

% of 4 year olds participating in 4 year old Kindergarten 87% % of all eligible children participating in 4 Year Old Sessional Subsidised Kindergarten(not in a Long Day Child Care Setting) 54 215 431 646

Total number of enrolments in 4 year old sessional Kindergarten 90% % of participating children (see above) enrolled at a Sessional Kindergarten service 48 194 388 582

Number of Kindergarten rooms in current policy environment 75 Number of sessional Kindergarten rooms required if 1 Kindergarten room accommodates 75 enrolments per week 0.6 2.6 5.2 7.8

Number of Kindergarten rooms when proposed policy changes are implemented 66 Number of sessional Kindergarten rooms required if 1


% of 3 year olds participating in 3 year old activity groups 40% % of 3 year olds participating in 3 year old activity groups 25 99 197 296

Number of 3 year old activity groups per week 2 Number of 3 year old activity groups per week (based on 20 children per group, 2 sessions per week @ 3 hours per session) 2 10 20 30

Number of rooms required to accommodate 3 year old activity groups 2 Based on 2 sessions per day, per room 0.2 1.0 2.0 3.0


Number of MCH sessions per week 60 1 session per 60 children aged 0-3 years 5 22 44 66

Number of MCH consulting units 10 Number of MCH consulting units required based on number of sessions per week (see above) 0.5 2.2 4.4 6.6



64


Provision Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000 Dwellings

20,000 dwellings

40,000 dwellings

60,000 dwellings


4.3 Playgroup

Number of 2 hr playgroup sessions per week 50 Total number of children aged 0-3 years required to generate demand for a 2 hour playgroup session per week 7 26 53 79


Amount of sqms of community meeting space 30 Total number people per sqm of Council community meeting space 326 1305 2609 3914


Number of occasional child care places @ 1 place per 48 children aged 0-6 years 48 Total number people aged 0 to 6 years per licensed place 10 42 84 126

Number of occasional child care centres 30 Total number of facilities required based on number of licensed places generated (see above) 0.3 1.4 2.8 4.2


Number of Long Day Child Care places 6.8 Total number people aged 0 to 6 years per licensed place 74 295 591 886

Number of Long Day Child Care centres 120 Total number of facilities required based on number of licensed places generated (see above) 0.6 2.5 4.9 7.4


Number of Neighbourhood Houses 12,000 Total number of dwellings per facility 0.4 1.7 3.3 5.0


Number of Planned Activity Group centres 18,000 Total number of dwellings per facility 0.3 1.1 2.2 3.3

5. Libraries

Number of library loans per annum 11.9 Total loans per person 116,433 465,731 931,463 1,397,194

Number of library visits per annum 7.5 Total loans per person 73,382 293,528 587,056 880,585

Number of sqms of library floorspace 30 Total library sqms per 1,000 people 294 1,174 2,348 3,522


vo

lu

me

3


65


Provision Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000 Dwellings

20,000 dwellings

40,000 dwellings

60,000 dwellings



6.1 Govt Specialist School 60,000 Total population per facility 0.2 0.7 1.3 2.0

6.2 Primary Schools

Govt Primary Enrolment- High Rise Context 43.0% % of 5-11 year old population 147 587 1175 1762

Govt Primary Enrolment- Greater Melbourne 59.0% % of 5-11 year old population 201 806 1612 2417

Catholic Primary Enrolment - High Rise Context 10.0% % of 5-11 year old population 34 137 273 410

Catholic Primary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 20.0% % of 5-11 year old population 68 273 546 819

Catholic Primary School 5,000 Total number of dwellings per facility 1.0 4.0 8.0 12.0

Non Govt Primary Enrolment - High Rise Context 11.0% % of 5-11 year old population 38 150 301 451

Non Govt Primary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 22.0% % of 5-11 year old population 75 300 601 901

Total Primary Enrolment - High Rise Context 75.0% % of 5-11 year old population 256 1024 2049 3073

Total Primary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 90.0% % of 5-11 year old population 307 1229 2459 3688

Govt Primary School 3,000 Total number of dwellings per facility 1.7 6.7 13.3 20.0


Govt Secondary Enrolment - High Rise Context 31.0% % of 12-17 year old population 97 386 772 1159

Govt Secondary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 47.0% % of 12-17 year old population 146 585 1171 1756

Catholic Secondary Enrolment - High Rise Context 10.0% % of 12-17 year old population 31 125 249 374

Catholic Secondary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 20.0% % of 12-17 year old population 62 249 498 747

Catholic Secondary School 15,000 Total number of dwellings per facility 0.3 1.3 2.7 4.0

Non Gov Secondary Enrolment - High Rise Context 39.0% % of 12-17 year old population 121 486 971 1457

Non Gov Secondary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 19.0% % of 12-17 year old population 59 237 473 710

Total Secondary Enrolment - High Rise Context 80.0% % of 12-17 year old population 249 997 1993 2990



66


Provision Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000 Dwellings

20,000 dwellings

40,000 dwellings

60,000 dwellings


Total Secondary Enrolment - Greater Melbourne 87.0% % of 12-17 year old population 271 1084 2167 3251

Govt Secondary School 9,000 Total number of dwellings per facility 0.6 2.2 4.4 6.7


TAFE FT Enrolment 15-24: High Rise Context 5.0% % of 15-24 year old population 110 441 881 1322

TAFE FT Enrolment 25+: High Rise Context 1.00% % 25 + year old population 67 268 537 805

TAFE PT Enrolment 15-24: High Rise Context 1.00% % of 15-24 year old population 22 88 176 264

TAFE PT Enrolment 25 +: High Rise Context 1.00% % 25 + year old population 67 268 537 805

Total TAFE Enrolments: High Rise Context 266 1066 2131 3197

Uni FT Enrolment 15-24: High Rise Context 49.0% % of 15-24 year old population 1079 4317 8634 12951

Uni FT Enrolment 25+: High Rise Context 5.0% % 25 + year old population 336 1342 2685 4027

Uni PT Enrolment 15-24: High Rise Context 2.0% % of 15-24 year old population 44 176 352 529

Uni PT Enrolment 25+: High Rise Context 3.0% % 25 + year old population 201 805 1611 2416

Total University Enrolment: High Rise Context 1660 6641 13282 19923

TAFE FT Enrolment 15-24: Greater Melbourne 5.0% % of 15-24 year old population 110 441 881 1322

TAFE FT Enrolment 25+: Greater Melbourne 1.00% % 25 + year old population 67 268 537 805

TAFE PT Enrolment 15-24: Greater Melbourne 3.00% % of 15-24 year old population 66 264 529 793

TAFE PT Enrolment 25 +: Greater Melbourne 1.00% % 25 + year old population 67 268 537 805

Total TAFE Enrolments: Greater Melbourne 310 1242 2484 3725

Uni FT Enrolment 15-24: Greater Melbourne 22.0% % of 15-24 year old population 485 1938 3877 5815

Uni FT Enrolment 25+: Greater Melbourne 1.0% % 25 + year old population 67 268 537 805

Uni PT Enrolment 15-24: Greater Melbourne 2.0% % of 15-24 year old population 44 176 352 529

Uni PT Enrolment 25+: Greater Melbourne 2.0% % 25 + year old population 134 537 1074 1611


vo

lu

me

3


67


Provision Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000 Dwellings

20,000 dwellings

40,000 dwellings

60,000 dwellings


Total University Enrolment: Greater Melbourne 730 2920 5840 8760

7. Health Services


Community Health - Occasions of service 221 Number of occasions of service per 1,000 people 2159 8635 17271 25906

Community Health Registered clients 32 Number of registered clients per 1,000 people 313 1252 2504 3757

Dental health program visits 155 Number of dental health program visits per 1,000 people 1517 6069 12138 18208

Number of Community Health service sites 21,000 Total dwellings per facility 0.2 1.0 1.9 2.9

7.2 Acute Health

Number of public and private hospital beds 3.8 Number of public and private beds per 1,000 people 37 149 297 446

Number of public hospital beds 2.3 Number of public beds per 1,000 people 23 90 180 270

Number of public hospital separations 219.3 Number of public hospital separations per 1,000 people (Victorian Data) 2146 8583 17166 25748

Number of private hospital separations 144.3 Number of private hospital separations per 1,000 people (Victorian Data) 1412 5647 11295 16942

Number of public and private hospital separations 363.6 Number of public and private hospital separations per 1,000 people (Victorian Data) 3558 14230 28460 42691

Number of public and private hospital admissions 432.0 Number of public and private hospital admissions(Inner South East) 4227 16907 33814 50722

Number of projected public and private hospital admissions 542.0 Number of projected public and private hospital admissions(Inner South East) 5303 21212 42425 63637


Number of general practices 0.35 Number of general practices per 1,000 people (Inner South East) 3 14 27 41

Number of dental services 0.29 Number of dental services per 1,000 people (Inner South 3 11 23 34



68


Provision Ratio

Unit of Measure



5000 Dwellings

20,000 dwellings

40,000 dwellings

60,000 dwellings


East)

Number of pharmacies 0.24 Number of pharmacies per 1,000 people (Inner South East) 2 9 19 28

Number of drug & alcohol clients 4.30 Number of drug & alcohol clients per 1,000 people (Inner South East) 42 168 337 505

Number of mental health clients 8.50 Number of mental health clients per 1,000 people (Inner South East) 83 333 665 998



Number of High Care beds 44 Number of high care beds per 1000 people aged 70 years + 26 102 205 307

Number of Low Care beds 44 Number of low care beds per 1000 people aged 70 years + 26 102 205 307

Number of Community Aged Care Packages 25 Number of Community Aged Care Packages per 1000 people aged 70 years + 15 58 116 174


All people receiving HACC services 4.9% % All people receiving services at any time in 12 months (Victoria) 479 1918 3835 5753

People aged 70 Years and over receiving HACC services 33.4% % People aged 70 Years and over receiving services at any time in 12 months (Victoria) 194 776 1552 2329

Number of Instances of HACC Assistance 0.101 Number of Instances of Assistance (Victoria) per person 988 3953 7906 11859


vo

lu

me

3


69

Table 14 – Discussion of Community Infrastructure Impacts for Each Development Scenario


Scenario 1 Impacts Discussion of



Scenario 4 Impacts

Affordable Housing Port Phillip Council has signalled its affordable housing strategy intentions within Fishermans Bend very clearly through the Montague Precinct Structure Plan: Consultation Draft (June 20127). It is seeking 20% of all dwellings within the PSP be “affordable housing” – delivered as a combination of community (30% of the 20%) and private housing. To achieve this the PSP intends to: • Incorporate the delivery of affordable housing as a requirement through new planning scheme provisions applied to the Montague Precinct, on the basis of the value

uplift created through the rezoning of land. • Work in collaboration with local community housing organisations and private developers to identify suitable opportunities for affordable housing delivery at an early

stage in the land disposal and development process. • Pursue innovative ‘models of provision’ and partnership arrangements which enable the successful delivery of community housing as part of larger scale private

residential development. Potential options include Community Land Trusts and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS). • Investigate opportunities to deliver demonstration projects which showcase innovative, affordable housing formats and models of provision. • Specifically encourage the provision of one bedroom units and bed-sits within private residential development with consideration to reducing the requirement for on-

site car parking and provision of shared open space areas as a means of reducing housing costs. While this assessment broadly supports these affordable housing targets it recognises that other stakeholders including Places Victoria and Melbourne City Council will need to confirm their respective positions on both the issue of targets and the implementation process.








Public Open Space Municipalities collect open space contributions under the Subdivision Act 1988. Where a contribution is assessed as payable, it is collected at the time of subdivision as a percentage rate on the value of undeveloped land. Unless there is a higher rate included in the planning scheme, the assessed contribution cannot exceed five per cent. The Port Phillip Planning Scheme nominates 5%. Although the Melbourne Planning Scheme does not currently include a rate, it has requested a planning scheme amendment to include two types of rates (the rate can vary between locations in the municipality provided there is a sound basis for adopting this approach and the basic principles of need, nexus/relationship, equity and accountability are met): 8% for areas of transformation and / or significant growth (including Docklands and Southbank),

7 It should be noted that while the Montague Precinct Structure Plan has been endorsed by the City of Port Phillip, it has not been incorporated into the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.



70





Scenario 4 Impacts

and 5% for areas of minimal and moderate growth. It should also be noted that a precedent has been set to allow for a higher negotiated rate for subdivisions of 10 lots of more as part of a negotiated site layout and design. Port Phillip Council has nominated 10% for the Montague Precinct Structure Plan: Consultation Draft (June 2012), but the Plan does not form part of the Planning Scheme. Open space statutory requirements are an example of an “area based” standard (i.e. percentage of developable land). In contrast to the conventional low density residential environment of much of metropolitan Melbourne, these area based standards pose challenges for higher density urban renewal areas: 1) a much higher number and concentration of open space users places greater pressure on a scarce and much valued resource; 2) the capacity to set aside a sufficient amount of open space land associated with urban renewal sites, particularly for organised outdoor sporting needs requiring larger open space “footprints”, is much more difficult, forcing planning authorities and agencies to consider both on-site and off-site solutions, including how to use existing open space assets and other community infrastructure (e.g. schools) better. Three standards have been used for this assessment: 1) The 10% open space requirement proposed by the Montague Precinct Structure Plan: Consultation Draft (June 2012); 2) the 8% proposed by the City of Melbourne for high growth / change locations within the municipality, and 3) the 5% nominated in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme (Schedule to Clause 52.01).










vo

lu

me

3


71





Scenario 4 Impacts

Indoor recreation centres / courts While significant indoor court provision exists at Albert Park for sports such as Basketball, Netball and Badminton, additional demand pressure from urban renewal locations such as Fishermans Bend (particularly at the upper end of the development scenarios) is likely to be significant. There is an opportunity to examine both on-site and off-site provision strategies, particularly in association with existing and / or other proposed community infrastructure provision strategies such schools. Sport & Recreation Victoria (SRV) have identified the need for additional indoor multipurpose courts as a current priority for inner Melbourne given Albert Park facilities are considered to be at capacity. The development of Fishermans Bend and the remaining development to occur at both Docklands and Southbank will only continue to increase demand.

Approximately 1 court Approximately 4 courts Approximately 8 courts Approximately 12 courts

Public aquatic leisure centres Given the relatively close proximity of MSAC at Albert Park (within 2 kilometres of Fishermans Bend), a compelling argument will be required to justify an additional public / Council aquatic leisure centre at / or near to Fishermans Bend. This issue will require further discussion with Port Phillip Council and Melbourne City Council to determine the most appropriate response. Demand pressures on MSAC will reduce if private gymnasiums are encouraged to establish themselves within Fishermans Bend and future residential development projects incorporate private pools and gymnasiums.




















Public community meeting space Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 will Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 will Fishermans Bend Scenario 3 will Fishermans Bend Scenario 4 will



72





Scenario 4 Impacts

potentially generate: • An additional 300 sqm of flexible

community meeting space. Although it is too early to determine how this space should be configured and / or allocated, this level of floorspace would typically be accommodated within 1 multipurpose community centre or some other type of Council facility (e.g. Library).

potentially generate: • An additional 1,300 sqm of flexible

community meeting space. Although it is too early to determine how this space should be configured and / or allocated, this level of floorspace would typically be accommodated within 2 to 3 multipurpose community centres, and / or some other type of Council facility (e.g. Library).





Libraries Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 will potentially generate: • An additional 300 sqm of library

space. Although it is too early to determine how this space should be configured and / or allocated, this level of floorspace would be considered too small to justify a ne library.







Neighbourhood Houses Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 is likely to generate the equivalent of half a Neighbourhood House and therefore unlikely to trigger the need for new facility.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 is likely to generate the equivalent of 1 to 2 Neighbourhood House facilities. Given the high population density levels and relatively close geographic proximity to future services and facilities, it may be

Fishermans Bend Scenario 3 is likely to generate the equivalent of 3 Neighbourhood House facilities. Given the high population density levels and relatively close geographic proximity to future services and facilities, it may be

Fishermans Bend Scenario 4 is likely to generate the equivalent of 5 Neighbourhood House facilities. Given the high population density levels and relatively close geographic proximity to future services and facilities, it may be


vo

lu

me

3


73





Scenario 4 Impacts

more efficient to consider 1 larger facility integrated with other services.

more efficient to consider 2 larger facilities integrated with other services.

more efficient to consider 3 larger facilities integrated with other services.

Multipurpose community centres A discussion about the provision of multipurpose community centres in Fishermans Bend is complex at this early stage of planning, and will be dependent on how various stakeholders assess the demand estimates for services typically accommodated within a community centre (e.g. early years services, community meeting spaces etc), and what combination of services and activities they consider to be appropriate under the “one roof”. This discussion is also made more challenging without clear guidelines such as those prepared for Wyndham City Council (i.e. Wyndham City Council Multipurpose Community Centre Provision Model (2011), described in Section 7.3.2 of this report). Issues to resolve with Port Phillip and Melbourne City Councils include: • What services to include for consideration within a community facility; • Their position on standards and demand estimates; • Whether Council wishes to be involved in the provision of a particular service (e.g. Long Day Child Care); and • What combination of services and activities they see as desirable (i.e. the “model” of provision). It should be noted that the City of Port Phillip developed a Community Hubs Policy in 2004 which is relevant to the discussion of multipurpose community centre provision, but is currently being reviewed and will be updated by 2013. The following estimates are provided as a very crude guideline and are subject to change. They provide no clear indication of floor area requirements at this stage.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 is likely to generate the equivalent 1 small scale multipurpose community centre.





Government Primary Schools Excluding consideration of the broader projected growth of Inner Melbourne the and current capacity issues at existing schools, Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 may not trigger the need for a new Government Primary School but will

Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 is likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 1 Government Primary School (approximately 587 to 806 enrolments). A high density format school is

Fishermans Bend Scenario 3 is likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 2 Government Primary Schools (approximately 1,175 to 1,612 enrolments).

Fishermans Bend Scenario 4 is likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 4 to 5 Government Primary Schools (approximately 1,760 to 2,400 enrolments).



74





Scenario 4 Impacts

certainly add significant pressure to existing and proposed new schools (approximately 147 to 201 enrolments).

recommended to achieve this. A high density format school is recommended to achieve this.


Government Secondary Schools Excluding consideration of the broader projected growth of Inner Melbourne the and current capacity issues at existing schools, Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 may not trigger the need for a new Government Primary School but will certainly add significant pressure to existing and proposed new schools (approximately 100 to 150 enrolments).

Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 is not likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 1 Government Secondary School (approximately 390 to 590 enrolments), but will place significant pressure on existing nearby schools.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 3 is likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 1 Government Secondary School (approximately 770 to 1,170 enrolments). A high density format school is recommended to achieve this.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 4 is likely to trigger the need for the equivalent of 2 Government Secondary Schools (approximately 1,760 to 2,400 enrolments). A high density format school is recommended to achieve this.

Catholic Primary Schools Excluding consideration of the broader projected growth of Inner Melbourne the and current capacity issues at existing schools, Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 is not likely to trigger the need for a new Catholic Primary School (approximately 30 to 70 enrolments).

Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 is likely to trigger the need for a new Catholic Primary School (approximately 140 to 270 enrolments), or significant expansion to the capacity of existing nearby schools.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 3 is likely to trigger the need for one new Catholic Primary School (approximately 270 to 550 enrolments).

Fishermans Bend Scenario 4 is likely to trigger the need for at least one new Catholic Primary School (approximately 410 to 820 enrolments), and large enough to cater for a very high enrolment figure.

Catholic Secondary Schools Excluding consideration of the broader projected growth of Inner Melbourne the and current capacity issues at existing schools, Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 is not likely to trigger the need for a new Catholic Secondary School (approximately 30 to 60 enrolments).

Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 is not likely to trigger the need for a new Catholic Secondary School (approximately 130 to 250 enrolments), but may act as catalyst to expand the capacity of existing nearby schools.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 3 has the potential to trigger the need for a new Catholic Secondary School (approximately 250 to 500 enrolments), but may act as catalyst to expand the capacity of existing nearby schools.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 4 is likely to trigger the need for at least one new Catholic Secondary School (approximately 370 to 750 enrolments).

Higher Education

If the demographic profile of Southbank, Docklands and the Melbourne CBD are to be used as a guide, the population of Fishermans Bend is likely to contain a substantial proportion of University students. Despite this, the significant concentration of higher education facilities in Melbourne’s CBD and inner North may deter high education


vo

lu

me

3


75





Scenario 4 Impacts

institutions from investing in new campus sites within, or near to Fisheramns Bend. However, this will require further confirmation from the higher education institutions themselves, once they have had an opportunity to fully assess the implications of this Stage 1 assessment. The University enrolment implications, particularly at the upper end of the development scenarios (Scenarios 3 and 4), clearly indicate significant demand pressure. It is unclear at this stage whether existing campuses can absorb the scale of additional enrolment pressure these estimates imply with the existing facilities they contain, or whether it will compel institutions to expand at these sites.

Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 will potentially generate: • An additional 270 to 310 TAFE












Health services

Community health Although there is relatively little literature about the planning of community health services this assessment uses some recently prepared draft health service guidelines prepared by the GAA, and community health floorspace targets presented in the Wyndham Social Infrastructure Planning - 2040 Framework, 2011 Update (refer to section 1.5.1 of this report). The Wyndham report advocates for a provision target of 35 m2 per 1,000 people for a community health service and the GAA guidelines link provision to an activity centre hierarchy. Irrespective of which development scenario is likely to be endorsed, the floorspace requirements for community health indicated below are best achieved via an integrated facility model that includes other health services (see Acute health discussion below), and / or a Council multipurpose community centre.

350 sqm of community health floorspace.




Acute health Using a combination of the draft GAA Health Hierarchy guidelines and measures of demand and supply identified in the Victorian Metropolitan Health Plan (2011) it is possible to conceptualise the relationship between each of the four development scenarios and the health service profile it is likely to generate. However, similar to other higher order services discussed, the questions remains as to whether the strong acute health service profile that currently exists within inner Melbourne (from the Alfred Hospital in the inner south east to the Royal Melbourne, Royal Children’s and Royal Women’s Hospital in the inner north west) can accommodate the additional demands generated by urban renewal sites such as Fisheramans Bend. Preliminary discussions with the Department of Health indicate that the provision of additional hospital sites for inner Melbourne is currently not a priority, nor likely to be in future. The Department indicated, however, that additional community health provision may potentially provide a better response option in urban renewal locations such as Fishermans Bend, but that this option is further discussed directly with local community health service



76





Scenario 4 Impacts

providers (Inner South Community Health for the City of Port Phillip and Doutta Galla for the City of Melbourne). This Stage 1 assessment will be distributed to the Department and community health service providers to allow them to more fully asses the implications of each development scenario.

Using the GAA draft health hierarchy guidelines indicates that Scenario 1 equates to: • The lower end of a Level 1 Local Town


health services, health promotion & prevention


Using the GAA draft health hierarchy guidelines indicates that Scenario 2 equates to: • The middle level of a Level 2 Major






Using the GAA draft health hierarchy guidelines indicates that Scenario 3 equates to a: • Slightly higher that the Level 2 Major






Using the GAA draft health hierarchy guidelines indicates that Scenario 4 equates to the: • Lower end of a Level 3 Principal Town


critical mass to be delivered without inpatient backup including day procedures, renal dialysis, CAMHS, ACAS


Residential aged care Fishermans Bend Scenario 1 will potentially generate demand for: • An additional 30 low care beds; and • 30 high care beds. This potentially equates to 1 small to medium facility offering both low and high care beds. These are services typically provided by the private or non-governments sector. Places Victoria’s role would be to facilitate and / or seek expressions of interest from these providers (subject bed approval funding

Fishermans Bend Scenario 2 will potentially generate demand for: • An additional 100 low care beds; and • 100 high care beds. This potentially equates to 1 large facility, or 2 smaller facilities offering both low and high care beds. Places Victoria’s role would be to facilitate and / or seek expressions of interest from existing providers (subject bed approval funding from the Federal

Fishermans Bend Scenario 3 will potentially generate demand for: • An additional 200 low care beds; and • 200 high care beds. This potentially equates to 2 large facilities, or 4 smaller facilities offering both low and high care beds. Places Victoria’s role would be to facilitate and / or seek expressions of interest from existing providers (subject bed approval funding from the Federal

Fishermans Bend Scenario 4 will potentially generate demand for: • An additional 300 low care beds; and • 300 high care beds. This potentially equates to 3 large facilities, or 6 smaller facilities offering both low and high care beds. Places Victoria’s role would be to facilitate and / or seek expressions of interest from existing providers (subject bed approval funding from the Federal


vo

lu

me

3


77





Scenario 4 Impacts

from the Federal Government) to establish a facility within Fishermans Bend.

Government) to establish facilities within Fishermans Bend.




departments with a new police station for Melbourne West, housing 1,600 police members); and • The MFB is planning to relocate the Station 39 Port Melbourne facility to Lorimer Street.



78

6.2 Hypothetical Schedule of DCP Community Infrastructure Costs

Using community infrastructure cost estimates recently prepared for the Ballarat West Growth Area by Prowse Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd for Ballarat City Council (2012),

the following hypothetical schedule of DCP community infrastructure costs for each Fishermans Bend development scenario has been constructed. The schedule is

intended for discussion purposes only and is to be used as a guide. It is in no way a reflection of the final recommendations for the DCP. These costs are also likely to be

conservative in so far as they assume a typical low density, low rise form of construction for items such as community centres. It is very likely that Fisheremans Bend will

require higher density facility models to be developed, and consequently result in increased construction costs.

Once a final development scenario and vision are determined, the associated community infrastructure requirements will be subject to a more detailed cost assessment

process (e.g. using quantity surveyors) and an evaluation of cost effective delivery principles and models. The evaluation will need to address opportunities for innovation,

particularly in relation to:

• Building fewer, but larger facilities to maximise construction efficiencies and lower land purchasing costs;

• Integrated facility construction options (e.g. joint school / community libraries, indoor recreation centres etc. as part of the construction of future Government

schools);

• Off-site provision strategies (e.g. expanding or redeveloping existing infrastructure);

• Facilitating the shared use of spaces without compromising the functioning of individual services and activities;

• Shared car parking;

• Co-ordinated facility programming and operation; and

• Obtaining intergovernmental and cross-departmental funding commitments from and within State, Federal and Local Governments.


vo

lu

me

3


79

Community Infrastructure Type Indicative Construction

Cost Estimates Source of Estimates Scenario 1

Requirements Scenario 2



Requirements

Active open space 11 ha 11 ha 11 ha 11 ha

Basic improvements incl earthworks & establishment

Approximately $2,000,000 for a 10 ha

reserve

Preliminary Ballarat West Growth Area costs estimates prepared by Prowse Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd for Ballarat City Council (2012) 1 reserve 1 reserve 1 reserve 1 reserve

Construction of 2 Australian Rules Football / Cricket ovals Approximately

$2,400,000

Preliminary Ballarat West Growth Area costs estimates prepared by Prowse Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd for Ballarat City Council (2012)

1 reserve (2 ovals)

1 reserve (2 ovals)

1 reserve (2 ovals)

1 reserve (2 ovals)

Construction of 3 soccer fields Approximately $2,000,000 for 3 soccer

fields

Preliminary Ballarat West Growth Area costs estimates prepared by Prowse Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd for Ballarat City Council (2012) 1 soccer field 2 soccer fields 3 soccer fields 3 soccer fields

Sporting pavilion Approximately $1,400,000 for a 500

sqm pavilion

Preliminary Ballarat West Growth Area costs estimates prepared by Prowse Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd for Ballarat City Council (2012) 1 1 1 1

Tennis courts Approximately $1,200,000 for 12

courts

Preliminary Ballarat West Growth Area costs estimates prepared by Prowse Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd for Ballarat City Council (2012) 0

6 (1 facility)

12 (2 facilities)

18 (3 facilities)

Tennis pavilions Approximately $840,000 for a 300 sqm

tennis pavilion

Preliminary Ballarat West Growth Area costs estimates prepared by Prowse Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd for Ballarat City Council (2012) 0 1 pavilion 2 pavilions 3 pavilions

Indoor recreation courts / facilities Not included

4 (1 medium facility)

8 (1 large facility)

12 (1 large facility)

Medium facility Approximately $9,000,000 for a 4 court

stadium


Large facility Approximately $14,000,000 for an 8

court stadium


Multipurpose community centres Approximately Preliminary Ballarat West Growth Area costs 1 2 4 6



80






Requirements

(early years hub) $6,640,000 for an early years hub consisting of 4 MCH consulting units, 120 long day child care

places & 66 place kindergarten (1,600

sqm building, 1,300 sqm regulated outdoor area & 64 car parking spaces)

estimates prepared by Prowse Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd for Ballarat City Council (2012)

Component analysis shown below:


All Kindergarten rooms 2 4 8 12

Maternal & Child Health Consulting units 1 2 4 7

Long Day Child Care Centre incorporated into a Council

multipurpose community centre Not included 1 facility

(@120 places) 2 facilities

(@120 places) 4 facilities

(@120 places)

Multipurpose community centres (general, flexible community space)

Approximately $4,000,000 for a multi-

purpose community centre (1,200 sqm building, & 100 car

parking spaces)

Preliminary Ballarat West Growth Area costs estimates prepared by Prowse Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd for Ballarat City Council (2012) 1 2 4 6

Component analysis shown below:

Public multipurpose community meeting space (sqms & number of

facilities) 300

(Assume 1 facility)

1,300 (Assume allocation across 2 facilities)



Neighbourhood houses facilities 1 2 3 4

Libraries (sqms and & number of Approximately Preliminary Ballarat West Growth Area costs Not included 1,200 2,300 3,500


vo

lu

me

3


81






Requirements

facilities) $6,500,000 for a 1,900 sqm library

estimates prepared by Prowse Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd for Ballarat City Council (2012)

(Assume 1 small facility)

(Assume 1 large facility)

(Assume 1 very large facility)

Regional Community Youth Activity Node

Approximately $1,300,00 for a Regional

play space, youth activity node and public

art

Preliminary Ballarat West Growth Area costs estimates prepared by Prowse Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd for Ballarat City Council (2012) Not included 1 Node 2 Nodes 2 Nodes

Construction of small format / multi-storey Government Primary School (5 storeys) $15,280,000

Melbourne Urban School Feasibility Study Report (February, 2012), report prepared by Hassell on behalf of DEECD 0 1 2 Possibly 4 to 5 schools



82

6.3 List of Community Infrastructure Priorities

The following table summarises the list of community infrastructure priorities (alongside cost

estimates) in terms of indicative short-term (up to 5,000 dwellings), medium term (5 to 15,000

dwellings) and long term needs (15,000 dwellings and over). The Fishermans Bend assessment has

focused on the items listed. Items with an “*” indicate infrastructure that may typically form part of a

Development Contributions Plan (DCP) or associated with some other form of statutory requirement

(e.g. an open space planning scheme requirement). These typical DCP items form the bulk of high

priority short term needs.


vo

lu

me

3


83

Likely Short, Medium & Long Term Community Infrastructure Needs and Indicative Cost Estimates Short term need

(Up to 5,000 dwellings)

Medium term need (5,000 to 15,000

dwellings)

Long term need (15,000 dwellings

and over) Indicative Cost Estimates for Typical Items (as per Section 6.2) Open space and recreation • Local passive open space* x Typical local public open space contribution requirement • Local Playgrounds* x Typical local public open space contribution requirement • Local active open space* x Approximately $2,000,000 for basic development of a 10 ha reserve

Approximately $2,400,000 for construction of 2 Australian Rules / Cricket fields Approximately $2,000,000 for construction of 3 soccer fields

Approximately $1,400,000 for a 500 sqm sporting pavilion • Regional Playspace /Activity Node x Approximately $1,300,00 for a Regional play space, youth activity node and public art • Indoor multipurpose stadium* x Approximately $9,000,000 for a 4 court stadium

Approximately $14,000,000 for an 8 court stadium • Tennis facilities* x Approximately $1,200,000 for 12 courts

Approximately $840,000 for a 300 sqm tennis pavilion Early years and other components of typical Council community centres

Approximately $4,000,000 for a multi-purpose community centre (1,200 sqm building, & 100 car parking spaces)

Or

Approximately $6,640,000 for an early years hub consisting of 4 MCH consulting units, 120 long day child care places & 66 place kindergarten (1,600 sqm building, 1,300 sqm regulated outdoor

area & 64 car parking spaces)

• 4 & 3 year old kindergartens* x • Maternal & Child Health* x • Playgroup venues* x • Long Day Child Care Centres* x • Occasional Child Care* x • Council Community Centres* x • Public venues for hire* x • Neighbourhood house / adult

education / U3A* x

Educational facilities • Primary Schools x $15,280,000 • Secondary Schools x Not identified Libraries* x Approximately $6,500,000 for a 1,900 sqm library Residential and aged care services • Planned Activity Group (PAG) x Not identified • Residential aged care x Not identified Health services • Community health x Not identified



85

7.2.1 Community Hub Objectives

The objectives of a designated community hub are:

• To meet the functional needs of local communities (e.g. education, community services,

recreation and open space etc.);

• To provide a vibrant focal point for neighbourhood life by offering a diverse range of

community infrastructure;

• To ensure that the community infrastructure contained within them are creatively and

efficiently constructed and redeveloped over time to meet changing needs;

• To ensure that the amenity and aesthetic character of community infrastructure contained

within them are of a high quality;

• To ensure that they are easily accessible by foot, bicycle or public transport for the majority

of residents in the surrounding neighbourhood;

• To reduce the number of buildings and sites that the developer / Council has to maintain;

• To provide opportunities for services and clubs to co-locate as a way of sharing resources,

increasing the level of service integration and encouraging greater resident utilisation and

participation;

• To embrace sustainability principles and objectives such as reducing the number of trips

(e.g. by car) people need to make to access services, attend meetings and social gatherings

or participate in formal and informal recreation activities;

• To actively encourage, where appropriate, equity in participation and governance by local

residents in the development and decision making of community infrastructure as a means

of encouraging community ownership, maximising utilisation, encouraging resident

interaction, and increasing community identity and sense of place;

• To provide opportunities for integrated service delivery (e.g. clusters of co-located,

complementary services for families such as early childhood education and care, health

services, education facilities all working in a more seamless way to meet community

needs);

• To ensure inclusion and equitable access for all, taking into account social, economic,

cultural barriers; and

• To ensure a strong relationship between privately provided ‘community infrastructure’,

such as shops, and more conventional infrastructure, such as community centres, in order

to maximise community building opportunities.


84

7 Community Infrastructure Vision, Principles & Models

This section articulates a vision and set of principles that will guide community infrastructure

provision within the Fishermans Bend urban Renewal area.

In attempting to identify the community infrastructure priorities for Fishermans Bend over the course

of its development, it is important to describe in detail the approach to community infrastructure

provision recommended by this assessment. The objectives and principles presented below have

been developed by the authors of this report and emphasise the notion of fostering the development

of well-integrated, multifunctional community hubs.

7.1 Community Infrastructure Vision

Community infrastructure plays a critical role in influencing the demographic composition and

community functioning of an area. This assessment proposes that once specific community

infrastructure recommendations are confirmed as part of future planning stages for Fishermans Bend,

they be configured or assembled into a number of community infrastructure hubs, each of which will

accommodate a diverse range of services and facilities.

7.2 Community Hub Objectives and Principles

A community hub is a geographic location within a neighbourhood containing a diverse range of

Council and non-Council community infrastructure within close proximity to one another. Typical

infrastructure may include children’s services, health services, education facilities, recreation facilities

and passive open space. It functions as a place where a broad cross section of a community gathers

for the purpose of social interaction and learning and accessing services (e.g. retail, group meetings,

health services, recreation and education).

The final number of community infrastructure hubs and the composition of each will be dependent, in

part, by the development scenario most likely to be realised. In short, the higher the development

scenario, the greater the number of hubs and the more diverse each is likely to be in terms of its

composition.

As a general principle each of the four precincts identified for Fishermans Bend should contain at least

one or more hubs.


vo

lu

me

3


87

• ensure appropriate and flexibly designed spaces which match the needs of the community

in which it is located, and the services and programs identified to operate from it;

• recognise that the function of the facility may change over time and that, where possible, it

be constructed in a manner that makes change in function both easy and cost-effective;

• seek to reflect the distinctiveness of the subject area in which it will be located taking into

consideration natural, cultural and historical characteristics. Ideally, these characteristics

will be reflected in both the physical form of any buildings and landscaping (e.g. use of

particular materials) and/or the use of cultural interpretation material within or outside the

facility (e.g. public art, photos, paintings, artefacts etc);

• incorporate the objectives, requirements and recommendations of other relevant Council,

State and Federal legislation, strategies and policies. Examples include:

- ensuring access to people with disabilities;

- ensuring that community infrastructure design addresses sustainable development

principles such as improved energy efficiency.

7.3 Community Infrastructure Provision Models

Another important aspect of community infrastructure planning is determining how best to meet the

various demands likely to be generated by a given development in the built form – otherwise referred

to as the model of provision. This includes how services and activities should be configured, how

community buildings and open spaces should be designed and constructed, and where and how they

should be located to maximise access, visibility and contribute to sense of place. In a high density

urban context such as Fishermans Bend the task of identifying design responses that minimise land

area requirements, encourage the shared use of community infrastructure resources, and incorporate

flexible spaces that can be used for multiple purposes is a high priority.

7.3.1 New Urban Facility Case Studies

This section demonstrates how a limited amount of space is being used, and proposed to be used, in

an effective and efficient manner to meet community infrastructure needs in a high urban density

context.

The Harbour Family and Children's Centre

Unlike most Child Care Centres, the Harbour Family and Children's Centre is located on the rooftop of

the largest supermarket in the Melbourne Docklands, and occupies a site area of approximately 3,500

square metres.


86

7.2.2 Planning & Design Principles

In addition to community hub objectives a number of more specific planning and design principles

have been developed. These are outlined below.

Community Infrastructure Planning Principles

• Community hubs should first and foremost seek to become a vibrant community hub (i.e.

consisting of a diverse range of public and private services and facilities);

• Council, with the developers assistance, will maximise resources and opportunities for

social interaction by concentrating social and recreation resources in these hubs;

• The hubs should build on any heritage assets and / or natural features that currently exist

within the PSP study areas as a means of increasing ‘sense of place’ opportunities;

• Ensure that functional needs are configured to maximise urban design and public art

outcomes (e.g. using buildings to create edges for green open space areas, ensure buildings

are located to maximise views etc);

• Ensure the provision of an equitable access to a range of community infrastructure that

meets the functional needs of existing and future residents wanting to live, work, recreate

or access services within the PSP study areas;

• Ensure that hubs are integrated as much as possible with both the public and private

transportation system (including community transport), as well as shared pedestrian /

bicycle pathways, and take into account issues of access and safety;

• Locate open space in conjunction with proposed community facilities in a way that creates

an accessible and attractive nodal point emphasising any unique characteristics that may

be present within Fishermans Bend;

• Attract diverse demographic groups (e.g. older people, young people, children, families,

those interested in the arts, community groups and service providers); and

• Ensure that all built form elements have a cohesive relationship with one another.

Community Infrastructure Design Principles

The planning and design of community/active recreation facilities within Fishermans Bend should:

• be undertaken in consultation with the local community in which it is to be located, and the

service providers likely to operate from it;

• be undertaken as part of a detailed design brief process which includes a comprehensive

consultation program, and/or as part of the development of a local community plan;



89

The following case study of government primary school provision effectively illustrates how the

design of a school to meet the needs of almost 500 students can vary from an inner Melbourne, high

density urban context to an outer growth area, low density context.

As part of the DEECD commissioned Inner City Government Primary School Provision: Port Melbourne

Feasibility Analysis (April 2012) prepared by Ernst & Young, a complementary report (Melbourne

Urban School Feasibility Study Report) was prepared by HASSELL, an international design practice.

The report examined three inner urban Melbourne delivery models for the study. These models are

preliminary spatial designs for a new school on different sized sites. The delivery models are based on

a review of existing urban schools in Melbourne and overseas and research studies on new urban

schools. The three models are all designed to accommodate an upper limit of 475 students. An

outline of each model is included Hassell’s complementary report and summarised in Table 15 on the

following page. A conceptual design of the “Medium” urban government primary school model,

similar to the one proposed for the new school at 129 - 161 Ferrars Street, South Melbourne, is shown

in Figure 4. The Ferrars Street site (also shown below) is approximately 5,100 square metres in size

(0.51 hectares), only 15% of the standard size of a Government Primary School site.

Table 15 – Comparison of Standard & New Urban Government Primary School Building Models High Density Urban Models

Standard Model8 Large Medium Small

Enrolment Capacity 475 475 475 475

Site Area 3.5 ha (35,000 sqm)

1.14 ha (11,374 sqm)

0.53 ha (5,258 sqm)

0.26 ha (2,550 sqm)

Building footprint 3,774 sqm 3,774 sqm 1,458 sqm 1,053 sqm

No. of building levels 1 1 3 5

Outdoor area 1.2 ha (12,045 sqm)

0.76 ha (7,600 sqm)

0.38 ha (3,800 sqm)

0.15 ha (1,497 sqm)

Figure 5 – Example of Medium Urban Government Primary School Model

8 The spatial sizes shown for a standard new government primary school model excludes space for circulation and planning allowances. This explains why the building footprint and the outdoor area do not total to 3.5 hectares.


88

The Harbour Family and Children’s Centre is a partnership between the City of Melbourne, Gowrie

Victoria, LendLease and VicUrban. The 150 place Centre provides an integrated range of early years

services including:

• child care (occasional and long day) with an integrated Kindergarten service;

• playgroups;

• maternal and child health consultations;

• parenting information programs;

• group and individual support for families;

• parents’ room;

• early childhood bookshop;

• children’s dining room; and

• observation and training facilities for students and educators.

The outdoor play area (as shown below) is a diverse and tactile series of nature-based play spaces

that provide a backdrop for the facility's learning programs. Incorporating two sandpits, digging patch,

water play zone, kitchen garden and a flexible-use softfall area, the gardens vary in theme to

showcase the diversity of the natural world.

Figure 4 - Photo of The Harbour Family and Children's Centre outdoor play area

Proposed New Urban Government Primary School Facility Models


vo

lu

me

3


91

• Occasional child care;

• Early childhood intervention services;

• Planned Activity groups;

• Other NGO’s such as family support, community legal services.


90

Ferrars St, South Melbourne model

7.3.2 Wyndham City Council Multipurpose Community Centre Provision Model

Wyndham City Council has outlined its provision model for multipurpose community centres in its

Wyndham Social Infrastructure Planning - 2040 Framework (2011 Update) report. While the

municipality of Wyndham represents a very different urban context to Fishermans Bend, the

principles of how the model has been constructed are nevertheless useful, and point the way to how

an equivalent new urban model of provision, similar to the one proposed for government schools,

could be similarly developed for inner urban Melbourne.

It is envisaged that Council multipurpose community centres in future PSP locations will generally be

delivered in the following three major forms:

• Level 1 early years centres – 0.4 ha (Kindergarten, playgroups & small meeting space);

• Level 2 multipurpose community centres – 0.8 to 1 ha (Kindergarten, MCH, playgroups &

larger meeting spaces, classroom spaces); and

• Level 3 Community Centres – 1.5 to 2 ha (combination of above services & Library,

community health, NGO space).

Within this three tiered model of provision there is greater recognition of “other” service components

that should form part of some of these facilities including:

• Community health;

• Neighbourhood House / Adult Education;

• Arts & cultural activities



93

Appendices


92

8 Process Related Recommendations

The following process related steps are recommended to further assess and refine the community

infrastructure priorities for Fishermans Bend:

1. An unambiguous community infrastructure plan (Stage 2) will need to be based on a

specific dwelling yield (and therefore population yield) for the subject area. Given the long

(15-20 year) duration of the proposed development the plan will need to be based on an

agreed yield range or maximum. It should contain a trigger for the plan to be

reviewed/revised should the development evolve, with time and different circumstance, to

deliver a substantially different yield. This will assist with a number of key tasks including

assessing service and facility demand impacts more confidently, and providing a basis upon

which to determine an appropriate level of apportionment associated with development

contributions. Estimates of dwelling yield targets should be decided upon as early as

possible and, preferably, before the commencement of the detailed community

infrastructure plan.

2. Distribute Stage 1 assessment to all relevant stakeholders for comment.

3. Based on these more detailed discussions with Council and non-Council stakeholders a

community infrastructure plan (Stage 2), including obtaining agreement on the appropriate

level of developer contributions, should be prepared as part of the preparation of a

structure plan or structure plans.

4. In developing the Stage 2 Community Infrastructure Plan, Places Victoria should give

consideration to establishing smaller service specific portfolio areas as part of the larger

Fisherman’s Bend Community Infrastructure Working Group. These portfolio areas would

cover:

• Early years service provision;

• School provision;

• Open space and recreation;

• Other Council based community service provision forms; and

• Other State agency service provision forms (e.g. police & emergency services, health

etc).

5. The community infrastructure plan should also address the staging of the community

infrastructure contributions as the development evolves over the 15-20 year development

period, including trigger points and a hierarchy for provision of various different types

contributions.


vo

lu

me

3


94

Appendix 1 – Demographic Profile (2011 ABS Census)

People Port

Melbourne % People Docklands % People Southbank % People Greater

Melbourne %

Total 14,521 -- Total 5,791 -- Total 11,235 -- Total 3,999,982 --

Male 7,033 48.4 Male 3,041 52.5 Male 5,826 51.9 Male 1,966,503 49

Female 7,488 51.6 Female 2,750 47.5 Female 5,409 48.1 Female 2,033,479 51

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 33 0.2

Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander people 14 0.2


Islander people 16 0.1


Islander people 18,025 1

Age Port

Melbourne % Age Docklands % Age Southbank % Age Greater

Melbourne %

0-4 years 834 5.7 0-4 years 215 3.7 0-4 years 305 2.7 0-4 years 259,633 7


10-14 years 394 2.7 10-14 years 64 1.1 10-14 years 117 1 10-14 years 237,623 6


20-24 years 629 4.3 20-24 years 818 14.1 20-24 years 2,161 19.2 20-24 years 299,851 8

25-29 years 1,430 9.8 25-29 years 1,137 19.6 25-29 years 2,665 23.7 25-29 years 317,214 8

30-34 years 1,756 12.1 30-34 years 889 15.4 30-34 years 1,658 14.8 30-34 years 300,750 8

35-39 years 1,699 11.7 35-39 years 467 8.1 35-39 years 839 7.5 35-39 years 300,695 8



50-54 years 925 6.4 50-54 years 378 6.5 50-54 years 453 4 50-54 years 257,500 6





95

People Port


Melbourne %





85 years and over 145 1

85 years and over 10 0.2

85 years and over 20 0.2

85 years and over 73,236 2

Median age 38 -- Median age 31 -- Median age 29 -- Median age 36 --

Registered marital status Port Melbourne %

Registered marital status Docklands %

Registered marital status Southbank %

Registered marital status

Greater Melbourne %

People aged 15 years and over




Married 5,006 39.3 Married 2,060 37.8 Married 3,203 29.9 Married 1,592,404 49

Separated 393 3.1 Separated 169 3.1 Separated 170 1.6 Separated 88,779 3

Divorced 1,325 10.4 Divorced 429 7.9 Divorced 614 5.7 Divorced 242,808 7

Widowed 516 4.1 Widowed 71 1.3 Widowed 108 1 Widowed 167,682 5

Never married 5,487 43.1 Never married 2,718 49.9 Never married 6,620 61.8 Never married 1,169,126 36

Marital Status Charts




Median age by registered Port Melbourne %

Median age by registered Docklands %

Median age by registered Southbank %

Median age by registered

Greater Melbourne %


vo

lu

me

3


96

People Port


Melbourne %

marital status marital status marital status marital status





Married 49 -- Married 42 -- Married 41 -- Married 49 --

Separated 49 -- Separated 49 -- Separated 44 -- Separated 49 --

Divorced 52 -- Divorced 50 -- Divorced 51 -- Divorced 53 --

Widowed 74 -- Widowed 65 -- Widowed 65 -- Widowed 78 --

Never married 32 -- Never married 27 -- Never married 26 -- Never married 26 --

Social marital status

Port Melbourne %

Social marital status Docklands %

Social marital status Southbank %

Social marital status

Greater Melbourne %





Registered marriage 4,437 39.6



Registered marriage 1,461,501 49

De facto marriage 1,794 16

De facto marriage 698 16.1

De facto marriage 1,386 15.2

De facto marriage 248,739 8

Not married 4,960 44.3 Not married 2,101 48.4 Not married 5,196 57.1 Not married 1,268,489 43

Median age by social marital status

Port Melbourne %

Median age by social marital

status Docklands %


status Southbank %


status Greater

Melbourne %





Registered marriage 48 --




Frankston Activities Area (FAA) – Urban Renewal Program Strategy


97

People Port


Melbourne %

De facto marriage 35 --




Not married 37 -- Not married 28 -- Not married 27 -- Not married 30 --

Education Port

Melbourne % Education Docklands % Education Southbank % Education Greater

Melbourne %

Pre-school 203 6 Pre-school 31 1.6 Pre-school 44 1.2 Pre-school 67,897 6

Primary - Government 413 12.3



Primary - Government 197,319 16

Primary - Catholic 116 3.5



Primary - Catholic 68,018 6

Primary - Other Non Government 102 3

Primary - Other Non

Government 18 0.9

Primary - Other Non

Government 32 0.9

Primary - Other Non

Government 37,000 3

Secondary - Government 171 5.1

Secondary - Government 37 1.9

Secondary - Government 75 2

Secondary - Government 137,248 11

Secondary - Catholic 80 2.4

Secondary - Catholic 19 1

Secondary - Catholic 24 0.6

Secondary - Catholic 58,608 5

Secondary - Other Non Government 151 4.5

Secondary - Other Non

Government 40 2


Government 77 2.1


Government 56,249 5

Technical or further education institution 176 5.2

Technical or further

education institution 130 6.5


education institution 265 7.1


education institution 88,764 7

University or tertiary institution 635 18.9

University or tertiary

institution 621 31.1


institution 1,727 46


institution 213,648 17

Other 136 4 Other 68 3.4 Other 170 4.5 Other 40,567 3

ap

pe

nd

ix



98

People Port


Melbourne %

Not Stated 1,177 35 Not Stated 996 49.8 Not Stated 1,264 33.7 Not Stated 265,618 22

Total 3,360 -- Total 1,998 -- Total 3,756 -- Total 1,230,936 --

Ancestry, top responses

Port Melbourne %

Ancestry, top responses Docklands %

Ancestry, top responses Southbank %

Ancestry, top responses

Greater Melbourne %

English 4,731 25 English 1,180 17 Chinese 2,601 19 English 1,075,427 21

Australian 3,662 19.3 Chinese 1,007 14.5 English 2,322 16.9 Australian 1,053,992 21

Irish 1,764 9.3 Australian 777 11.2 Australian 1,496 10.9 Irish 351,351 7

Scottish 1,457 7.7 Irish 410 5.9 Irish 889 6.5 Scottish 289,005 6

Greek 1,077 5.7 Indian 382 5.5 Scottish 666 4.9 Italian 279,112 6

Country of birth

Port Melbourne %

Country of birth Docklands %

Country of birth Southbank %

Country of birth

Greater Melbourne %

Australia 9,392 64.7 Australia 2,102 36.3 Australia 3,937 35 Australia 2,530,775 63

Other top responses

Other top responses

Other top responses

Other top responses

England 783 5.4

China (excludes SARs and Taiwan) 470 8.1

China (excludes SARs and Taiwan) 908 8.1 England 134,022 3

New Zealand 406 2.8 India 351 6.1 Indonesia 757 6.7 India 106,598 3

Greece 382 2.6 England 223 3.9 Malaysia 548 4.9

China (excludes SARs and Taiwan) 90,898 2

United States of 147 1 New Zealand 199 3.4 England 454 4 Italy 68,823 2



99

People Port


Melbourne %

America

China (excludes SARs and Taiwan) 128 0.9 Malaysia 194 3.4 New Zealand 407 3.6 New Zealand 67,042 2

Birthplace of parents, stated responses

Port Melbourne %

Birthplace of parents, stated

responses Docklands %


responses Southbank %


responses Greater

Melbourne %

Both parents born overseas 5,365 40.2

Both parents born overseas 3,042 64

Both parents born overseas 6,724 67.5

Both parents born overseas 1,719,317 46

Father only born overseas 1,060 7.9

Father only born overseas 196 4.1

Father only born overseas 480 4.8

Father only born overseas 268,512 7

Mother only born overseas 724 5.4



Mother only born overseas 179,811 5

Both parents born in Australia 6,199 46.4

Both parents born in

Australia 1,336 28.1


Australia 2,391 24


Australia 1,578,237 42

Religious affiliation, top responses

Port Melbourne %

Religious affiliation, top

responses Docklands %


responses Southbank %


responses Greater

Melbourne %

No Religion 4,142 28.5 No Religion 1,603 27.7 No Religion 3,623 32.2 Catholic 1,088,990 27

Catholic 3,513 24.2 Catholic 1,039 17.9 Catholic 2,095 18.6 No Religion 939,229 24

Anglican 2,033 14 Anglican 467 8.1 Buddhism 846 7.5 Anglican 431,354 11

Eastern Orthodox 1,257 8.7 Buddhism 352 6.1 Anglican 768 6.8

Eastern Orthodox 220,452 6

ap

pe

nd

ix



100

People Port


Melbourne %

Uniting Church 415 2.9 Hinduism 304 5.3 Hinduism 407 3.6 Buddhism 158,663 4

Language, top responses (other than English)

Port Melbourne %

Language, top responses

(other than English) Docklands %


(other than English) Southbank %


(other than English)

Greater Melbourne %

Greek 880 6.1 Mandarin 488 8.4 Mandarin 1,158 10.3 Greek 113,407 3

Italian 229 1.6 Cantonese 241 4.2 Indonesian 681 6.1 Italian 112,686 3

Mandarin 149 1 Hindi 133 2.3 Cantonese 516 4.6 Mandarin 100,598 3

Cantonese 120 0.8 Korean 98 1.7 Arabic 180 1.6 Vietnamese 85,128 2

Russian 117 0.8 Arabic 81 1.4 Korean 180 1.6 Cantonese 71,275 2

English only spoken at home 10,662 73.4



English only spoken at home 2,652,596 66

Households where two or more languages are spoken 1,485 22.7

Households where two or

more languages are spoken 1,074 42.6


more languages are spoken 2,303 45.2


more languages are spoken 464,218 32

Median weekly incomes

Port Melbourne %

Median weekly incomes Docklands %

Median weekly incomes Southbank %

Median weekly incomes

Greater Melbourne %





Personal 1,091 -- Personal 1,060 -- Personal 983 -- Personal 591 --

Family 2,616 -- Family 2,447 -- Family 2,230 -- Family 1,576 --

Household 1,995 -- Household 1,901 -- Household 1,837 -- Household 1,333 --



101

People Port


Melbourne %

Unpaid work Port

Melbourne % Unpaid work Docklands % Unpaid work Southbank % Unpaid work Greater

Melbourne %





Did unpaid domestic work (last week) 9,267 72.8

Did unpaid domestic work

(last week) 3,262 59.9


(last week) 6,919 64.6


(last week) 2,243,963 69

Cared for child/children (last two weeks) 2,717 21.3

Cared for child/children

(last two weeks) 598 11


(last two weeks) 1,047 9.8


(last two weeks) 881,483 27

Provided unpaid assistance to a person with a disability (last two weeks) 1,208 9.5

Provided unpaid

assistance to a person with a disability (last

two weeks) 277 5.1

Provided unpaid

assistance to a person with a disability (last two weeks) 515 4.8

Provided unpaid

assistance to a person with a disability (last

two weeks) 355,200 11

Did voluntary work through an organisation or group (last 12 months) 2,155 16.9

Did voluntary work through

an organisation or group (last 12 months) 706 13


an organisation or group (last 12 months) 1,689 15.8


an organisation or group (last 12 months) 516,531 16

Unpaid domestic work, number of hours

Port Melbourne %

Unpaid domestic work,

number of hours Docklands %


number of hours Southbank %


number of hours

Greater Melbourne %





Less than 5 hours per week 3,991 31.4



Less than 5 hours per week 787,733 24

ap

pe

nd

ix



102

People Port


Melbourne %

5 to 14 hours per week 3,495 27.5



5 to 14 hours per week 810,688 25


15 to 29 hours per week 293 5.4

15 to 29 hours per week 519 4.8

15 to 29 hours per week 355,831 11

30 hours or more per week 690 5.4



30 hours or more per week 289,712 9

Family composition

Port Melbourne %

Family composition Docklands %

Family composition Southbank %

Family composition

Greater Melbourne %

Couple family without children 2,017 53.3

Couple family without children 906 67.7

Couple family without children 1,573 62.7

Couple family without children 366,856 35

Couple family with children 1,211 32

Couple family with children 261 19.5

Couple family with children 452 18

Couple family with children 505,945 48

One parent family 477 12.6



One parent family 161,211 15

Other family 81 2.1 Other family 72 5.4 Other family 301 12 Other family 21,592 2

Single (or lone) parents

Port Melbourne %

Single (or lone) parents Docklands %

Single (or lone) parents Southbank %

Single (or lone) parents

Greater Melbourne %

Proportion of the total single (or lone) parent population

Proportion of the total single (or lone) parent

population


population


population

Male -- 15.7 Male -- 25.3 Male -- 18.8 Male -- 17.1

Female -- 84.3 Female -- 74.7 Female -- 81.2 Female -- 82.9



103

People Port


Melbourne %

Dwelling type Port

Melbourne % Dwelling type Docklands % Dwelling type Southbank % Dwelling type Greater

Melbourne %

Occupied private dwellings 6,542 86.6

Occupied private

dwellings 2,519 78.7

Occupied private


Occupied private

dwellings 1,430,665 91

Unoccupied private dwellings 1,011 13.4

Unoccupied private

dwellings 683 21.3

Unoccupied private


Unoccupied private

dwellings 141,506 9

Dwelling structure

Port Melbourne %

Dwelling structure Docklands %

Dwelling structure Southbank %

Dwelling structure

Greater Melbourne %

Occupied private dwellings

Occupied private

dwellings

Occupied private

dwellings

Occupied private

dwellings

Separate house 681 10.4 Separate house 0 0 Separate house 0 0 Separate house 1,039,342 73

Semi-detached, row or terrace house, townhouse etc 2,644 40.4

Semi-detached, row or terrace

house, townhouse etc 45 1.8


house, townhouse etc 127 2.5


house, townhouse etc 165,486 12

Flat, unit or apartment 3,191 48.8



Flat, unit or apartment 219,111 15

Other dwelling 19 0.3 Other dwelling 9 0.4 Other dwelling 0 0 Other dwelling 6,159 0

Number of bedrooms

Port Melbourne %

Number of bedrooms Docklands %

Number of bedrooms Southbank %

Number of bedrooms

Greater Melbourne %


Occupied private

dwellings

Occupied private

dwellings

Occupied private

dwellings

None (includes 20 0.3 None (includes 24 1 None (includes 18 0.4 None (includes 7,115 1

ap

pe

nd

ix



104

People Port


Melbourne %

bedsitters) bedsitters) bedsitters) bedsitters)

1 bedroom 1,009 15.4 1 bedroom 628 24.9 1 bedroom 1,102 21.6 1 bedroom 72,006 5

2 bedrooms 2,768 42.3 2 bedrooms 1,357 53.9 2 bedrooms 2,789 54.7 2 bedrooms 284,608 20

3 bedrooms 2,174 33.2 3 bedrooms 417 16.6 3 bedrooms 1,079 21.2 3 bedrooms 650,071 45

4 or more bedrooms 454 6.9



4 or more bedrooms 391,812 27

Number of bedrooms not stated 116 1.8

Number of bedrooms not

stated 34 1.4


stated 61 1.2


stated 25,052 2

Average number of bedrooms per dwelling 2.3 --

Average number of

bedrooms per dwelling 2 --

Average number of


Average number of


Average number of people per household 2 --

Average number of people per household 1.9 --



Tenure Port

Melbourne % Tenure Docklands % Tenure Southbank % Tenure Greater

Melbourne %


Occupied private

dwellings

Occupied private

dwellings

Occupied private

dwellings

Owned outright 1,558 23.8 Owned outright 349 13.8 Owned outright 854 16.8 Owned outright 467,519 33

Owned with a mortgage 1,772 27.1

Owned with a mortgage 566 22.5

Owned with a mortgage 1,171 23

Owned with a mortgage 526,099 37

Rented 3,040 46.5 Rented 1,550 61.5 Rented 2,977 58.4 Rented 389,644 27



105

People Port


Melbourne %

Other tenure type 24 0.4



Other tenure type 10,524 1

Tenure type not stated 147 2.2



Tenure type not stated 36,875 3

Household composition

Port Melbourne %

Household composition Docklands %

Household composition Southbank %

Household composition

Greater Melbourne %

Family households 3,750 57.3

Family households 1,334 53

Family households 2,497 49

Family households 1,030,409 72

Single (or lone) person households 2,332 35.7

Single (or lone) person

households 889 35.3


households 1,729 33.9


households 333,280 23

Group households 458 7

Group households 295 11.7

Group households 870 17.1

Group households 66,973 5

Household income

Port Melbourne %

Household income Docklands %

Household income Southbank %

Household income

Greater Melbourne %

Less than $600 gross weekly income -- 17.4

Less than $600 gross weekly

income -- 14.8


income -- 15.8


income -- 21.3

More than $3,000 gross weekly income -- 24.9

More than $3,000 gross

weekly income -- 19.7





Rent weekly payments

Port Melbourne %

Rent weekly payments Docklands %

Rent weekly payments Southbank %

Rent weekly payments

Greater Melbourne %

Median rent 450 -- Median rent 503 -- Median rent 496 -- Median rent 300 --


vo

lu

me

3


106

People Port


Melbourne %

Households where rent payments are less than 30% of household income -- 87.2

Households where rent

payments are less than 30% of household

income -- 76.2



income -- 77.4



income -- 90.3

Households where rent payments are 30%, or greater, of household income -- 12.8


payments are 30%, or greater,

of household income -- 23.8







Mortgage monthly repayments

Port Melbourne %

Mortgage monthly

repayments Docklands %

Mortgage monthly

repayments Southbank %

Mortgage monthly

repayments Greater

Melbourne %

Median mortgage repayments 2,535 --

Median mortgage

repayments 2,700 --

Median mortgage

repayments 2,300 --

Median mortgage

repayments 1,810 --

Households where mortgage payments are less than 30% of household income -- 91.8

Households where

mortgage payments are less than 30% of household

income -- 90.2

Households where


income -- 91.6

Households where


income -- 89

Households where mortgage payments are 30%, or greater, of household income -- 8.2

Households where

mortgage payments are

30%, or greater, of household

income -- 9.8

Households where



income -- 8.4

Households where



income -- 11



107

People Port


Melbourne %

Number of registered motor vehicles

Port Melbourne %

Number of registered

motor vehicles Docklands %


motor vehicles Southbank %


motor vehicles Greater

Melbourne %

None 786 12 None 675 26.8 None 1,380 27.1 None 130,633 9

1 motor vehicle 3,191 48.8 1 motor vehicle 1,308 51.9 1 motor vehicle 2,804 55 1 motor vehicle 501,058 35

2 motor vehicles 1,972 30.1

2 motor vehicles 409 16.2

2 motor vehicles 718 14.1

2 motor vehicles 528,222 37

3 or more vehicles 405 6.2

3 or more vehicles 76 3

3 or more vehicles 106 2.1

3 or more vehicles 229,116 16

Number of motor vehicles not stated 188 2.9

Number of motor vehicles

not stated 51 2


not stated 89 1.7


not stated 41,632 3


vo

lu

me

3


108

Appendix 2 – Review of Relevant Municipal Literature

Table 16 – List of Relevant City of Port Phillip Policies, Strategies & Plans

Name of Policy, Strategy or Plan

Description Year Prepared / Adopted

City of Port Phillip Council Plan: 2009-2013 Year 4

The City of Port Phillip Council Plan is guided by the City of Port Phillip Community Plan: 2007 – 2017 described below. Many of the strategies and actions contained within this Council Plan will support the achievement of the community’s longer-term vision. The Council Plan contains the following four Strategic Directions and accompanying strategies: 1. Engaging and Governing the City (1.1 Value and utilise skills and knowledge in the community, 1.2 Governing, 1.3 Commitment to service, 1.4 Managing for the longer term) 2. Taking Action on Climate Change (2.1 Reducing consumption and emissions, 2.2 Changing transport priorities, 2.3 Adapting and sustaining, 2.4 Working together) 3. Strengthening Our Diverse and Inclusive Community (3.1 Pursuit of social equity, 3.2 Creative, active and culturally diverse life) 4. Enhancing Liveability (4.1 A sense of place, 4.2 Shaping the future of our city, 4.3 Caring for our natural environment, 4.4 Major city projects) Relevant specific actions include: • Ensure an integrated approach in providing services to the community • Undertake activities to improve asset management • Maintain and improve Council's assets • Continue commitment and take action to increase social and affordable housing • Facilitate an increase in appropriately located residential aged care places • Ensure that the city continues to be a vibrant and affordable place for a diversity of artists to work • Continue to maintain and innovate Council’s library services to optimise their use, including as cultural opportunities • Work with and support Neighbourhood Learning and other community centres to form a vibrant and welcoming network throughout the city • Work with and support local schools and post-secondary education providers • Redevelop and maintain sporting and recreational facilities • Support and revitalise arts precincts across the city as integrated arts, learning and cultural centres • Advocate for state government policy for environmentally sustainable development planning provisions • Encourage the uptake of Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) in all new developments • Ensure that new development makes a positive contribution to the public realm • Ensure strong Council and community engagement in the Port Melbourne Waterfront Urban Design Framework to secure a sustainable future for the precinct • Continue to advocate for the return of rail freight services to Webb Dock

City of Port Phillip Community Plan: 2007-2017

This document is a planning and action framework designed to respond to community agreed priorities for the decade 2007 - 2017. The priorities and actions will help manage inevitable change while protecting what the community values most. The priorities came out of the ‘Port Phillip Speaks Community Summit’ in April 2007 attended by 750 people who actively discussed a range of complex topics and explored different opinions. FIVE CORE TOPICS AND PRIORITIES FOR ACTION

2007



109



1. Parking – managing competing needs Top 3 priorities for action: 1. Transforming public transport planning, capacity, reliability and incentives for use. 2. Improve walking paths and bike lanes and develop incentives for non-car transport through car free streets, reducing speed limits, enhancing provision for bikes, pedestrians, community bus services and shuttles, improving safety and enforcement. 3. Require all new developments to be self-sufficient in parking and invest in non-car transport options (e.g. bike racks). 2. Building our community – connecting people Top 3 priorities for action: 1. Make the physical environment support community – e.g. street parties, better lighting, use of public gardens, better spaces for pedestrians. 2. Continue to support the disadvantaged, disabled and low-income to remain in the city and support affordable housing even as the city grows more affluent. 3. Help people in our community share their talents, resources and assets – with initiatives like a skills database, ‘willing volunteer’ register and innovative uses of community facilities. Match these assets with community needs. 3. Urban planning and development Top 3 priorities for action: 1. Encourage environmentally sustainable design, while advocating for mandatory state government controls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption. 2. Develop a sustainable bay side city planning scheme as a model to other councils. Highlight environmental sustainability, economic development, quality urban design and social and community amenity. 3. Council to work with relevant authorities to support the active management of waterways, foreshores, parkland and public amenities, to protect impact of community on urban waterways, foreshore and Port Phillip Bay 4. Entertainment and residential amenity – managing the price of popularity Top 3 priorities: 1. Improve event management to reduce environmental impact and better manage the effect on the community. 2. Develop safe and affordable cultural events and entertainment opportunities, involving people across age and interest groups, providing alternatives to licensed venues. 3. More rigorous enforcement of permit conditions on restaurants, bars and clubs 5. Public open spaces – looking after streets and parks Top 3 priorities: 1. Manage water use and re-use, planting and park usage for prolonged drought. 2. Reduce impact of major events (e.g. Grand Prix) on parks. 3. Create more open space (e.g. purchase with developer contributions). Top 10 Priorities When voting was completed for priorities in each of the five discussion topics, participants voted again to achieve an overall ‘Top 10 Priorities’. The listing order shown in this table has been weighted for age after the Summit and the unweighted voting order at the Summit is shown by the numbers in brackets.


vo

lu

me

3


110



1 (1) Transforming public transport planning, capacity, reliability & incentives for use 2 (2) Manage water use and re-use, planting and park usage for prolonged drought 3 (4) Continue to support the disadvantaged, disabled and low- income to remain in the city and support affordable housing, even as the city grows more affluent 4 (3) Encourage environmentally sustainable design, while advocating for mandatory state government controls to reduce greenhouse emissions and water consumption 5 (5) Develop a sustainable bay side city planning scheme as a model to other councils. Highlight environmental sustainability, economic development, quality urban design and social and community amenity 6 (7) Make the physical environment support community - “claim our streets”, e.g. street parties, better lighting (to improve safety at night), spaces for young people, extend community bus, use public gardens, better public transport, better spaces for pedestrians 7 (6) Require new developments to be self-sufficient in parking and invest in non-car transport options, e.g. bike racks, public transport 8 (8) Improve event management to reduce environmental impact and better manage the effect on the community 9 (9) Develop safe and affordable cultural events and entertainment opportunities, involving people across age and interest groups providing alternatives to licensed venues 10 (10) Reduce impact of major events (e.g. Grand Prix) on parks

Montague Precinct Structure Plan: Consultation Draft

In June, Council released the Montague Precinct Structure Plan – Consultation Draft. The Structure Plan has been prepared to provide a planning framework to underpin the renewal of the Montague Precinct, strategically located between the CBD and the foreshore. Montague is a 50 ha precinct bound by the West Gate Freeway to the north, City Road to the south, Boundary Street and Fishermans Bend to the west and the St Kilda Light Rail Line (Route 96) to the east. It is one of the four precincts being considered as part of this assessment for the entire Fishermans Bend Urban renewal site. The Structure Plan establishes a future vision for the Precinct and its three distinct neighbourhoods. It provides directions for future land use mix, built form, a public open network, transport and access and community infrastructure. The Structure Plan is underpinned by five guiding principles. Collectively, they provide the key ingredients of a highly liveable, environmentally sustainable and socially diverse inner urban area. • A diverse, inclusive and well serviced community with a strong sense of local identity; • A high quality, vibrant and diverse mixed-use precinct; • An exemplary environmentally sustainable precinct; • A highly connected place; and • A place with a well-defined and unique identity. The strategic direction areas and associated actions most relevant to the Fishermans Bend assessment are summarised below. 1. Land Use Strategy 1.4 - Include significant levels of affordable and social housing throughout the Precinct Actions • Ensure at least 20 per cent of new dwellings within the Montague Precinct are affordable - delivered as a combination of community and private housing. • Ensure at least 30 per cent of affordable dwellings are delivered as social (community) housing that is owned and managed by Registered Housing Associations or Housing

June 2012



111



Providers. This equates to six per cent of total housing within the Precinct. 2. - A community facilities 'hub' Strategy 2.1 - Establish a well located and resourced community hub Actions • Collaborate with other levels of Government to prepare a community needs and infrastructure plan for Montague which also takes into account demand from increasing

residential /worker populations in adjacent areas. This plan must: - Establish projected demand, and agreed levels of provision, staging and timing. - Define services and facilities to be located within the Precinct, as well as required increase in the capacity of existing facilities in the sub-region. - Include planning for open space, sport and recreation; education and early childhood services; health and human services, public safety and justice; and community

development. - Identify funding and financing mechanisms and responsibilities.

• Establish planning provisions and investigate land assembly options which ensure land for the community hub is set aside adjacent to the existing Montague Continuing Education Centre, proposed open space and the local activity centre along Buckhurst Street.

• Undertake detailed planning for the delivery of a community hub within Montague which: - Establishes multi-purpose, flexible and adaptable community facilities. - Promotes the co-location of community services to optimise the use of land and support infrastructure, and to promote increased accessibility to a range of services. - Maximises the opportunity to share facilities across user groups and optimise rates of use. - Provides for the staged delivery and long term expansion/adaptation, through flexible floor plates and design.

• Partner with the State Government and community service providers to prioritise delivery of the following services within the Precinct: - Library - Childcare centre - Kindergarten - Maternal & Child Health - Family Services - Community Centre / Neighbourhood Housing with formal and informal meeting spaces.

• Partner with the State Government and community service providers to ensure a wide range of community services / facilities based outside of Montague are available and have capacity to service residents and workers within the Precinct, including: - Home and Community Care (HACC) services - Youth Services - Police and justice - Health and human services.

• Establish clear funding mechanisms in association with planning scheme provisions to ensure contributions are required in association with development approvals that create the need for new and upgraded services / facilities.


vo

lu

me

3


112



• Identify community facilities that are less dependent on forming part of a cluster, which can be delivered in association with private development and help to activate the street level of buildings.

Strategy 2.2 - Establish a new school in the Precinct Actions • Continue to work with the State Government Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) to identify a site for the establishment of a Prep to • Year 6 primary school, with potential to accommodate up to 500 children. • Develop school facilities as an integral part of the community hub – with space and facilities shared by the local community, recognising limited land availability. Key opportunities include:

- Shared open space and recreation facilities. - Community access to learning spaces. - On-site children and family related services / programs.

• Advocate for the provision of additional secondary education facilities / capacity accessible from the Precinct by foot, bike or public transport. This could include a school with a specialist curriculum potentially related to business clusters in the Montague Precinct eg IT / multi-media.

• Work with the State Government to determine future options for the existing school site within the Precinct, in the event that an alternative site for a school is defined. (This would include ensuring the continued function of the existing specialist school facility on the site or at an alternative, accessible location.)

4. Streets, lanes and open space Strategy 4.3- Create new parks and green space Actions • Apply the following open space standards to the provision of public open space across the Montague Precinct:

- Accessibility - All residents / workers within 400 metres of a park / space which is at least one hectare in size. - Proportion of open space - No less than 10 per cent of the developable area.

• Apply a 10 per cent Public Open Space Contribution (through the Planning Scheme - Clause 52.01) when subdivision occurs in the Precinct. • NB. Further investigation of the potential to apply a ‘sliding scale’ for public open space contributions (to recognise differing development yields) is recommended. This must

still achieve an average of 10 per cent contribution across the Precinct. • Prepare an Open Space Master Plan to define and secure primary open space sites and connections within the Precinct (based on the prospective sites identified in this plan). • The Master Plan should also identify contributory open space / links which can support an integrated open space network. • Recommended locations for public open space (see Figure 12) include:

- Land adjacent to the community hub and supermarket and bounded by Montague, Buckhurst and Gladstone Streets (approximately 8,000 square metres). - Land bounded by Buckhurst, Kerr, Ferrars and Gladstone Streets (Southern Neighbourhood) (approximately 7,000 square metres). - Land bounded by Normanby Road, Johnson and Munro Streets (Northern Neighbourhood) (approximately 4,000 square metres).



113



- Land bounded by Normanby Road, Montague and Munro Streets (approximately 5,000 square metres). - Linear park along Buckhurst Street (Southern Neighbourhood) (approximately 8,000 square metres).

• Provide links to the proposed active and passive recreation uses within the West Gate / M1 Freeway Undercroft (in the City of Melbourne). • Identify opportunities to convert redundant road space, other underutilised spaces and informal open spaces (e.g. land adjacent the light rail reserve) to public open space. • Undertake a detailed social needs assessment (taking into account the projected population size and composition) to determine the specific open space needs of the • Montague community and to inform the design of specific open spaces to support relevant recreational / leisure activity. • Within public open space, provide for a diverse range of users including:

- Smaller parks to provide intimate and informal play spaces. - Larger spaces to support physical activities. - Meeting and gathering spaces suited to all ages. - Walking (including dog walking) - Innovative playgrounds for young children. - Multi-use courts for children, teens, and young adults. - Space for community gardens (including vegie gardens, allotments, school kitchen gardens). - A balance between ‘hardscape’ and ‘green space’.

City of Port Phillip’s Open Space Strategy 2006 & 2009 Review

In 2009 an Implementation Plan Framework for the City of Port Phillip’s Open Space Strategy was developed in consultation with councillors. The Implementation Plan framework will guide Council’s delivery of the actions detailed in the strategy and achieve Council’s vision for public open space. As part of this process the Open Space Strategy 2006 was reviewed and updated to include an additional principle (Principle 9), reflect current policy and objectives in the Council Plan and provide an update of the status of actions identified in 2006. Key recommendations of the review included: • Address areas underserved by public open space by linking existing spaces, use of streetscapes or other public realm opportunities. Priority areas are South Melbourne and East

St Kilda. • Promote the City of Port Phillip Open Space Principles across all council service areas. • Develop a Playground Strategy to provide strategic direction for play-spaces across the city. • Use the Guidelines for Developer contributions in this strategy as basis for collection and expenditure of contributions collected under s 18 of Subdivision Act. • Establish integrated planning mechanisms for open space management, to include sporting facilities, urban planning, cultural services, urban design, environmental planning

and maintenance service delivery. • Regularly collect data related to community demands and use of open space to inform open space planning. • Implement key master plans such as Light Rail Reserves, Sandridge Beach, St Kilda’s Edge, and Elwood Foreshore Management Plan. • Enhance existing open spaces to deliver greater diversity of activity especially for youth and young adults. • Continue to manage conflicting uses in open space particularly at popular destinations such as foreshore. • Increase capacity of sporting reserves to provide for junior and female sport by upgrading facilities and grounds. • Provide opportunity for casual sport at more locations across the city.

2006 (original)

2009 (reviewed)

J. L. Murphy Murphy Reserve is a 12 hectare sport and recreation reserve located on Williamstown Road at the juncture between residential housing and the industrial zone in Port Melbourne. 2011


vo

lu

me

3


114



Reserve Master Plan Report

The area was first set aside for sport and recreation in the 1940s and is the largest Council managed reserve in Port Phillip. The reserve is a large flat open space area with two football/cricket ovals, a baseball field two full size soccer fields, two pavilions, a playground and a community garden. There are a large number of mature, large canopied trees that are a real feature of the reserve, providing it with a natural open woodlands character in the middle of a highly urbanised area. The 2011 Master Plan recommends the following for the reserve: • Wetland and storm water harvesting system that will contribute 70% of irrigation water required for the reserve. • Improve bicycle, pedestrian and car access to the reserve through bike racks, path networks and parking with permeable surface within the reserve and on Williamstown Road. • Provision of pedestrian crossing infrastructure. • Remove and replace dead and dying trees. Increase overall canopy cover for shade and shelter. • Install a natural/synthetic turf field to increase junior and women’s soccer playing opportunities and provide a general community resource. • Provide for expansion of ‘Dig In’ community garden. • Granitic sand ‘Tan’ style jogging/walking/cycling path with a main axis to accommodate ambulance and service vehicles. • Perimeter path to have night lighting to encourage evening use. • Eastern soccer fence line to be relocated to increase the open space and amenity in the reserve. • Community area with seating and new playground. • Mounded earth from excavated wetland to be used on site as viewing areas for spectators and landscape features in the reserve. • Pavilion to be renovated and extended to make better use of storage space. • A large shelter to be installed for football and cricket spectators and recreational use. • Electronic scoreboard added to site. • Exercise equipment either distributed around the reserve or a multipurpose exercise station is to be built in the community area.

City of Port Phillip Play Space Strategy

Strategic guidelines, recommendations and actions have been identified to guide Council’s future resource allocation and priorities for play spaces across the municipality. Guidelines and actions have been identified (refer to Table 7, Pages 66-70 of the Strategy) for the following themes: 1. Access and inclusion, 2. Active, social and creative play, 3. Aesthetics, 4. Catering for young people, 5. Distribution, 6. Diversity and age appropriate play, 7. Drinking fountains, 8. Fencing, 9. Infrastructure and support facilities, 10. Landscape integration and connection with nature, 11. Linkages, 12. Park furniture, 13. Public art, 14. Public toilets, 15. Quality play spaces, 16. Safety and risky play, 17. Shade, 18. Surfaces, 19. Sustainability, 20. Water as a play element. Planning Area Findings & Recommendations Port Melbourne Findings • Port Melbourne contains the highest number of play spaces (#15) and informal play spaces (#23) compared to any other planning area. • Play Spaces and informal play spaces in Port Melbourne account for approximately 42% of the total number of play space sites available in the city. • Local play spaces account for 81% of the total provision within the planning area. • Port Melbourne has the highest number of individual sites that rated as Low (i.e. 5 sites), however it also has the second highest proportion of play spaces that rated as High

(i.e. 4%, or 3 sites). • There are gaps in provision in the northwest area of Port Melbourne, however it is largely industrial in nature. • Based on planned residential developments, demand for play spaces in Port Melbourne, St Kilda and St Kilda Rd are likely to increase more significantly than Middle Park-Albert

2011



115



Park and Elwood-Ripponlea. • The areas with the most pockets of concentration of pre-schoolers were Port Melbourne and Middle Park-Albert Park, but the geographic focus of this age group (0-4 years) is

likely to shift to Port Melbourne, South Melbourne and St Kilda Road over the next ten years as more young families move into new developments in these areas. Port Melbourne Recommendations • Resource allocation to concentrate on improving the standard, condition and play experiences offered by existing sites, particularly those currently rated as Low Quality (5

sites). Due to the number of play spaces currently within the area, development of new play space sites in this area is not a priority. • Further develop play opportunities for 0-4 year olds to cater to the predicted increase in this age range in future. • Monitor residential development trends within the north-west section of Port Melbourne. Site Specific Recommendations in Port Melbourne


vo

lu

me

3


116





117



City of Port Phillip Play Space Strategy

North Port Oval Redevelopment

Council is undertaking a project to upgrade facilities at North Port Oval in Port Melbourne. The reserve is a vital part of the Port Melbourne open space network and holds historical significance for the sporting community. While enhancing the functionality for sporting activity, the redevelopment will also assist in improving the overall community benefit, including improved access to the reserve and sporting facilities. The recommendations of this project of this project are as follows: Site A: Social and Football Club Administration Facility and associated landscaping • single storey • club administration offices and storage • function room • meeting/conference room • kitchen facilities • new entry from Ingles Street • landscaping around the facility • an accessible footpath Site B: Norman Goss Grandstand and Visitors change room renewal • upgrade of current facilities to comply with AFL Victoria facility standards, including improved change rooms, medical rooms and umpires facilities • improvement to grandstand

2012


vo

lu

me

3


118



Site C: Synthetic Cricket Practice Nets • three bay synthetic cricket net structure, which will be accessible to the public and fully enclosed to prevent balls entering Williamstown Road and Ingles Street Trees • The construction of the Social and Administration facility and the Synthetic Cricket Practice Nets will require the removal of six trees. These trees will be replaced by 24 new

trees on the site through new landscaping works. Construction • Works are scheduled for 2012/2013 and Council will work with clubs and adjoining residents to keep disruption to a minimum.

Foreshore Management Plan, City of Port Phillip

The purpose of the Port Phillip Foreshore Management Plan (FMP) is to provide guidance for the future use, development and management of the Port Phillip foreshore. The Foreshore Plan provides a long term strategic vision and direction for the foreshore by identifying coastal values that need protecting, maintaining and enhancing, whilst responding to current and future management issues. The Plan will also help to inform Council’s future management and budgeting for the foreshore. The key management issues that emerged from the Background Review and consultation during development of the Port Phillip Foreshore Management Plan were grouped into the following ten general themes: 1. Community participation and support; 2. Management; 3. Vegetation and biodiversity; 4. Recreational; 5. Accessibility 6. Infrastructure; 7. Diversity of activities; 8. Place / character; 9. Coastal sustainability; 10. Economic. To assist with identifying and locating specific strategic objectives and actions throughout the Port Phillip foreshore, a geographic approach has been adopted whereby five foreshore areas have been identified. These are Sandridge, Port Melbourne, Elwood, South Melbourne and Middle Park. Both Sandridge and Port Melbourne are most relevant to the assessment. Recommendations for these two areas include: Sandridge – High Value Actions 1. Develop a long-term management agreement for PoMC land at Perc White Reserve and Webb Dock Trail. 2. Install dunal fencing where appropriate to manage pedestrian access, drainage, beach cleaning and habitat values. Port Melbourne – High Value Actions 1. As part of the Port Melbourne Urban Design Framework, progress traffic management solutions to reduce congestion at Station Pier and improve connectivity to the light rail

reserve shared path. 2. Install dunal fencing where appropriate to manage pedestrian access, drainage, beach cleaning and habitat values. 3. Advocate for the appropriate use and development of Princes Pier to balance recreational, visitor and residential needs. 4. Develop and implement an upgrade program for high demand public toilets. 5. Provide more shade in high use areas and along the foreshore. 6. Install new beach showers and drinking/water bottle refill stations at Port Melbourne. 7. Upgrade the Life Saving Club building to: 1) Satisfy the level of community use; 2) Encourage people to use safer parts of the beach; 3) Reduce energy use by implementing

improvements such as shade, solar panels, wind energy and water re-use, and 4) Operate as community hub for foreshore activities.

December 2011

Perc White The City of Port Phillip engaged a landscape architect to prepare a management strategy and master plan for the Perc White Reserve at Sandridge, Port Melbourne. The reserve May 2010



119



Reserve Landscape Management Plan And Master Plan

consists of a four hectare nature reserve located on the periphery of the City of Port Phillip (CoPP) and is located at the southwest end of Sandridge Beach. It has been identified as having significant local and regional conservation status. The master plan has been developed to meet the agreed vision and principles for the reserve as defined by the community. The key elements to be implemented are: • A new path network; • New public lighting; • Additional cycleway lane marking; • New and upgraded fencing; • Modified public space, east of the LSV building; • The continuation of vegetation rehabilitation and new plantings to enhance habitat; • New seating, bins and other furniture; and • New interpretative and way finding signage.


vo

lu

me

3


120





121



City of Port Phillip Early Years Plan: Creating a Child-Friendly Port Phillip - 2012–2015

City of Port Phillip’s vision for the early years is: “Port Phillip, a city where childhood is honoured and all children are cherished and supported as active citizens with a voice of their own, secure in their identity and culture; where they are able to play, learn and contribute to their environments, surrounded by nurturing adults and supportive communities.” To achieve this vision four goals with accompanying strategies are identified: Goal 1: Work in partnership to support families and children Strategies: • Foster strong links between the service sector to strengthen services and programs provided for all children and their families • Develop, facilitate and deliver initiatives that strengthen social cohesion and community sustainability • Provide high quality integrated early years services that will deliver multiple and flexible services for children and families in a cohesive and holistic way • Provide family and children’s services that are accessible, affordable and inclusive for all children • Provide ongoing professional development for staff, based on research and evidence-based practice, to build strong policies and enhance decisions that reflect a ‘whole-child’

perspective Goal 2: Increase children’s participation Strategies: • Actively seek the views and contributions of all children in our community • Lead by example and ensure children are active citizens by ensuring they have opportunities to be actively involved in Council planning and decision-making processes • Work in partnership with other agencies to continue to enact our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child • Provide ongoing professional development for staff and the community on the benefits of conducting genuine and ethical consultation with children Goal 3: Improve child development, health and wellbeing • Seek to optimise child health and wellbeing outcomes by actively encouraging families’ participation in immunisation and parent education programs as well as the provision of

high quality Maternal and Child Health services • Support the service sector to put into practice state and federal initiatives in health, education and care through ongoing community training and dissemination of information

that supports best-practice models of care and education • Ensure the municipality develops and maintains play and recreation facilities to promote active and healthy children and families • Deliver Family Support services to support families in their role as parents and carers • Work in partnership with specialist agencies to support the ongoing inclusion of children with additional needs • Fund and support the delivery of services and programs that support the changing needs of children and families such as Outreach Maternal Child and Health program • Utilise appropriate spaces to actively respond to the needs of vulnerable families such as Adventure Playgrounds and supported playgroups • Develop and implement an Early Childhood Education and Care policy to support coordinated service delivery • Work with local schools and the education sector to support the delivery of programs and services that meet the needs of the community, including Vacation Care programs

and transition to school programs • Provide a well informed and coordinated Family Youth and Children information calendar that addresses a variety of health, education and wellbeing issues • Work in partnership with local community agencies to identify and support vulnerable children and their families through the implementation of flexible programs • Explore all opportunities with Council, community and the private early childhood sector to increase the number of child care places available in Port Phillip • Promote safety, health and wellbeing by seeking to improve our children’s and young people’s mobility. For example, recreational activities, walking school bus and improved

2012


vo

lu

me

3


122



bike paths Goal 4: Build on research evidence • Work in collaboration with local, state and federal authorities to ensure we keep up to date with research and reforms that impact on families, children and young people • Participate and conduct relevant research that ensures the effectiveness of our actions and provides evidence to shape future directions • Critically reflect on our policies and practices to ensure their effectiveness in meeting the needs of our community • Provide opportunities for staff to attend training and development programs to enhance their understanding of children’s lives and what influences good outcomes • Collate and analyse service and demographic data to assist in identifying trend, gaps and opportunities within our community. This information will be made available to

relevant parties to assist a collaborative approach to the provision of services and programs • Disseminate research and best-practice information to support services and programs to keep up to date with state and federal reforms

City of Port Philip Arts and Culture Policy

This policy articulates Council’s commitment to supporting a culturally vibrant city and outlines principles and objectives for Council’s arts and cultural services, programs and facilities. Council’s support for arts and culture acknowledges the social, health and wellbeing and economic benefits of fostering a diverse, culturally engaged and active community. The Policy states that “permanent and ephemeral public art supported by a public art strategy and percentage for art (developer contributions) scheme influences the quality of local streetscapes and enhances cultural interaction.”

November 2011

City of Port Phillip Youth Development Strategy

The Youth Development Strategy is a policy for all young people, aged 10 to 25 years, who reside, study or have a significant relationship to the city. Through stakeholder consultation, the following six key areas for action were identified as crucial to progress healthy youth development. These action areas form the basis of the strategy’s direction. 1. Building alliances in a community that collaborates - Authentic connections must be created and maintained in order to make it possible to meet the needs and goals of young people. 2. Learning environments that are accessible, relevant and engaging - A positive relationship with learning is an essential factor in youth development. 3. Leadership development that empowers young people to speak out and be heard - Real opportunities must exist for young people to gain the skills necessary to ensure a meaningful voice in planning and decision-making. 4. Supported information access, use and dissemination - Key modes of communication must be maintained in order to support young people and community stakeholders to both converse and be informed. 5. Planning, research and advocacy - A commitment to understand the issues, emerging trends and opportunities experienced by young people and in doing so ensure planning and advocacy is relevant, representative and timely. 6. Access to local services, supports and opportunities - Relevant and accessible social, cultural and wellbeing services, supports and opportunities foster the healthy development of young people.

2008

City of Port Phillip Housing Strategy 2007 to 2017

The Housing Strategy sets out a broad vision and makes recommendations for housing and residential development in Port Phillip. The Strategy updates the 1997 Housing Strategy to reflect the changes that have occurred to housing policy since that time. The Strategy also provides a locally relevant response to Melbourne 2030 and the Inner Regional Housing Statement by identifying areas suitable for new residential growth and providing strategic justification for new housing policies in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

October 2007



123



Council’s vision for housing in the municipality is: “To direct residential growth to locations which offer the greatest access to shops, public transport and other services, and provide housing diversity by facilitating the development of affordable, accessible and suitable housing which meets the needs of all current and future residents, including the disadvantaged and those who are unable to adequately access the private housing market.” The 8 objectives of the Strategy and accompanying actions are shown below: 1. To provide opportunities for new residential development in designated locations which have the capacity for change, and which offer highest accessibility to shops, public transport, and services. • Amend the Planning Scheme to include the Housing Opportunities Framework Plan and reflect the Housing Growth Strategy. • Investigate the potential to apply planning provisions which more effectively direct housing growth to preferred areas (through offering higher development yield / certainty).

(Note: action to be undertaken following the current State Government review of Residential / Mixed Use Zones). • Investigate opportunities to work with the private sector to ensure they are informed about residential development opportunities and can actively respond to them. • Identify ‘incremental change areas’ proximate to major activity centres (through the development of • Structure Plans / Urban Design Frameworks) and develop ‘preferred character statements’ to guide future residential development in these areas. • Investigate the potential to apply a range of residential provisions which more effectively directs housing growth across established residential areas to support and implement

‘incremental / limited and minimal change strategies. (Note: action to be undertaken following the current State • Government review of Residential Zones). • Undertake a program of structure plan and urban design framework preparation for activity centres defined as moderate growth areas, to guide the appropriate location / form

of residential development. • Investigate variations to planning provisions and amenity standards (i.e. open space, car parking, street access) to encourage shop-top housing. • Investigate the application of development contributions for major development proposals, to improve service and infrastructure provision. 2. To encourage the provision of a diversity of dwelling types to meet the needs of all current and future residents of Port Phillip. • Build industry awareness of the Housing Strategy outcomes, particularly opportunities for provision of different housing types (older persons’, family and low-cost housing.) • Monitor development approvals to determine whether development is locating in areas recognised with high or moderate propensity for residential change and growth and to

determine if a diversity of dwelling types and sizes is being achieved. • Advocate for State policy and legislation to include the requirement for new developments of 10+ • dwellings to include a range of dwelling sizes, number of bedrooms and affordable housing options • Investigate a change to the parking rates established by the Planning Scheme for ‘low-cost’ residential developments in appropriate locations. • Investigate the implications of providing one-off grants per bed to private rooming houses (not exceed the amount of rates paid on the property each year). • Advocate with the State Government and/or Local Government peak bodies for the establishment of a Melbourne Rooming House Inventory. • Consider streamlining the regulatory inspection process to provide rooming house owners and operators improved service. • Advocate for the Office of Housing to reintroduce a private rooming house upgrade grant scheme targeted at rooming houses at risk of closure due to fire safety issues. 3. To ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and heritage values of established residential areas. • Review the ‘Neighbourhood Character Framework’ for established residential areas outside the Heritage Overlay, including the development of ‘Preferred Character

Statements’ to guide the form of residential development in these areas.


vo

lu

me

3


124



• Identify areas of consistent /special neighbourhood character and investigate the application of appropriate planning (VPP) tools, including the ‘Neighbourhood Character Overlay’.

4. To expect environmentally sustainable residential development. • Amend the Planning Scheme to require all development to be environmentally sustainable. • Lobby State Government for the inclusion of stronger ESD measures in ResCode and Clause 19.03 of the Planning Scheme. • Provide educational displays and materials to applicants and members of the public about how to design and build for improved energy efficiency and other sustainable design. 5. To support housing designs that are adaptable and accessible. • Lobby State Government for the inclusion of stronger accessibility requirements in the Planning Scheme and make a formal request to change the Building • Code of Australia so that Class 1 and 2 buildings are not exempt from the 1428 Australian Standard. • Educate the statutory planning staff and developers of disability access issues, including an owner’s responsibility under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. • Promote the State Government’s Home Renovation Service to older persons living in the City of Port Phillip • Advocate for an increase in the one-off Department of Human Services grant for renovations to private housing to a more realistic figure, and to be made available on more

than one occasion. • Promote and advocate for the need to make older persons housing units ground floor accessible and encourage the Office of Housing to incorporate disability design features as

a standard requirement in new or redeveloped stock. • Undertake research into integrated independent older person units and hostel and nursing home level care to enable ‘ageing in place’. 6. To promote a range of affordable housing models and projects applicable to public, community and private housing that address the housing needs of low to moderate income residents and contribute to social diversity. • Under the Inner Regional Housing Statement and Inner Melbourne Action Plan, lobby the State Government for the inclusion of an Affordable Housing • Overlay (through inclusionary zoning) in the Planning Scheme • Identify suitable council, State, institutional and private sites for affordable housing developments and facilitate their development. • Support campaigns for the expansion of affordable housing, including those undertaken by the Affordable Housing Research Consortium, Australians for Affordable Housing,

Housing Justice Round Table, National Affordable Housing Summit and National Affordable Housing Agreement • Monitor research into the housing affordability needs of low income wage earners (key workers) in order to consider appropriate strategies to address this need. • Investigate means to incorporate into the City of Port Phillip Design and Development Awards a category for affordable housing. • Explore alternative models and funding sources for mixed affordable housing by private and social housing developers or hybridised housing solutions, to reduce dependence

on government grants. 7. To expand the supply, distribution and type of social (public and community) housing available for the benefit of current and future residents of Port Phillip. • Lobby State Government to provide Council with Planning Tools to fast track applications for social housing. • Assist community housing providers with information on housing need and identification of properties suitable for community housing. Support joint venture funding

applications and provide support during the statutory planning permit processes. • Identify private rooming houses that are at risk of closure or redevelopment to other uses and support strategies for their acquisition. • Advocate the State Government on behalf of community housing providers/organisations to maintain the diversity of the local community housing sector. • Transfer title to the property asset, 46-58 Marlborough Street, Balaclava to the Port Phillip



125



• Housing Trust (at an appropriate stage) and investigate opportunities for the transfer of other potential Council property assets. • Continue to provide annual cash contributions to the Port Phillip Housing Trust • Advocate the State Government for the expansion of social housing (public and community) housing unit numbers as a proportion of total dwellings and seek the maintenance

of maintaining existing public housing levels (unit numbers). • Collaborate with the Office of Housing on estate upgrade and redevelopment proposals to ensure that there is no net loss of units • Continue the Deed of Sponsorship Agreement to provide for low income, older people. • Protect Council’s interests in the Park Towers Estate at 332 Park Street, South Melbourne. • Manage relationships with the Office of Housing and Centrelink to facilitate the sharing of data and information relevant to housing need service provision. • Undertake a research project into the method for engaging with the community in the event of introducing new community or affordable housing projects, including rooming

houses, into their neighbourhoods. • Advocate for the extension of the Office of Housing Older People High Rise Support Program to low density public housing and high rise mixed towers with a 50% older people

tenancy. • Maintain membership of the Community Housing Federation of Victoria and Community Housing Federation of Australia and participate in advocacy practices for the further

development of Community housing. • Organise and lead periodic meetings with the local community housing sector to support their role, provide information and support the maintenance of adequate, local

community housing diversity. 8. To promote a co-ordinated response that addresses the needs of people experiencing homelessness. • Prepare a Homelessness Strategy. • Develop in-house staff training, guidelines and an information package for internal service provision on issues related to homelessness, and prepare ‘harm minimisation’

intervention guidelines.

Homelessness Action Strategy: 2008-2013

The City of Port Phillip Homelessness Action Strategy clarifies how Council aims to enhance community understanding of homelessness, prevent the incidence of homelessness, facilitate the integration and provision of housing and support services and coordinate responses to the needs of those experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. Key Issues identified by the Strategy include: • Enhancing community awareness and understanding of homelessness to particularly ensure inclusiveness and fairness for all in the community; • Replenishing levels of long term affordable housing due to the significant loss of private rental locally over the past decade; • More integrated services to assist people to sustain tenure once secure accommodation has been found and to have greater opportunities to participate in their community; • Research and implementation of prevention and early intervention programs, particularly within mainstream services to alert when individuals and families are in housing stress

at risk of losing their housing and becoming homeless; • Greater connection between mainstream services and a range of homeless services and housing providers; and • Prevention of further trauma and illness after research has found that 66% of people experiencing homelessness had developed a substance use problem, and 53% had

developed a mental illness after they became homeless. In response the Strategy identifies the following major broad action areas, each of which contain more specific actions: • Enhance community understanding of homelessness; • Actively advocate and support Homelessness Service system;

2008


vo

lu

me

3


126



• Facilitate integrated planning in the provision of supportive housing; • Coordinate planning and facilitate research; and • Integrate Council’s own responses to homelessness.

Fishermans Bend Planning and Economic Development Strategy

The Fishermans Bend Planning and Economic Development Strategy provides a framework for guiding the continued transition of Fishermans Bend from a traditional industrial area into a diverse, inner city business and employment precinct. The three fundamental objectives of the Strategy are: • Identify economic and business development initiatives to retain existing businesses, attract new businesses and foster a range of employment opportunities consistent with

both Fishermans Bend‟s future role and function, and the employment needs of Port Phillip residents; • Ensure that land use strategies and zones support the future development of the area; and • Promote environmentally sustainable development within Fishermans Bend. Within the context of the strategic opportunities for Fishermans Bend, the vision is for it to continue to evolve into a vibrant and dynamic inner city business and employment precinct. Characterised by the attraction of a new generation of intensive, high value adding industrial activities, Fishermans Bend will deliver business development and employment opportunities for residents and other key stakeholders in Port Phillip. Consistent with the requirements of this new generation of businesses, Fishermans Bend will set a new benchmark in environmental sustainability, amenity and innovation. The vision for Fishermans Bend will be achieved through the implementation a number of initiatives aimed at achieving key objectives. These have been detailed below under the themes of: 1) Business and Economic Development; 2) Strategic Land Use Planning; and 3) Environmental Sustainability.

2010

City of Port Phillip Walk Plan 2011–2020 Feet First: Making pedestrians the priority

The Walk Plan is about making the City of Port Phillip better for walking. Council wants to make walking the first and best way to get around Port Phillip, with more people of all ages choosing to walk more often and to more places. Achieving this vision means walking in Port Phillip must be convenient and accessible, safe and enjoyable. This Walk Plan contains 12 strategies to achieve its four goals as shown below: • Goal 1: Create a destinations-based walking network that connects destinations and neighbourhoods across Port Phillip (Strategy 1. Develop a Principal Pedestrian Network

(PPN), Strategy 2. Prioritise the crossing of roads and local streets, Strategy 3. Improve the walking environment at key destinations) • Goal 2: Provide a high quality local walking environment (Strategy 4. Improve walking directions, Strategy 5. Improve the accessibility and safety of our streets) • Goal 3: Better integrate walking with the transport network (Strategy 6. Create places for people, Strategy 7. Integrate walking with public transport) • Goal 4: Build a culture of walking in Port Phillip (Strategy 8. Advocate for walking improvements, Strategy 9. Improve coordination across Council, Strategy 10. Promote and

raise the profile of walking, Strategy 11. Increasing walking through behaviour change, Strategy 12. Measure and monitor walking levels)

2011

City of Port Philip Health & Wellbeing Plan 2007–2013

This plan launches the strategic directions for a raft of actions that will contribute to improvements in the health and wellbeing of the people of City of Port Phillip over the next few years. Each environment for health and wellbeing listed in this plan features a cluster of topics that emerged strongly through the consultations. Each topic has its own set of strategies that will be progressed each year by Council and its community partners. Social Environment • Social Cohesion & Support • Drugs • Community Safety

2007



127



• Local Community Services • Stages of Life Built Environment • Transport & Community Mobility Strategies include: 33) Continue to develop safer, better connected and more accessible pedestrian and bicycle paths and lanes in accordance with the Cycle and Walk Plan 2005-2010 34) Continue to lobby VicRoads to improve pedestrian access across major roads (e.g., Brighton/St Kilda Rd, Queens Rd) 35) Continue to improve infrastructure that aims to increase pedestrian priority, movement, access and safety; particularly in high demand walking routes. 36) Work to ensure that pedestrian environments are accessible for people with mobility and visual impairments. 37) Review and redevelop the CoPP Road User Safety Strategy by 2008 38) Increase opportunities for participation in physical activity through implementation of the CoPP’s Physical Activity Action Plan - Key Initiatives 2007-2010. 39) Work with other partners such as Victoria Police, VicRoads and the RoadSafe Inner Melbourne Road Safety Council to continue improving the safety of all other road users (eg drivers, passengers, public transport users, motorcyclists and pillion passengers). 40) Implement the Plummer Street bypass in Port Melbourne in partnership with State Government to divert truck routes away from residential areas • Neighbourhood Facilities Strategies include: 41) Encourage the highest quality urban design in public spaces to promote community health and wellbeing. 42) Provide accessible public amenities in all shopping centres and other major areas of congregating, including comfortable seats, shade, information, public toilets, drinking fountains and rubbish bins. 43) Develop and implement the priority actions of the CoPP public toilet strategy. 44) Ensure that new and existing public realm spaces include trees and/or structures that provide shade from the sun. 45) Support the community hubs strategy that consolidates community facilities in each neighbourhood. 46) Advocate for design aspects in public places to be included that promote community engagement such as spaces for food vans, skate ramps, public performance and activity spaces 47) Council will work with the food industry to ensure that all food for public consumption is handled safely (ie. via monitoring, support, education and law enforcement only when necessary). Natural Environment • Sustainable Living • Clean Streets, Beaches and Parks


vo

lu

me

3


128



Cultural Environment • Spirituality • Managing Changing Communities Strategies include: 60) Investigate new methods of reducing the community impact of building development, particularly during the building phase. 61) Develop public place management projects in contested areas when required. Test a model of this in Fitzroy St, St Kilda. • Cultural Life & the Arts • Diversity and Inclusion Strategies include: 68) Look at different ways of breaking down negative perceptions which exist in and around significant housing developments such as Beacon Cove and Public Housing Estates. • Community Involvement & Participation Economic Environment • The Rising Cost of Living • The Pressures of Modern Life • Reducing Disadvantage

Integrated Family and Children Centres

Council has a strategy to improve family and children services in the City or Port Phillip. Research shows that children and families benefit from well coordinated, integrated, flexible and universally available services especially families experiencing disadvantage or additional need. Integrated, multi disciplinary services also provide staff with additional professional support and career opportunities, increased safety and reduced isolation. Integrated family and children’s centres bring together accessible and affordable care, education and health services for families with children aged 0-8 years. The centre will provide these services in a coordinated, flexible and creative way that benefits children and families, particularly those experiencing difficulties. The collaborative model ensures a consistent level of service to families using the various service types. The integrated family and children’s services centres are one of the ways council is supporting and expanding accessible, quality children’s services in our city.

Liardet Street Family and

Children’s Centre

Council has begun construction on a new, state of the art family and children's centre in Port Melbourne. The new centre will provide maternal and child health services and spaces for playgroup, new parent groups and other community uses. Up to 135 licensed children's services places will be accommodated on site. Demolition of the Lady Forster Kindergarten and the Catherine Woodruff buildings was completed in February 2012 in preparation for the construction of the new centre. The new centre will accommodate Lady Forster Kindergarten and the Albert Park College Childcare Centre (APCCC), which is currently operating out of temporary buildings at Port Melbourne Primary School. Both Lady Forster Kindergarten and Albert Park College Childcare will remain separate, community managed services. The design of the centre has been informed by a Steering Committee consisting of representatives from Council, Albert Park College Childcare Centre, Lady Forster

2012



129



Kindergarten, playgroups, Childcare Access Port Phillip, State Government and community members. All members of the steering committee have provided valuable input and have voted in favour of the current design concept. Elements of the design supporting an integrated centre include: • Single entry and foyer • Single reception/admin areas • Shared staff planning facilities • Flexible spaces able to be used for different groups and professionals including • playgroups, new parent groups, family support services and allied health specialists

St Kilda Family and Children's Centre

The new integrated family and children's centre will provide: • up to 116 licensed children's services places - this is an increase of 63 new places on the current St Kilda Children’s Centre • maternal and child health services • spaces for playgroups • new parent groups • early childhood intervention services • family services • multi purpose use rooms

2011

City of Port Phillip Ageing Well Strategy in Port Phillip: 2006-2016

The Ageing Well Strategy in Port Phillip 2006-2016 addresses the opportunities and challenges posed by a growth in the ageing population forecast for the next few decades. The following strategic framework presents a way forward for the City of Port Phillip, maximising opportunities, and providing the council with a basis to make short and long term decisions geared to durable and long term outcomes for residents: 1) Promote and facilitate a positive experience of ageing in Port Phillip 2) Provide accessible, affordable quality services to meet current and emerging needs 3) Ensure affordable, accessible and a wider mix of residential care services in Port Philip 4) Build a better city that offers an age friendly living environment 5) Invest in research, planning and community infrastructure. Other relevant strategies include: • Contribute to the development of new service models of social support for home bound residents and residents in high rise communities to facilitate and encourage social

connections • Continue to negotiate with the State Government in the identification of a suitable site within the City of Port Phillip on which to relocate a residential high aged care facility • Continue to assist the South Port Community Nursing Home in identifying suitable options to ensure the retention and expansion of residential aged care places in the

municipality

2006


vo

lu

me

3


130



• Encourage the development of retirement villages, for those residents on medium to low incomes through land use planning and the Housing Strategy • Continue to lobby all levels of government for innovative and flexible residential aged care services to be allocated to this municipality • Support new Accessible Building Policy developed as part of Port Phillip Planning Scheme Review, designed to guide decision making ensuring all new public & commercial

buildings designed to be accessible & adaptable for changing needs. Review Accessible Building Policy against Ageing Well Strategy. • Explore opportunities to develop partnerships with trusts, philanthropic institutions and property developers to encourage greater investments in affordable and innovative • housing development that enable older people and the indigenous community to stay in Port Phillip • Promote and seek greater private sector, not for profit, and philanthropic investment in social housing for residents with high care needs who are at risk of homelessness and

social dislocation due to the closures of many SRS’s in inner metropolitan area



131

Table 17 – List of Relevant City of Melbourne Policies, Strategies & Plans Name of Policy, Strategy or Plan


Melbourne City Council Council Plan 2009-2013 (Revised 2011) & Public Health and Wellbeing Plan (Integrated within Council Plan)

The Future Melbourne Community Plan guides Melbourne's growth as a bold, inspirational and sustainable city. It recognises that our future involves the actions of many stakeholders and articulates the community's vision for how the city will be in 2020. The Future Melbourne Community Plan was endorsed by Melbourne City Council in September 2008. It provides the overarching structure for the Council's special committees and the framework for this Council Plan. The eight goals of Future Melbourne are: • A City for People; • A Prosperous City; • A Creative City; • A Connected City; • An Eco-City; and • A Knowledge City; • Lead by example, and • Manage our resources well. Although there are many goals and objectives contained within the Plan that are potentially relevant, Goal 1 is the most directly relevant to the assessment. This goal includes relevant and affordable services and community infrastructure and recognises the need for safety and security. The outcomes and objectives of this goal are outlined below. Also highlighted with an asterisk (*) are the thirty-eight public health and wellbeing objectives have been identified and highlighted within this plan. Outcome 1.1 - People in Melbourne are socially connected 1.1.1 Create an environment that is inclusive and accessible and encourages participation* 1.1.2 Provide a range of high quality and welcoming events* Outcome 1.2 - Healthy people and communities 1.2.1 Support increased participation in physical activity through sport and recreation services* 1.2.2 Protect the community from public health risks* 1.2.3 Support the health and wellbeing of communities in high rise residential buildings* 1.2.4 Improve access to affordable and nutritious food in the municipality* Outcome 1.3 - Residents and visitors feel safe 1.3.1 Work towards a safer city through partnerships with other agencies* Outcome 1.4 - Diverse, harmonious, caring communities 1.4.1 Contribute to arts and cultural, heritage, social and economic outcomes for the Indigenous community* 1.4.2 Support and celebrate the cultural diversity of Melbourne* 1.4.3 Support and develop sustainable pathways out of homelessness* 1.4.4 Provide a responsive community services grants and sponsorship program that meets identified needs*

2011


vo

lu

me

3


132



1.4.5 Facilitate an inclusive, cohesive public and private housing environment with a range of affordability options, to accommodate an expected growth in population* Outcome 1.5 - Melbourne is vibrant, accessible, clean and welcoming 1.5.1 Clean city streets and waterways* 1.5.2 Cleaned and maintained public assets 1.5.3 Combat noise pollution and minimise its impacts* 1.5.4 Promote Melbourne Town Hall for use as welcome centre for Victoria and Australia 1.5.5 Make Melbourne accessible and welcoming for visitors and residents 1.5.6 Ensure Melbourne remains a great place to work, visit and live through responsible management and enforcement of safety and amenity in the built environment Outcome 1.6 - High quality public spaces 1.6.1 Provide a range of high quality and welcoming public spaces* Outcome 1.7 - Improved access to relevant and affordable community services 1.7.1 Provide a range of accessible and responsive family, children and youth services* 1.7.2 Deliver and support integrated services and programs for families, children and youth* 1.7.3 Deliver and support integrated programs and services for older people and people with a disability and their carers* 1.7.4 Establish and improve community infrastructure in all neighbourhoods* Outcome 1.8 - A well planned city with a vision of the future 1.8.1 Establish a robust planning scheme that facilitates sustainable growth and development and protects heritage* 1.8.2 Facilitate quality urban development and sustainable growth in Docklands* Other public health and wellbeing objectives are: 2.1.2 Encourage the involvement of creative people in decisions and increase their sphere of influence* 2.2.1 Increase access to and participation in arts and culture* 2.2.3 Encourage diversity in the arts* 2.2.4 Encourage creative and innovative design in the built environment* 3.2.4 Build the capacity of partner organisations to contribute to social enterprise* 4.1.1 Provide support and programs for international students* 5.1.3 Influence the municipality to use resources efficiently* 5.1.4 Promote and advocate for the production, supply and purchase of local food* 5.2.1 Influence the municipality to adapt to climate change* 5.2.2 Influence the municipality to use less potable (drinking) water* 5.2.3 Educate the community about environmental issues* 5.2.4 Aim to become a centre for excellence in sustainable design and management* 6.1.2 Integrate public transport with cycling and walking as the preferred mode of travel to the city* 6.1.3 Expand a connected bike and pedestrian network, and prioritise safe and easy pedestrian access, to promote cycling and walking in the city*



133



6.1.5 Make Melbourne safe for users of public, private and active transport* 6.2.2 Make Melbourne accessible for all Victorians and commuter, freight and delivery vehicles*

Docklands Community and Place Plan (July 2012)

The Docklands Community and Place Plan outlines those projects that Places Victoria and the City of Melbourne are committed to delivering or partnering to deliver over the next 10 years and beyond, ensuring the delivery of priority community and place projects. Drawing together ideas from the community, lessons from the first decade and future sustainability measures, this document sets out clear directions and actions for Docklands over the next 10 years and beyond. It also signals a longer-term evolution for growth in the coming decades. As Docklands’ population increases (to an expected 60,000+ workers and 20,000 residents by 2025), joint planning together with neighbouring future growth areas, such as Fishermans Bend, E-Gate and North Melbourne, will help to consolidate Docklands’ future as a thriving community. A Place for Community & Everyday Activity • Deliver a Docklands library and community centre for all ages • Partner to deliver a public primary school in or very near Docklands, co-located with appropriate community services • Deliver a civic hub at Victoria Harbour that provides social and recreational opportunities for the local community • Continue to facilitate the delivery of childcare services to support a growing residential and working community • Deliver maternal and child health services • Partner to deliver a neighbourhood community space in Yarra’s Edge • Partner to deliver a place of worship in Docklands • Deliver an online venue information service that provides community groups and event organisers with easily accessible information regarding available venues and sites for

hire • Partner to deliver outdoor and indoor high-quality community sports and recreation facilities, whilst exploring community use of existing buildings and facilities • Deliver a park in north-west Docklands, providing a range of active recreational activities • Deliver productive landscapes in appropriate locations • Facilitate the delivery of primary healthcare facilities and services in Docklands • Deliver free wireless internet within community facilities • Deliver larger event spaces (eg. Harbour Esplanade). Cultural Vitality & Creativity • Partner to deliver open and enclosed activity and event spaces, including a theatrette or performance venue • Partner to deliver significant cultural destinations and attractions to Harbour Esplanade and Central Pier • Partner to deliver long-term tenancies for arts and cultural organisations • Partner to deliver short-term artist-run initiatives and other creative initiatives by Melbourne’s creative communities • Deliver high quality cultural and arts programs in Docklands • Partner to deliver clusters of affordable studios, workplaces for artists and creative industries • Deliver the ‘Pavilions Program’, a Docklands Art Fund initiative, to encourage outdoor community activities

2012


vo

lu

me

3


134



• Partner to deliver a series of outstanding international public art events; an initiative of the Docklands Art Fund. Diverse, Comfortable & Active Public Spaces • Facilitate and deliver smaller, sheltered and more intimate public spaces that encourage interaction • Ensure new buildings, public open spaces and infrastructure enhance and complement the distinctive characteristics of Docklands • Partner to deliver play spaces in Docklands that cater for different age groups • Deliver a variety of jogging and walking routes across Docklands • Increase tree canopy cover as well as the quality and quantity of green spaces • Reduce the ‘urban heat island effect’ by developing public spaces that foster more comfortable thermal conditions • Deliver enhanced and safe public spaces throughout Docklands. A Waterfront Heritage • Continue to protect heritage listed buildings and facilitate appropriate adaptation to new uses, including community use and access where possible • Partner to deliver ‘living heritage’ programs and opportunities for community participation in heritage experiences • Partner to investigate the reintroduction of heritage buildings for new uses along Harbour Esplanade • Deliver a community boating hub in Docklands to accommodate longstanding community boating organisations • Deliver place names that celebrate the rich history of Docklands, (e.g. Batman’s Hill) • Partner to document, deliver and promote information about Docklands’ history and heritage • Continue to facilitate the delivery of public art that celebrates Docklands’ history • Deliver the Docklands Aboriginal Heritage Trail, a Docklands Arts Fund initiative that celebrates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and other stories • Partner to deliver heritage trails throughout Docklands (eg. maritime) • Continue to accommodate recreation activities that have long occurred in the area, such as fishing • Facilitate the development of berths for heritage vessels, including the Alma Doepel, which offer community and educational programs and encourage potential links to Polly

Woodside and Mission to Seafarers. Harbour Destination • Partner to develop Harbour Esplanade and Central Pier as a significant public destination of regional importance, with maritime attractions such as seafood markets, and public

and commercial boating • Facilitate the delivery of regular attractions adjacent to the water, including farmers’ markets and night markets • Partner to deliver a range of affordable and accessible recreational activities and community events on and near the water, including boat-for-hire operations • Facilitate the delivery of community recreational swimming opportunities in and near the harbour • Partner to deliver water-based events, street events and attractions • Ensure major Melbourne events and festivals are presented in Docklands • Partner to promote Docklands to domestic and international visitor markets • Deliver and promote information, products and publications about unique and everyday waterfront experiences • Deliver improved way-finding signage, visitor information and services



135



• Facilitate the delivery of a marine precinct that includes space for commercial service providers, a regulatory centre and a facility for servicing and maintenance • Facilitate the diversification of commercial boating operations in Docklands. Connected Docklands • Partner to deliver pedestrian connections over Victoria Harbour and the Yarra River to better connect the precincts • Facilitate the delivery of a range of transport options and improved access for Docklands, including better links to surrounding suburbs and new links to Fishermans Bend • Facilitate and promote the use of sustainable transport to, from, and within Docklands • Facilitate the delivery of increased tram and bus services between Docklands and surrounding suburbs • Partner to deliver better pedestrian facilities and improve areas in the public realm along pedestrian routes from the central city to Docklands’ waterfront • Deliver continuous, safe and dedicated cycle paths throughout Docklands and to surrounding suburbs • Partner to deliver sustainable water transport options, such as water ferries and water taxis • Implement incentives to encourage more sustainable transport use in Docklands. An Eco Docklands • Maintain and exceed the current high standard of environmental sustainability in commercial buildings and the public realm, and achieve high standards in new and existing

residential and public buildings • Partner to deliver a centre of excellence in Docklands, focused on knowledge about climate change and leadership in sustainable living and urban development • Partner to deliver precinct-wide energy, water and waste initiatives • Maximise the environmental benefits of greening the environment to enhance liveability of the public realm and improve health and wellbeing • Deliver sustainable landscapes with sensory appeal that produce a sustainable and comfortable micro climate • Deliver improved water quality in Victoria Harbour to enable more water-based recreation, with the possibility of swimming • Promote sustainable buildings, services and systems • Promote the benefits of compact city living. Thriving Business Community • Support business networks in key local centres in Docklands to promote local businesses and enterprises • Support community and creative enterprises and micro businesses in appropriate locations to provide a greater retail and service variety, and to activate the area and enhance

streets and laneways • Facilitate the start-up or relocation to Docklands of small or specialty businesses and services • Partner to deliver ‘pop-up’ retail in appropriate locations. Diverse Residential Community • Partner with developers to deliver diverse housing and tenure options in Docklands including housing for low-to-moderate income households and housing for families • Partner to deliver affordable housing co-located with appropriate community facilities for specific target groups.

Open Space Strategy 2012

The Open Space Strategy provides the overarching framework and strategic direction for open space planning in the City of Melbourne for the next 15 years. A key objective of the strategy is to plan Melbourne’s open space network to be within easy walking distance to the community, particularly in areas of forecasted population growth.

2012


vo

lu

me

3


136



The strategy provides direction on these key issues: • the unprecedented demand for open space as Melbourne’s population continues to grow • climate change – a decade of drought, water restrictions and extreme weather and the predicted impacts of climate change provide additional challenges in the management of

parks and reserves and the role they can play in climate change adaptation • ensuring open spaces can provide for and adapt to differing needs and uses. This includes providing people with the opportunity to connect with nature. Open space in the Strategy is classified in the following way: • Capital City and State open spaces are iconic and synonymous with the character and identity of Melbourne and often used to stage activities and events of international,

national, state and metropolitan importance. Examples include Federation Square (Capital City), Domain Parklands (Capital City) and Royal Park (State). The size varies to suit the identified purpose and urban context in which they are located.

• Regional open spaces are valued and visited by a broader catchment of people as well as the local community. Generally these are easily accessible to people from adjoining municipalities. Examples include Princes Park, Fawkner Park and the Maribyrnong River.

• Municipal open spaces are valued and visited primarily by the City of Melbourne population, providing facilities that include organised and unstructured sport and recreation activities. Examples include JJ Holland Park and North Melbourne Recreation Reserve.

• Neighbourhood open spaces provide a diversity of character and facilities that appeal to the local community at a neighbourhood level. Examples include Argyle Square and North Melbourne Community Centre.

• Local and Small Local open spaces complement the larger reserves and provide smaller more intimate spaces within safe and easy walking distance of the local community. These two types are differentiated by their size. Examples include Golden Elm Reserve in South Yarra and Chapman Street Reserve in North Melbourne.

A key objective in planning the open space network is to provide open space within easy walking distance for the majority of the community. A 500 metre walkable distance is used for State, Capital City, Regional, Municipal and Neighbourhood open space, and a 300 metre walkable distance is used for Local and Small Local open space. Major roads and railways are barriers that limit walkable access. The gap analysis diagram below indicates that when walkable distances are applied to the existing open space network, there are gaps in the distribution of open space. The gap areas are locations where residents and workers lack easy walkable access to open space and include some areas where significant population growth is anticipated. Additional open space is needed to address current and future gaps in provision of open space within walking distance. Figure 6 - proposed additional major open spaces



137



Figure 7 – Proposed Docklands Open Space Strategies


vo

lu

me

3


138



Figure 8– Proposed Port Melbourne (City of Melbourne) Open Space Strategies



139




vo

lu

me

3


140



Preferred Open Space Sizes The minimum size for the site to meet its intended purpose, on its own or in combination with adjoining land. Refer to minimum size parcels for each type of open space as follows: • Capital City of open space, unlimited • State open space, unlimited • Regional open space, unlimited • Municipal open space, generally a minimum of 3 hectares, subject to the proposed municipal recreation facility located in it, however for new open space a minimum size of 4.5

hectares is preferred. • Neighbourhood open space, minimum of 1 hectare. • Local open space, minimum 0.26 and up to 0.99 hectares. • Small Local open space, minimum 0.03 and up to 0.25 hectares, with a minimum width of 20 metres in at least one direction. • Small Local Link space, with a minimum width of 5 metres.

City of Melbourne Open Space Contributions Framework

The Open Space Contributions Framework has been prepared as a component of the Open Space Strategy. The Framework relies on a combination of the City of Melbourne, Victorian government and development industry to deliver the Strategy outcomes and anticipates the type of contribution each will make to achieve this goal. The Framework contemplates that there will be different ways in which the Strategy is funded: • Land contributions by the Victorian government to create new Capital City open space to protect and enhance Melbourne’s liveability as the population grows. The expectation

is that the Victorian government will convert part of its land holdings to open space as part of future redevelopment plans. • Municipal open space for new communities to be funded by the Victorian government, City of Melbourne and developers. Municipal open space is proposed on public land

owned by the Victorian government. It is proposed that this land be converted to open space by the Victorian government, also as part of future redevelopment plans. • Open space contributions by developers to provide for the demand created by forecast residents and workers. This includes land contributions from developers to create new

Neighbourhood, Local and Small Local open space, and cash contributions for land purchase, open space establishment and upgrades. • Allocations by the City of Melbourne including land conversion or purchase to expand the open space network, and annual budget expenditure for open space establishment

and upgrades. The contribution rate includes the following classes of open space projects as included in the Open Space Strategy: • Acquisition of land for additional Neighbourhood, Local and Small Local open space. • Unstructured recreation and informal facilities designed for the City of Melbourne population that will be constructed within new and existing Capital City, State, Regional,

Municipal, Neighbourhood, Local and Small Local open space. The rate does not include the value of the land for new Municipal open space. This is because the land needed for Municipal open space is already in public ownership and there is a view that developers should not contribute financially toward the City of Melbourne acquiring this land. The land will need to be acquired through another mechanism.

2012



141



The rate does not include the value of land for new Capital City open space, which will need to be delivered by the Victorian government and the City of Melbourne. The reason for this is that the use of Capital City open space by new residents and workers will be relatively small compared to use by the metropolitan population and by visitors. The rate does not include projects that are beyond the scope of the Strategy: • Establishment of Capital City open space facilities including major event venues or similar. • Structured sports grounds, courts and club-based facilities. • Indoor sport, recreation and leisure venues. • Community facilities. • Street tree planting and streetscape works. The rate schedule that Council proposes to use is shown in the following table:

The following diagram illustrates the proposed rates in map form by precincts.


vo

lu

me

3


142



Figure 9 - Proposed City of Melbourne Open Space Contributions Rates

City of Melbourne Community

The primary purpose of the Community Infrastructure Plan 2007-2017 is to help guide the development of community infrastructure over the next ten years. The Plan: • Establishes aspirational outcomes for community infrastructure;

2007



143



Infrastructure Plan 2007 – 2017

• Embraces neighbourhood, municipal and capital city needs; • Articulates an integrated service scope; • Identifies council’s role in responding to community needs; and • Model best practice/ place based responses for the next 10 years. Ultimately, the plan seeks to support the role of social sustainability across the municipality. Social sustainability has been defined as “Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to fulfil their own needs.” Priorities identified for both Docklands and Southbank are shown below. District One - East Melbourne, CDB, Docklands • Access to community information. • Access to affordable local meeting space. • Access to local open space/ play space. • Access to family health services (maternal and child health services, immunisation, etc). • Access to childcare services (long day care). • Additional children’s playground. • Access to youth services. • Access to aged services. • Access to junior primary education. District three: Southbank, St Kilda Road • Access to community information. • Access to local open space. • Access to affordable local meeting space. • Active and passive recreation, young children and older adults. • Access to youth services. • Access to aged services. • Access to junior primary education.

Community Infrastructure Implementation Framework (2011 Update)

This Framework acts as a functional tool, which will guide how the City of Melbourne plans, assesses and decides upon future infrastructure projects. It builds on a detailed body of work, which has been compiled over several years, in particular the Community Infrastructure Plan (2007-2017). Priorities for Docklands Short term • Library and learning services. • Community centre/neighbourhood house. • Adult education. • Community meeting spaces.

2011


vo

lu

me

3


144



• Office space for community organisations. Medium term • Community information services. • Social and recreational services and water activities Hub. • Site for Primary School. Long term • Community health services. Priorities for Southbank, South Yarra & St Kilda Road Short term • General community support and information. • Office space for community organisations and activities. • Community health services. • Neighbourhood House and community education services. Medium term • Library. • Early years services - MCH, childcare. • Youth services. • Art programs and artists space. Long term • Accommodation and homeless services. • Aged and disability services. • Site for Primary and Secondary school.

Active Melbourne Strategy

The Active Melbourne Strategy has been developed to provide a strategic framework and identify key actions for delivery by Council to ensure that a range of sport, recreation and leisure goals can be achieved. The strategy is part of Council’s response to the issues and challenges of increasingly sedentary lifestyles, with the aim of enhancing the health and well being of our community. In its simplest form, this strategy will strive to provide opportunities for as many people as possible to participate in physical activities that contribute positively to their health and wellbeing. The following actions for the initial 3 years of the strategy have been identified under the five themes to improve and develop opportunities for physical activity participation in the municipality, ensuring positive progress toward achieving the vision. The action plan will be developed, reviewed and adjusted on an annual basis. Planning & Policy

March 2007



145



• Conduct Municipal Recreation Needs Studies, including assessment of supply and demand across all neighbourhoods in municipality • In conjunction with Health Services; develop a measurement and reporting system to assist with evaluating success of Active Melbourne initiatives and provide information for

continual improvement • Trial a new healthy options menu at one recreation facility in 2007/08. Assess impact on revenue at site • Form partnerships with the tertiary sector to assist with specific research programs to assist in the development of new Active Melbourne initiatives, e.g. specific cultural

research • Ensure that design considerations for activity opportunities are incorporated in all facility design and development. Incorporate Healthy by Design (Heart Foundation) resource

as component of all projects • In conjunction with Engineering Services and in consultation with key stakeholders such as Bicycle Victoria, ensure that Council responds appropriately to the needs of cyclists in

the municipality • Ensure that appropriate community consultation mechanisms are a key feature of all major recreation development projects • Continue to monitor and actively research sport and recreation participation rates and trends to ensure awareness of potential implications for Council infrastructure and

services, e.g. growth of soccer • To ensure integration and alignment across Council conduct quarterly information sharing sessions across departments where strategies are delivered with outcomes consistent

with Active Melbourne Place • Develop specific action plans for all neighbourhoods post Municipal Recreation Needs Study • Continue to redevelop community sporting pavilions to meet current and future community activity needs. Commence Fawkner Park southern pavilion redevelopment • Commence design process for establishment of community health and fitness facility at Kensington Community Recreation Centre • Ensure that any partnership funding proposals for new or refurbished facilities located within the municipality meet the following funding principles: • provide new / upgraded facilities in the short term that otherwise would not be available for many years • provide places designated and promoted for community use • promote and deliver clearly identifiable recreation and leisure activities that meets the needs of local people and have a sustainable future • enhance existing and create new participation opportunities by a wide range of the community • provide a diversity of choice within the community • provide opportunities to build community strength through social interaction by targeting programs for traditionally under represented groups and developing increased

cultural awareness, recognising the changing make up of the community • maximise existing infrastructure use and avoid investment in assets which would otherwise be relatively under utilised • ensure community consultation for each specific project • Ensure design of AFL club redevelopments provides community benefit via access for participation in a range of sport, recreation and social opportunities • Continue the upgrading of existing sports lighting to meet current Australian standards and determine opportunities for new sports lighting locations • Ensure physical activity opportunities remain an integral component of provision of open space in the municipality, e.g. Open Space Strategy • Manage the impact of water restrictions as it relates to Council sporting fields to minimise the impact on community sport, including the identification of other training

opportunities at Council facilities • Investigate current sports field provision and maintenance to identify and implement improved sustainable maintenance practices, which utilise recycled or reduced water,

including further research on synthetic sports surfaces


vo

lu

me

3


146



• Ensure that environmentally sustainable options are incorporated into the physical environment at any and all opportunities People • Investigate the feasibility of delivering a free learn to swim program for all primary schools within the municipality • Investigate the feasibility of free recreational swimming for all City of Melbourne residents 12 years and under at any Council swimming pool • Leverage off Council support for national, international and elite sporting events to provide tangible benefits at the community level e.g. athlete talks with schools, healthy

product giveaways • Continue to work closely with all school communities to deliver and develop appropriate opportunities to meet physical activity needs • Set up an advisory panel to advise Council on directions and actions to deliver the Active Melbourne strategy with a particular focus on recognised underrepresented groups,

e.g. CALD communities • Continue to work with the regional Access for All Abilities provider to maximise activity opportunities for people with a disability • Continue to provide opportunities for community organisations and their staff and volunteers to build and deliver physical activity initiatives, building on the foundations of

previous support, training and education programs such as Community Sports Grants, Sporting Club Education Forums, Good Sports Program (responsible serving of alcohol) and the Sporting Club incentive scheme.

Provision • Launch a health and fitness program specifically for young people (aged 12 – 17) at both the Melbourne City Baths and Carlton Baths Community Centre • Maintain and improve existing funding opportunities and programs to support organisations and individuals to pursue and enhance specific activity opportunities in the

municipality • Conduct a price review across major Council recreation programs and services incorporating the development of a concession policy • Explore new opportunities for program service and delivery with key partner organisations, e.g. universities and schools, senior citizens centre, child care centres, CALD

organisations, recreation providers Promotion • Develop expanded Active Melbourne Sport & Recreation Directory as a searchable on line resource • Continue to deliver quarterly Active Melbourne newsletter highlighting benefits of participation in activity and highlighting opportunities for participation • Continue to brand all Council sport and recreation facilities to clearly identify them as Council facilities consistent with the Council Signage Strategy • Develop a range of promotional collateral to reinforce the opportunities available to the community as a result of delivering the Active Melbourne strategy, e.g. brochures,

pedometers • Review and implement Active Melbourne marketing plan

Empowering Young People Policy

Empowering Young People – Young People’s Policy provides the overarching strategic vision for young people who live and/or visit the municipality and key policy objectives for the next three years. The policy complements the Children’s Plan 2010-13 and ensures that the health and wellbeing needs to 0-12 years and 12-25 years are addressed. The Policy has the following 5 main goals: Goal 1 – Participation, leadership and empowerment Goal 2 – Healthy and active

2010



147



Goal 3 – Learning and earning Goal 4 – Safe places to go and things to do Goal 5 – Effective partnerships and joint responses One of its many stated actions is to ensure that young people are actively engaged in the planning, development and management of public spaces such as Docklands, the south-end of Elizabeth Street and Southbank.

Strategy for a Safer City 2011-13

This report is the latest strategic framework which outlines priority outcomes for a safer municipality since the foundational Strategy for a Safer City was adopted in 1996. The strategy supports the vision and key priority areas of Future Melbourne Plan, Council Plan 2009-13 and Melbourne’s Policy for the 24 Hour City. The strategy also works within the context of a range of Victorian state policies. The strategy covers a broad range of issues including community safety, crime and violence prevention, intentional and unintentional injury prevention, drugs and alcohol harm minimisation and syringe management. The key issues as evidenced from research, numerous consultations, events and committee forums have been themed under three priority areas: People, Places and Partnerships. • People - People are proud of the municipality of Melbourne, participate in city life and have a shared responsibility for Melbourne’s reputation as a safe and liveable place. • Places - Melbourne is a municipality of safe, inviting and diverse places which are connected and accessible, day and night. • Partnerships - The City of Melbourne’s key partners share a commitment to and responsibility for Melbourne’s status as a safe and liveable community. The Strategy also seeks to ensure crime prevention through incorporating environmental design (CPTED) principles in the planning and design of roads, transport routes and hubs.

2011

Delivering for Docklands Strategy (2007-2010)

Delivering for Docklands includes visions and actions that focus on three key areas: • the residential community; • the business community; and • the economic wellbeing and vibrancy of Docklands. The actions identified under the “residential community” were as follows: • establish a permanent Family and Children’s Services Hub in Docklands, working with developers and VicUrban, to be in operation by 2009; • provide childcare places to residents and workers through the Family and Children’s Services Hub; • offer maternal and child health services to residents in Docklands and the western end of the CBD through the Family and Children’s Services Hub; • provide community meeting spaces for community groups, parenting groups and other users; and • develop local recreational and educational activities in partnership with residents and local organisations. • communicate information on existing City of Melbourne library services to Docklands residents; • work with VicUrban to encourage the development of a sporting facility offering sporting opportunities and water-based activities to Docklands residents, workers and visitors; • work with community organisations to offer volunteering opportunities to residents and workers;

2007


vo

lu

me

3


148



• develop an international students outreach program; • encourage businesses such as cinemas, theatres and book shops to locate in Docklands; and • influence the activation of the disused railway sheds at Lorimer Street. • include Docklands in the City of Melbourne’s Open Space Analysis that guides and plans for park opportunities and open space development; • introduce a comprehensive tree planting program to improve the quality of the physical environment; • extend the City of Melbourne’s high standards for paving, street furniture and lighting into Docklands; • audit public toilet locations and signage, and create additional facilities where needed; • work with VicUrban to increase the number of green spaces and recreational areas in Docklands; and • work with VicUrban to investigate methods to reduce the impact of high winds in Docklands. • provide opportunities and support the development of recreational programs and health promotion activities for older residents; and • make City of Melbourne social support initiatives available to older people in Docklands. • meet with resident and community groups to identify opportunities to establish and build a strong community network in Docklands; • promote community education opportunities in the municipality to Docklands residents and local groups and clubs; and • help community groups apply for City of Melbourne grants such as Community Safety Grants; Community Action on the Environment Grants; and Active Melbourne Grants. • develop a Docklands-specific arts grants program; • convene a Docklands Arts Forum to promote a vibrant, local arts scene for visitors and residents; and • encourage VicUrban to install artworks that reflect Melbourne’s culture and history. • promote council and committee meetings to the Docklands community and encourage attendance and participation at these meetings; • deliver regular forums for residents, businesses and other stakeholders to raise local issues and ideas with the City of Melbourne and councillors. • communicate regularly with residents about City of Melbourne services and initiatives through corporate communication tools such as Melbourne News and the City of

Melbourne website: www.melbourne.vic.gov.au; and promote community consultation activities for each year of the Delivering for Docklands strategy. • improve the quality of bike and pedestrian paths and introduce clearer path markings and signage for all path users; • survey and monitor shared pathways and address potential accident crash sites; • work with the Southern Cross Station Authority to advocate to improve pedestrian connections at Collins Street from Southern Cross Station into Docklands; • work with the Southern Cross Station Authority to improve pedestrian/cycle links between Spencer Street and the Telstra Dome concourse; • work with VicRoads to improve pedestrian crossings to link Village Docklands to North Wharf Park and the new convention centre; • work with VicUrban and the Victorian Government to upgrade Northbank from Spencer Street to Victoria Harbour including a pedestrian and cycling link under Charles Grime

Bridge; • work with VicUrban and VicRoads to redesign the Wurrundjeri Way/Flinders Street intersection to provide a safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians; • work with the Victorian Government, the Department of Infrastructure and the Department of Planning and Community Development to provide a pedestrian bridge

connecting Lonsdale Street with Telstra Dome; and • in consultation with VicUrban and Bicycle Victoria, develop bike paths (including pedestrian/cycle infrastructure external to Docklands) to improve the safety and connectivity of

the Capital City Trail for cyclists accessing Docklands. • incorporate Docklands into the City of Melbourne’s successful District Precinct Program; and • identify the unique and defining characteristics in each precinct to be preserved and enhanced. • extend existing outdoor environmental programs such as Clean Up Australia Day and community planting days into Docklands; • deliver a Waterwatch program focusing on Moonee Ponds Creek, Yarra River and Victoria Harbour; and include Docklands residents and community groups in education

programs such as Sustainable Living in the City.



149



Lifelong Melbourne Plan (2006-2016)

The principles and policies contained in the Lifelong Melbourne Plan, propose a new direction for aged care in the City of Melbourne. The direction is in response to the ageing population which is expected to dominate the political landscape. The Lifelong Melbourne Plan: 2006 – 2016 identifies five major areas of strategic direction for Council: • offering choice rather than one size fits all; • fostering independence and self care; • providing information and access to services; • promoting active and supportive neighbourhoods; and • planning for accessible and appropriate residential and home-care packages for older citizens. Proposed actions include: • Develop service delivery model for Southbank and Docklands. • Develop internet link on Docklands intranet site for information access and sharing. Investigate viability for intranet site for Southbank. • Establish social groups (e.g. meal groups, interest groups) • Develop facilities for aged services. Establish community space for older people. Develop community gardens. • Develop new models for facilities or meeting within mainstream services such as libraries, cafés and community centres. • Develop a long-term collaborative planning process with the State Government to identify and acquire a suitable location and suitable land for the next residential care facility

within the City of Melbourne.

2006

Melbourne Library Service Strategic Plan (2008-2018)

The strategic review of the library service has highlighted a broad range of projects that will improve and enhance library services to the Melbourne community. They are grouped under three main areas: 1) Powerful systems; 2) Partnerships and 3) Reaching the community. Proposed actions include: • Docklands area - Goals here include marketing the City Library and Docklands Hub Library Access Point to people who work and live in the Docklands areas; developing closer

links with the Residents Association to ensure the needs of Docklands residents are met; working with VicUrban to cost and concept design a full service library. • Southbank area - These include promoting the City Library as the local library for the Southbank area; developing closer links with the Residents Association to meet the needs

of Southbank residents and researching how to establish a neighbourhood level library facility together with other community services at the Boyd High School, City Road site.

Southbank Structure Plan 2010

The Southbank Structure Plan 2010 was endorsed by the Melbourne City Council’s Future Melbourne Committee on Tuesday 14 September 2010. The Plan provides a new vision and strategy for the future development of Southbank, helping it become a more lively, accessible, liveable and sustainable neighbourhood. The Plan is part of the City of Melbourne’s commitment to delivering the Southbank Plan (2007). The Plan proposes the following actions under 6 main headings: Land Use 1. Change of land use zoning from current Public Use, Mixed Use, Road Zone Category 1 and Residential 1 zones (see Figure 3.1) to the Capital City Zone and Mixed Use Zone

respectively (see Figure 3.2). This would incorporate the removal of the 2:1 Commercial Floor Area Ratio that currently applies across Southbank which restricts commercial

2010


vo

lu

me

3


150



development and the establishment of new land use schedules. 2. Prepare master plans for the three activity nodes to establish a clear direction for their development. 3. Prepare a master plan and business case for the decking of the CityLink tunnel entrance to assess the feasibility of this strategy. The master plan study area should

incorporate the immediate surrounding context. 4. Deliver the Sturt Street Cultural Spine using the planning scheme and other mechanisms to encourage the growth of many, smaller scale uses along the street to complement

the existing arts and cultural venues. 5. Discuss long-term future options and opportunities of the Victoria Barracks site with the Commonwealth Department of Defence. 6. Incorporate significant new green open space into CityLink Deck master plan and business case. 7. Convert the undercroft of the M1 into a linear urban parkland. 8. Investigate appropriate mechanisms to deliver 20% affordable housing including the opportunity for the City of Melbourne to act as a broker between developers and

registered housing associations in order to facilitate this outcome. (See also Recommendation C4) 9. Review flooding overlay and extent of flooding controls/mitigation required on affected sites. 10. Confirm three locations of Central Services Hub. Investigate in more detail the specification requirements of this infrastructure including the need to consider emissions,

noise, vibration and access issues associated with the installation, operation and maintenance of the facilities. Built Form 1. Introduce new built form controls into a schedule in the Planning Scheme that deliver the following outcomes: 2. Introduce new built form controls into a schedule in the PIanning Scheme that deliver the following outcomes to achieve the streetscape vision. 3. Mandate the delivery of environmental building performance in local planning policy for all new development. 4. Mandate the delivery of environmental building performance in local planning policy for redevelopment. 5. Mandate the delivery of green roofs for all new developments in local planning policy. 6. Mandate the inclusion of a 10% energy generation target into the local planning policy. 7. Investigate a developer contribution overlay for the delivery of sustainable infrastructure. 8. Identify this precinct and include guidance in the Melbourne Planning Scheme that recognises and protects the fine grain urban character of this precinct. Mobility and Access 1. Upgrade Primary Pedestrian Spines to optimise pedestrian safety and capacity. 2. Investigate a 30 kilometre-per-hour speed limit on all local roads with higher limits on key arterials serving a higher traffic function. Lower speed limits will be pursued to

promote optimal safety and high levels of amenity for pedestrians and cyclists. Careful consideration needs to be given to the potential implications on public transport service efficiency. See Mobility and Access Recommendation 45 in the Reduce Car Use section below.

3. Investigate the feasibility of reducing the speed limit on St Kilda Road north of Domain Road from 60 to 50 kilometres-per-hour and north of Southbank Boulevard from 50 to 40 kilometres-per-hour. See Mobility and Access Recommendation 45 in the Reduce Car Use Section below.

4. Investigate widening footpaths along entire length of City Road. 5. Provide new pedestrian crossing facilities along the entire length of City Road. 6. Investigate introducing automatic pedestrian phase activation during every traffic signal cycle along the 12 pedestrian spines (north-south and east-west). 7. Investigate improving pedestrian service by reducing traffic signal cycle times along the 12 pedestrian spines. 8. Investigate the widening of all signalised pedestrian crosswalks to 3 metres minimum along the 12 pedestrian spines. 9. Investigate footpath widening opportunities (to reduce crossing distances) where geometry is substandard or capacity is inadequate along the 12 pedestrian spines.



151



10. Develop a wayfinding signage strategy to direct pedestrians to all destinations within Southbank and beyond (e.g., South Melbourne Market, sports and entertainment precinct and Port Phillip Bay).

11. Deliver a fine grain pedestrian network through the establishment of new laneways (minimum 6m wide and 7.6m high) and an upgrade of existing streetscapes. This is also identified in the Open Space network strategy (Refer Open Space Recommendation 5).

12. Investigate a high priority pedestrian connection across Kings Way at Sturt Street (either an overpass or an underpass). This is not possible at-grade without creating increased congestion on Kings Way and possibly CityLink.

13. Investigate a ground-level pedestrian link opposite Kavanagh Street under Kings Way ramps to improve connections to Clarendon Street and South Melbourne Market. 14. Establish overlays on existing private land for development of new laneways. (See also Mobility and Access Recommendation 11). 15. Establish a new pedestrian link through the heart of the University of Melbourne’s faculty of the VCAM Campus. 16. Examine methods to achieve unimpeded progression for pedestrians through the newly created interchange between West Gate Freeway and Montague Street. 17. Provide a pedestrian link from corner of Kavanagh Street and Southbank Boulevard along the western half of Fawkner Street and through a new north-south pedestrian path

directly opposite Southgate Avenue. 18. Investigate methods to achieve better pedestrian priority on the eastern half of Fawkner Street and the entire length of Fanning Street. 19. Create direct pedestrian linkages from the DFO complex to the rest of Southbank and the City of Port Phillip municipality. 20. Investigate opportunity for new pedestrian bridge linking Flinders Street Station to Southbank in the vicinity of the Arts Centre. 21. Investigate the installation of primary on road bicycle routes along entire length of City Road. This route should be continued with appropriate treatments provided in

Alexandra Avenue (including linkages to the Yarra Trail) and the City of Port Phillip sections of City Road. These routes need to ensure continuity in the network as they are implemented. Among other benefits, this will (together with plans for a shared bicycle path along Northbank on the central city side of the Yarra River) provide an alternative to Southbank Promenade for commuter and higher speed cyclists.

22. Investigate the installation of primary on road bicycle routes in Queensbridge Street between Power Street and Flinders Street and along St Kilda Rd. 23. Investigate the installation of primary on road bicycle routes in Clarendon Street/Spencer Street between the municipal boundary and Flinders Street. This is to complement

the stronger pedestrian and cycle emphasis required along this key civic spine linking Southern Cross Station to Southbank’s attractions and into South Melbourne. 24. Investigate the installation of primary on road bicycle routes along entire length of Southbank Boulevard, Sturt Street and Coventry Street. 25. Establish a bicycle route, through a combination of on- and off-road paths, along Grant Street, Power Street, Whiteman Street and Normanby Road and linking to Docklands

via South Wharf and the Webb Bridge. 26. Encourage the provision of a minimum of one bicycle parking space per dwelling for all new residential development in Southbank, an increase from the current one space

per five dwellings. 27. Provide additional on-street bicycle parking facilities throughout Southbank to meet demand. 28. Establish Melbourne Bicycle Sharing Scheme facilities in Southbank. 29. Investigate provision of bicycle facilities to link St Kilda Road bicycle lanes across Princes Bridge to Flinders Street. 30. Establish improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the tram reservation on Kings Way if tram route is relocated to Sturt and Power Street (see Mobility and Access

Recommendation 33). 31. Extend bicycle lanes to intersections. Provide intersection treatments (e.g. advance starts, storage boxes, exclusive phases etc). 32. Provide way finding signage for cyclists. 33. Investigate options to relocate tram services from Kings Way to Sturt Street and Power Street to support the existing and growing resident, worker and visitor population in

Southbank. If relocation does not proceed, existing tram stops along Kings Way should be upgraded. The potentially redundant tram reservation on Kings Way must be used to expand the pedestrian and bicycle networks. See Mobility and Access Recommendation 31 in the Expand the Bicycle Network section above.

34. Examine the potential for new tram routes along Whiteman Street and Normanby Road, particularly to service special events, conferences and exhibitions.


vo

lu

me

3


152



35. Investigate the provision of providing maximum active tram priority to all signalised intersections in Southbank. 36. Investigate and develop further bus priority in the area, particularly for citybound bus services in City Road and Southbank Boulevard. 37. Investigate the management of City Road (along its entire length) with emphasis on local traffic access and circulation. This will include increased pedestrian and bicycle

priority, and improved public transport operation where appropriate. 38. Investigate the removal of the short section of clearway on the north side of City Road between Power Street and Sturt Street. 39. Investigate the opportunities for intermittent weekend road closures in Southbank for festivals, community gatherings, ciclovias and other activities. 40. Progressively reduce the traffic function on St Kilda Road north of Southbank Boulevard by managing it with high levels of pedestrian, bicycle and public transport priority. 41. Facilitate creation of new open space in Sturt Street (north of Southbank Boulevard) and Grant Street (east of Sturt Street). Local access to car parks needs to be

accommodated. 42. Allow all new non residential developments to occur with no off street parking. 43. Remove all long-term on-street parking and replace it with short-term restrictions. 44. Encourage operators of commercial off-street public car parks to offer short- and medium-term car parking in preference to long-term car parking. 45. Manage all on-street parking to support short-term access, delivery/servicing and special needs. 46. Manage speed limits across Southbank 47. Investigate the potential to remove elevated section of Kings Way in the long term. 48. Encourage the expansion of carsharing operation through the provision of additional on-street spaces and the encouragement of off-street shared spaces within private

developments. This will reduce the need for additional car parking spaces within new developments. Open Space 1. Deliver Southbank Plan through City of Melbourne capital works programme and in conjunction with DPCD. 2. As part of the feasibility of the CityLink Deck explore opportunities to incorporate a significant open space that can serve as a new ‘Central Park’. 3. Progress discussion with the University of Melbourne and the Commonwealth Government over potential future connections through public land and access to these public

spaces. 4. As part of the master plan for the Activity node consider options and opportunities for a new public open space within the Boyd School site. 5. Upgrade the existing suite of reserves to better contribute to the quality of the streetscape and to provide a series of open spaces for respite and recreation within

Southbank. 6. Develop a street improvement strategy for Southbank local street upgrades to be delivered through the City of Melbourne capital works programme. 7. In conjunction with the Sustainability Infrastructure feasibility assessment, explore the retention and storage of stormwater in public open space. 8. Investigate appropriate solar access conditions to deliver a high level of public amenity within the ‘Central Park’ and open space within the Boyd School site - eg. across a

minimum of 50% of the site. Update Clause 22.02 to reflect the importance of these two public open spaces. Community Infrastructure 1. Promote the establishment of district community hub activities within the CityLink Deck development (Activity Node). 2. Promote the establishment of neighbourhood hubs within the Boyd School redevelopment and the Arts Precinct activity nodes. 3. Advocate for a primary and secondary school within Southbank with the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. 4. Investigate appropriate mechanisms to deliver 20% affordable housing including the opportunity for the City of Melbourne to act as a broker between developers and

registered housing associations in order to facilitate this outcome. (See also Land Use Recommendation 7). 5. Investigate potential sites and incentives for private developments to deliver childcare services within Southbank.



153



Sustainable Infrastructure 1. Undertake a feasibility assessment to further explore the potential of Central Services Hubs. 2. Confirm three the locations of the Central Services Hubs. Investigate in more detail the specification requirements of this infrastructure including the need to consider

emissions, noise, vibration and access issues associated with the installation, operation and maintenance of the facilities. (See also Land Use Recommendation 09) 3. Undertake a feasibility assessment to further explore the potential for a combined services tunnel. 4. Undertake a feasibility assessment to further explore the potential for tri-generation plants in Southbank Investigate potential supplies of biomass and biogas as fuel for tri-

generation plants. This should be considered in relation to city-wide waste management strategies. 5. Undertake a study to investigate the feasibility of retrofitting PVs on the West Gate Freeway and the buildings identified above. A detailed design study is required to

establish the requirements for the height of the barrier, loading implications and structural fixtures. 6. Undertake a study to investigate the feasibility of micro wind turbines. A detailed design study is required to establish the requirements for the height of the turbine, loading

implications and structural fixtures. 7. Undertake a feasibility assessment to explore the retention and storage of stormwater in public open space. 8. Consider as part of the Open Space Strategy undertaking a feasibility assessment to explore the treatment of stormwater in public open space. 9. Develop a Water Sensitive Urban Design Strategy for the whole of Southbank. 10. Undertake a feasibility assessment to further explore the potential for sewer mining in Southbank. 11. Mandate the delivery of green roofs for all new developments in local planning policy. (See also Built Form Recommendation 5). 12. Work needs to be undertaken to determine the merits of an electric vehicle-to-grid (V2G) an approach and whether such an approach is consistent with the City’s emissions

reduction strategy. This needs to address the potential impacts for demands on the electricity network, renewable energy generation and other relevant considerations.

City of Melbourne’s Children’s Plan 2010-2013

The Children’s Plan provides a framework for the City of Melbourne’s approach to providing the services, programs and infrastructure needed by families and children from birth to 12 years of age. It has been developed within the context of international, national and state-level policies, and alongside the City of Melbourne Empowering Young People – Young People’s Policy 2010 - 2013. Our vision for children Melbourne’s children are respected, healthy, safe and connected. Our Children’s Plan recognises the rights of children. We respect their right and ability to help shape the city. A part of our vision is that a liveable city for children is a liveable city for all. Themes • Theme 1 – rights of children. Outcome: Strengthen the City of Melbourne’s role as an advocate for the rights of children. • Theme 2 – opportunities to connect and build strong communities. Outcome: Give children more opportunities to connect with family, friends and the wider community. • Theme 3 – healthy children. Outcome: Create an environment that supports children’s all-round health and wellbeing. • Theme 4 – safer city. Outcome: Improve the real and perceived safety of the city for children. • Theme 5 – natural and urban environment. Outcome: Children are better able to connect with the natural and urban environment. • Theme 6 – services and infrastructure. Outcome: High quality, accessible services and infrastructure are available to meet the needs of children and families. • Theme 7 – mobility. Outcome: Children are able to move around easily, safely and confidently both with their families and independently. Relevant actions include those identified below.

2010


vo

lu

me

3


154



Under natural and urban environment the actions identified are: • We will review and update our open-space strategy to ensure the benefits of the natural environment are available for everyone, including children and families, to enjoy. • Where appropriate we will engage children and families to inform the planning, design and maintenance of public assets. • We will work with developers and businesses, providing them with insight into the needs of children and families. • We will work with international, state and local networks to strengthen children’s connection to nature and the urban environment. Under service and infrastructure the actions identified are: • We will deliver, support or advocate for high quality, integrated, affordable and accessible services. These will be responsive to emerging needs and population growth and will

include innovative service delivery for vulnerable and hard-to-reach communities. • We will help strengthen family relationships by operating within an early intervention and prevention framework. • We will work to ensure children and families have access to a range of child care and kindergarten services. • We advocate for programs and supports that focus on the transition from kindergarten to primary school for children and families. • We will provide the Victorian Government with insight into the education needs of children and families, particularly in relation to kindergartens and primary schools. • We will deliver and support high quality recreation, arts, cultural and events experiences to foster childrens creativity, play and physical activity. • We will plan and develop multipurpose community infrastructure to deliver services to meet the needs of children and families. • Through our grants program we will support services and activities that improve the health, physical activity, wellbeing and creativity of children and families. • We will deliver on the objectives and actions from the Our Melbourne – Disability Action Plan 2010 – 2013 ensuring benefits for all abilities, including children and families. • We will keep abreast of international, federal and state research, policy and legislation, particularly the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments’ frameworks. Under mobility the actions identified are: • We will work with transport authorities to provide them with insight into the needs of children and families, drawing on the findings of our research and consultation. • We will explore practical ways in which we can improve travel around the city by foot, car and public transport for children and families. • We will promote the choice of active forms of transport for children, such as walking, tricycling, cycling or scootering to get around neighbourhoods independently and with

their families, to help foster social and community connections and promote physical activity.

City of Melbourne Arts Strategy: 2010-2013

The Arts Strategy sets out a vision for nurturing and enhancing Melbourne’s vibrant arts community. Key priorities include: • Indigenous arts and culture. Reflecting Indigenous art in the fabric of the city. • Regional, national and international perspectives. Focusing on the presence of artists in the city and the enthusiasm of communities to engage with the arts, through programs

such as major public art commissions. • Engaging communities and cultural development. Strengthening relationships between and within communities through participation in creative projects. • Arts spaces and places. Promoting Melbourne public space as a living, ever-changing museum or art gallery. • Art, heritage and history. Ensuring the City of Melbourne’s art and heritage collection is widely and publicly accessible via the Council’s website. • Investing in the arts. Developing flexible support for artists, arts organisations and the wider community through training and mentoring opportunities, in kind support,

professional advice and physical resources.

2010



155



• Ideas, discussion and critical debate. Creating partnerships with individuals and organisations, including those with a focus on art, community, culture and education, in order to share ideas and provide an understanding of a diverse range of perspectives.

Actions are grouped under the following eight themes: • Encouraging arts organisations and creative industries to base themselves in the City of Melbourne • Involving the creative sector in decisions that affect the city • Supporting a culture of innovation • Increasing access to affordable work spaces for artists and creative enterprises • Encouraging creative and innovative design in the built environment • Increasing the reach and profile of the City of Melbourne’s expenditure on arts, culture and literature • Encouraging diversity in the arts • Increasing access to and participation in arts and culture Relevant actions include: • We will advocate for affordable floor space for arts organisations and creative industries within new developments in Docklands as part of the planning for the second decade of

Docklands. • We will work with VicUrban to help interested arts organisations and creative industries to locate their operations and activities in Docklands.


vo

lu

me

3


156

Table 18 – List of Other Relevant Policies, Strategies & Plans



Inner City Government Primary School Provision: Port Melbourne Feasibility Analysis

The enrolment size of Port Melbourne Primary School has increased significantly over the last 5 years. At the same time, population growth in the Port Melbourne and South Melbourne areas is likely to increase demand for education services and social infrastructure. Due to constrained capacity at local schools, the high level of population growth expected across the broader catchment is likely to result in students not having equitable access to public education. As a result of this problem, DEECD engaged Ernst & Young to test the feasibility of establishing a new government primary school in the Port Melbourne and South Melbourne catchment areas. The report considers three built form models for a primary school that can be accommodated on different sized sites in an urban environment (developed by Hassell as part of this study). Each model is designed to cater for up to 475 students and allows DEECD to acquire different sized sites to deliver a new school. The following four sites were evaluated: • Site 1 Port Phillip Specialist School, Port Melbourne (DEECD owned site ) • Site 2 Montague Continuing Education Centre, South Melbourne (DEECD owned site ) • Site 3 129 – 161 Ferrars Street, South Melbourne (University of Melbourne owned site) • Site 4 Port Melbourne Primary School, Port Melbourne (DEECD owned site) Site 3 – 129-161 Ferrars Street was rated the highest ranked option due to its proximity to a large future catchment, proximity to transport connections and access to parks and recreational facilities. Based on the qualitative site assessment, the report recommended that DEECD acquire the Ferrars Street site in South Melbourne. DEECD will need to correspond with the University of Melbourne confirming interest in the site and highlighting expected timing for a transfer.

April 2012

Port Interface Landscape Masterplan

The Port Landscape Masterplan was prepared by Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC) to: • enhance the quality, amenity and experience of the interfaces between the Port of Melbourne and its surrounds • provide improved opportunity for public access and recreation within key areas of open space within the port environment • build on PoMC's existing investments in community infrastructure within the port interface, including regular maintenance, plantings, support of local Friends groups which

work to improve the port shared spaces • improve public awareness, access and appreciation of the Port of Melbourne and port activities. The Masterplan will guide significant investment in the open spaces around the port for the next five years. The Masterplan concerns port land only. A map showing port land boundaries is contained in the Masterplan overview.

March 2012



157



The Port Landscape Masterplan was developed by PoMC, manager of the Port of Melbourne, following consultation with councils and key community groups surrounding the port. The key themes and guiding principles outlined in Chapter 3 have been based on an issues and opportunities analysis of the 8 key Masterplan precincts, undertaken during the visioning stage (refer to pages 16-17 for summary). The Masterplan recommendations in this chapter highlight opportunities to create an improved landscape interface with the public realm and to strengthen the PoMC brand. The 8 precincts of this study have been further broken down into 22 different sites or sub-precincts to allow for detailed analysis and recommendations at a workable scale appropriate for the landscape interfaces of such a large area. Each subprecinct has a particular character and objectives that tie into the precinct as a whole, and also into the overall vision for the PoMC interface. It should be noted that Webb Dock, the precinct closest to Fishermans Bend, was excluded from the Plan, but will be the subject of a future planning exercise. Precincts 1. Williamstown Precinct • Gellibrand Pier • Ann Street 2. Spotswood-Newport Foreshore Precinct • The Spit (at ‘The Warmies’) • Memorial Foreshore • Newport Foreshore • Industry Cage • Spotswood • Punt Area • Spotswood / Westgate 3. Stony Creek Backwash Precinct • Stony Creek Backwash • Stony Creek Foreshore 4. Francis Street Precinct • Francis Street Park 5. Yarraville Precinct • Yarraville Interface • Footscray Wharf 6. Swanson Dock Precinct • Maribyrnong East Bank • Footscray Road 7. Moonee Ponds Creek Precinct • Moonee Ponds North • Moonee Ponds Park 8. South Wharf Precinct


vo

lu

me

3


158



• Coastal Park • Marina • West of Todd Road • Lorimer Street

Delivering diverse and affordable

• identify ownership of key vacant sites and promote benefits of development

August 2012



159



housing on infill development sites

This report prepared by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute selected Sydney and Perth as case study cities because they have experienced different success in delivering medium and high-density housing on infill sites. The panel argued that the only way affordable housing will be supplied in infill locations is through agreements within the development approval process, or through partnerships on the back of land transfers; both of which require policy intervention. However, other interventions encouraging developers to provide different types of product (i.e. smaller lot sizes & houses) can still deliver a lower-priced product to the market where demand is greatest—below $400 000. The panel made 40 suggestions for improvements at various stages of the development process including: • state development agencies identify and assemble sites and coordinate development • efficient use of public land assets to deliver affordable housing • use of alternative land sources e.g. above shops. • strong leadership promoting the need for infill development and affordable housing • maximise opportunities for small-scale, medium-density infill development—three-storey walk up apartments, townhouses, villas, terraces, etc. • certainty in the approval process • incentives to developers at the DA stage. • increased delivery of affordable housing on public sites through development by state development agencies • encourage operation of small developers developing small sites • utilise public private partnerships • fund Community Housing Organisations to develop small sites. • streamline development approval system • deemed approvals if statutory time limits expire • codification for those delivering standard product, merit-based for more innovative schemes • fast track approvals for those operating within strategic planning parameters • community consultation at strategic phase and not DA phase • de-politicise the DA process • better coordination of infrastructure authorities and pricing should reflect future revenue generation • development Incentives on DA to avoid increasing land price. • ensure joint ventures are structured in a way that is acceptable to financiers • banks should reduce their pre-‘sales’ requirements and encourage smaller developers • use public agencies to de-risk schemes by providing an exit strategy for banks. • more flexibility in the workforce—ability to work on multiple project types • standardised building types familiar to existing trades • increase the training of a skilled workforce • efficiencies through relationships • maximise smaller scale projects and the number of small-scale developers. • smaller-scale projects increase pool of potential investors • encourage alternative tenure options such as shared equity, land trusts etc.


vo

lu

me

3


160



Vertical Living Kids (Mizrachi, D. and Whitzman, C.)

Vertical Living Kids is a research project that was conducted in Melbourne, Australia, to determine how children living in high rise housing explore the space around their homes, and to recommend better approaches to child-friendly environments for high rise developments. The research, conducted in 2008-09, was funded by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth) and had two objectives: • To explore the physical, social, and policy environmental determinants of Children’s Independent Mobility (CIM – the ability of children, in this case children aged 6-12, to

autonomously explore public space) in central Melbourne high rise housing. • To review international best practice planning policy for these communities to recommend better approaches to supportive environments for children living in high rise

housing: housing over four storeys. • The research project interviewed 40 children and their parents (18 living in public housing and 22 in privately owned housing). A range of qualitative and quantitative methods

were used, including children having ‘a week with a camera’ and creating an annotated collage of their pictures; a travel activity diary filled out by children; GPS monitoring to supplement the travel diary in terms of knowing where children go in the day; an accelerometer measuring their physical activity during outdoor exploration; a parental survey; and a desk-top best practice policy review.

Research findings: • Significant differences can be found between the travel behaviour of children residing in public and private high rise housing. • Children in public high rise housing experience greater levels of CIM: 62% of their journeys were undertaken either alone or with other children; while only 17% of trips made by

the private high rise sample were undertaken without adult accompaniment. • The geographies of children residing in public high rise housing were dominated by local, designated play spaces. Conversely, the geographies of children residing in private high

housing covered not only a larger territorial range but a wider variety of purpose built play spaces as well as public transport and commercial spaces. • Distance to school and local open green spaces is a determinant of CIM. Participants residing within an 800m radius from their school or within a 300m pedshed of local green

space were more likely to access those spaces independently than children who had to travel further. • Factors contributing to children’s environmental preferences include accessibility and proximity to home, amenity, and the range of play and socialization opportunities. • Singapore and Vancouver were identified to have best practice policies that support children living in high rise environments. Singapore enforces a clear hierarchy of walkable,

transit-oriented play spaces and also provides sufficient housing diversity and social infrastructure for families in high rise housing. In Vancouver, high rise housing is regulated a by design guidelines with explicit consideration of the needs of children and families, including the proportion of affordable family units, informal surveillance of children’s play space, common open and indoor amenity spaces, private open space, and community services.

Recommendations to state and local government: • That state and local planning authorities develop specific guidelines for children and families living in high rise housing, including enforcing a spatial hierarchy of interesting local

play spaces that allow for a gradual extension of children’s travel range, facilitating informal surveillance of play spaces from adjacent housing for younger children, and supporting innovative design and age-appropriate play spaces for older children.

• That state and local planning authorities consult with children, and take action on the recommendations arising from that consultation, that recognises that the entire public realm can function as a play space for children, rather than the current norm of restricting urban child friendliness to child specific destinations such as parks and playgrounds.

2009



162

which a levy is payable;

• The provision for the Minister to issue written directions relating to the preparation and

content of development contributions plans (section 46M);

• The collection of a development infrastructure levy, by way of a condition on a planning

permit either requiring the payment of the levy within a specified time, or entering into an

agreement to pay the levy within a specified time (section 46N);

• The payment of a levy or the provision of land, works, services or facilities in part or full

satisfaction of the amount of levy payable (section 46P);

• Setting out the responsibilities of Councils in collecting the levy and applying the funds

(section 46Q).

• The Minister’s Direction, dated 15 May 2003 outlines what may be funded with a

development infrastructure levy, namely:

a) Acquisition of land for roads, public transport corridors, drainage, public open space,

community facilities;

b) Construction of roads, including bicycle and footpaths and traffic management devices;

c) Construction of public transport infrastructure, including fixed rail infrastructure,

railway stations, bus stops and tram stops;

d) Basic improvements to public open space, including earthworks, landscaping, fencing,

seating and playground equipment;

e) Drainage works;

f) Buildings and works for maternal and child health care centre, child care centre,

kindergarten or a combination of these.

• The Planning and Environment Act 1987 currently states that $900 is the maximum amount

that can be collected by a DCP for the community infrastructure levy. This levy cannot be

indexed, as indexation would in time raise the amount being collected to over $900, which is

not permitted under the Act.

2 Section 173 Agreements

A Section 173 Agreement is a legal contract made between Council and another party or parties,

under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987).

A landowner is normally the other party to the Agreement, while in some cases a third party, such as

a Referral Authority may also be involved.

An agreement generally provides for someone to carry out, or not carry out, any matters specified in

the agreement and should be used where a condition on a permit or planning scheme controls will

not provide for the requirement to be fulfilled.


161

Appendix 3 An Overview of the Statutory Land Use Planning Mechanisms used to Fund &

Develop Community Infrastructure in Victoria

In the context of land use planning in Victoria development (predominantly residential) may

contribute toward community infrastructure initiatives via one or more of the following statutory

mechanisms.

• Development Contributions Plans (Planning and Environment Act 1987)

• Section 173 Agreements (Planning and Environment Act 1987)

• Clause 52.01 - Public Open Space Contribution And Subdivision (Planning and Environment

Act 1987 & Section 18 of the Subdivision Act 1988)

It is typically the responsibility of the Planning Authority (generally Local Councils) to determine which

mechanism or mechanisms will be used.

1 The Development Contributions Plans Framework

Part 3B of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 outlines the statutory provisions relating to

development contributions. In summary, Part 3B provides for, amongst other things:

• The inclusion of development contributions plans in the planning scheme, for the purpose

of levying contributions for the provision of works, services and facilities (section 46I);

• The provision to impose either or both of a development infrastructure levy or a

community infrastructure levy (section 46J);

• The contents of a development contributions plan (section 46K) must include:

− Specifying the area to which it applies;

− Specifying the works, services and facilities to be funded through the plan, including

staging of provision;

− Relating the need for the works, services and facilities to the proposed development of

land in the area;

− Specifying the estimated cost of the works, services and facilities;

− Specifying the proportion of the costs to be funded by a development infrastructure

levy and the proportion to be funded by a community infrastructure levy or both;

− Specifying the land and the types of development in respect of which a levy is payable

and the method for determining the amount of the levy payable in respect of the land;

− Specifying to whom the levy is payable;

− Specifying who is to be responsible for the provision of works, services or facilities for


vo

lu

me

3


164

(a) set aside on the plan, for public open space, in a location satisfactory to the Council, a percentage

of all of the land in the subdivision intended to be used for residential, industrial or commercial

purposes, being a percentage set by the Council not exceeding 5 per cent; or

(b) pay or agree to pay to the Council a percentage of the site value of all of the land in the subdivision

intended to be used for residential, industrial or commercial purposes, being a percentage set by

the Council not exceeding 5 per cent; or

(c) do a combination of (a) and (b) so that the total of the percentages required under (a) and (b) does

not exceed 5 per cent of the site value of all the land in the subdivision.


163

An agreement may provide for:

• The prohibition, restriction or regulation of the use or development of

• the land;

• The conditions subject to which the land may be used or developed for

• specified purposes;

• Any matter intended to achieve or advance the objectives of planning in

• Victoria or the objectives of the planning scheme or an amendment to the planning scheme,

for which notice

• has been given.

A Section 173 Agreement may be used, for example:

• to establish an agreement for monetary contributions for road construction;

• to prevent the further subdivision of land;

• to provide for the provision of infrastructure;

• to protect stands of native vegetation;

• to provide for maintenance of a facility.

3 Clause 52.01 - Public Open Space Contribution And Subdivision

A person who proposes to subdivide land must make a contribution to the council for public open

space in an amount specified in the schedule to this clause (being a percentage of the land intended

to be used for residential, industrial or commercial purposes, or a percentage of the site value of such

land, or a combination of both). If no amount is specified, a contribution for public open space may

still be required under Section 18 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

A public open space contribution may be made only once for any of the land to be subdivided. This

does not apply to the subdivision of a building if a public open space requirement was not made

under Section 569H of the Local Government Act 1958 or Section 21A of the Building Control Act 1981

when the building was constructed.

Section 18 of the Subdivision Act 1988

If a requirement for public open space is not specified in the planning scheme, a Council, acting as a

responsible authority or a referral authority under the Planning & Environment Act 1987 may require

the applicant who proposes to create any additional separately disposable parcel of land by a plan of

subdivision to-



165

Appendix 4 – Key External Stakeholders Identified for Ongoing Dialogue

Name Agency / Department Position Address Phone Email

Karen Warneke Department of Health Manager Metro System Planning Department of Health 50 Lonsdale Street Melbourne, 3000 Victoria, Australia

9096 2190 [email protected]

John Kimber Department of Justice Strategic Planner – Courts only Department of Justice, Victoria, Australia 121 Exhibition St Melbourne VIC 3000


Carmel Arthur Victoria Police Manager Planning and Special Projects, Properties Branch

Victoria Police Centre G.P.O Box 913 Melbourne, VIC, 3001

0412 554 154 [email protected]

Ian Bett Department of Business & innovation

Tertiary Education Finance and Facilities Unit

121 Exhibition Street, Melbourne VIC 3000.


Greg Sassella Chief Executive Officer Ambulance Victoria 375 Manningham Road, Doncaster VIC 3108


Richard Li State Emergency Services Victoria

Manager Assets and Infrastructure

168 Sturt Street Southbank, Victoria 3006

96986948 [email protected]

Carol Pilatti Catholic Education Office Senior Planner James Goold House 228 Victoria Parade EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002


Michael Cahill Sport and Recreation Victoria

Group Manager -Policy and Sector Development

Department of Planning and Community Development 1 Spring Street Melbourne VIC 3000


David Maynes City of Melbourne Council Acting Manager, Strategic Planning and Sustainability

City of Melbourne Council House 2 240 Little Collins Street

9658-8724 [email protected]


vo

lu

me

3


166


Melbourne VIC 3000

Chris Pike c/o Jacqui Banks

City of Port Phillip Council Senior Project Manager St Kilda Town Hall Cnr Carlisle St & Brighton Rd St Kilda VIC 3182

(03) 9209-6748 [email protected]

Jodi Sneddon Department of Planning & Community Development - Urban Development Division

Manager Social Inclusion Level 26, 1 Spring Street, Melbourne VIC 3000


Brian Wilson Port of Melbourne Corporation General Manager Communications Port Capacity

Level 4, 530 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3000


Chris Keating Dept of Education & Early Childhood Development

GPO Box 4367 MELBOURNE, Victoria 3001


Greg Pearson Metropolitan Fire Brigade 456 Albert Street 9665 4363 [email protected]

Alanah Gottschloch (Lorraine Green primary contact) Parks Victoria – Albert Park Sports Development Officer

20 Albert Park Road Drive South Albert Park, 3206 9695 9008 [email protected]

Kate Stapleton Dept of Planning & Community Development

Officer undertaking open space planning considerations

9094 8473

Mr Ian Marshman Jane Mowday - Executive Assistant to the Senior Vice-Principal The University of Melbourne Senior Vice-Principal

9th Floor, Raymond Priestley Building, Victoria 3010 8344 6121 [email protected]

Mr Steve Somogyi Kate de Luise - Executive Assistant RMIT University

Chief Operating Officer and Vice-President Resources

Melbourne, 3001, GPO Box 2476 9925 2602 [email protected]

Peter Marshall Monash University Vice-President (Administration) Room 125, Building 3a, Wellington Road, Clayton, 3800 9902 9897 [email protected]

Professor Peter Creamer Jennifer Buhagiar - Victoria University

Pro Vice-Chancellor and Chief Information Officer Melbourne, 8001, PO Box 14428 9919 4842 [email protected]



167


Executive Assistant)


vo

lu

me

3


168

Appendix 5 - Community Infrastructure Audit Maps



169

Figure 10 - Passive Open Space Reserves


vo

lu

me

3


170

Figure 11 - Active Open Space Reserves



171

Figure 12 – Public Indoor Recreation Centres


vo

lu

me

3


172

Figure 13 – Tennis Facilities



173

Figure 14 - Libraries


vo

lu

me

3


174

Figure 15 – Neighbourhood Houses



175

Figure 16 – Sessional Kindergartens (excludes provision within Long Day Child Care)


vo

lu

me

3


176

Figure 17 – Maternal & Child Health Centres



177

Figure 18 – Long Day Child Care Centre


vo

lu

me

3


178

Figure 19 – Government & Non-Government Schools



179

Figure 20 - Universities


vo

lu

me

3


180

Figure 21 - TAFEs



181

Figure 22 – Victoria Police


vo

lu

me

3


182

Figure 23 – Emergency Services



183

Figure 24 - Hospitals


vo

lu

me

3


184

Figure 25 – Community Health



185

Appendix 6 - Preliminary Community Infrastructure Audit Data Provided by the City of Port Phillip

Table 1 - Passive Open Space Reserves: Preliminary Audit Utilisation Data Provided by the City of Port Phillip

Passive Reserves Weekdays 9am to 5pm Weekdays Evening Saturday Sunday Feedback/Additional Notes

Within 1 km of Fishermans Bend include:

Batman Park NA

Beacon Vista Reserve Low Low Low-medium Low-medium

Buckingham Reserve Low Low-medium Low-medium Low-medium

Collins Landing NA

Crichton Reserve Low Low- medium Medium Medium

Cumberland Reserve NA

Cyril Letts Reserve Low

Docklands Park NA

Edwards Park Medium High High High

Fennell Reserve Low - Medium Medium Medium Medium

Flinders& Spencer Street Reserves NA

Garden City Reserve medium High High High

Gasworks Arts Park High High High High

Gill Reserve

Hester Reserve Low - Medium Medium Medium Medium

Howe Reserve Low - Medium Medium Medium Medium

Lagoon Reserve Low - Medium High high high


vo

lu

me

3


186


Lyell Reserve Low Medium Medium Medium

Maritime Park NA

Moonee Ponds Creek NA

Morris Reserve low Low Low Low

New Quay Promenade NA

Page Reserve Low low Low Low

Park-Eastern Reserve Medium Medium - high High High

Perce White Reserve Low Medium Medium Medium

Port Melbourne Foreshore Low - Medium High (summer) High High

Point Park NA

Queens Warehouse NA

R F Julier Reserve Low Low Low Low

Sangster Reserve Low Medium Medium Medium

Seafarers Rest NA

Skinners Adventure Playground South Melbourne Medium Medium High High

Smith Reserve

Sol Green Reserve Low-medium Medium Medium Medium

St Vincent Gardens Medium High High High

Turner Reserve Low - Medium Medium Medium Medium

Victoria Green NA



187


Victoria Harbour Promenade NA

Walter Reserve Low - Medium Medium Medium Medium

Westgate Park NA

Parks between 1 km and 2 kms of Fishermans Bend include:

Ludwig Stamer Reserve Low-medium Medium Medium Medium

Danks Street Medians Low Medium Medium Medium

Little Page Reserve Low low Low Low

Very small space off lane way. This play space requires a review for removal or change in space

Little Finlay Reserve Low low Low Low

Bowen Crescent Reserve Low Low-medium Medium Medium

Royal Botanic Gardens NA

Kings Domain NA

Queen Victoria Gardens NA

Alexandra Gardens NA

Birrarung Marr NA

Federation Square NA

City Square NA

Flagstaff Gardens NA

Albert Park NA

Albert Park Foreshore NA


vo

lu

me

3


188

Table 2 - Active Open Space Reserves: Preliminary Audit Utilisation Data Provided by the City of Port Phillip Summer (1 October - 31 March) All fields, except Anderson, are available for school use Monday to Friday 9am - 3.30pm

North Port Oval

DayTime

6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00

Mon

Tues Port Melbourne CC Training 4-8:30 (incl. pav)

Wed

Thurs Port Melbourne CC Training 4-8:30 (incl. pav)

Friday

Sat Port Melbourne CC Match 7-12 (incl. pav)

Sun Port Melbourne CC Match 7-12 (incl. pav)

Murphy - Anderson 1

DayTime

6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00

Mon

Port Melbourne Soocer Club leased facility 24/7

Tues

Wed

Thurs

Friday

Sat

Sun

Murphy - Anderson 2

DayTime

6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00

Mon

Port Melbourne Soocer Club leased facility 24/7Tues

Wed



189

Thurs

Friday

Sat

Sun

Murphy - Aanenson (synthetic)

DayTime

6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00

Mon

Tues St Michael's Grammar 2-4.30 Port Melbourne Baseball 5:00pm - 8:00pm (incl. pav)

Wed

Thurs St Michael's Grammar 2-4.30 Port Melbourne Baseball 5:00pm - 8:00pm (incl. pav)

Friday Port Melbourne CC Match 4-8:30 (incl. pav)

Sat Port Melbourne CC Match 7:30-1 (incl. pav) Emerald Hill CC Match 1-6 (incl. pav)

Sun Port Melbourne Baseball Club 8:00am - 6:00pm (incl. pav)

Murphy - Woodruff

DayTime

6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00

Mon

Tues

Wed MCCX Cricket Club Match 12-8 (incl. pav) - starts November 14

Thurs

Friday

Sat Port Melbourne CC Match 12-7 (incl. pav)

Sun Port Melbourne CC Match 12-7 (incl. pav)

Murphy - Williams

DayTime

6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00

Mon


vo

lu

me

3


190

Tues Port Melbourne Baseball Club Training 5-9

Wed Port Melbourne Baseball Club Training 5-9

Thurs Port Melbourne Baseball Club Training 5-9

Friday

Sat Port Melbourne Baseball Club Match 10-2

Sun Port Melbourne Baseball Club Match 10-2

Lagoon

DayTime

6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00

Mon Albert Park College 1.10-3.10

Tues Albert Park College 1.10-3.10 Emerald Hill CC Training 5-6:30 (incl. pav)

Wed Albert Park College 1.10-3.10

Thurs Emerald Hill CC Training 5-6:30 (incl. pav)

Friday Albert Park College 1.10-2.45 South Melbourne Districts CC Match 3-8 (incl. pav)

Sat South Melbourne Districts CC Match 7:30-11:30(incl. pav) Emerald Hill CC Match 12:30-6 (incl. pav)

Sun

Winter (1 April - 30 September)

All fields, except Anderson, are available for school use Monday to Friday 9am - 3.30pm North Port Oval

DayTime

6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00

Mon Port Melbourne Football Club

Tues Port Melbourne Football Club

Wed

Thurs Port Melbourne Football Club

Friday

Sat Port Melbourne Football Club



191

Sun Port Melbourne Football Club

Murphy - Anderson 1

DayTime

6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00

Mon


Tues

Wed

Thurs

Friday

Sat

Sun

Murphy - Anderson 2

DayTime

6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00

Mon


Tues

Wed

Thurs

Friday

Sat

Sun

Murphy - Aanenson (synthetic)

DayTime

6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00

Mon

Tues

Wed South Melbourne Districts FC

Thurs Port Colts Junior Football Club


vo

lu

me

3


192

Friday

Sat

Sun Port Colts Juniors Auskick

Murphy - Woodruff

DayTime

6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00

Mon

Tues Port Colts Senior Football

Wed

Thurs Port Colts Senior Football

Friday

Sat Port Colts Senior Football

Sun Port Colts Junior Football - final junior match

Murphy - Williams

DayTime

6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00

Mon

Tues

Wed

Thurs

Friday

Sat

Sun

Lagoon

DayTime

6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00

Mon

Tues South Port United Soccer Club

Wed Albert Park Spiders Soccer Club



193

Thurs South Port United Soccer Club

Friday

Sat

Sun Albert Park Spiders Soccer Club South Port United Soccer Club


vo

lu

me

3


194

Table 3 – Tennis Facilities: Preliminary Audit Utilisation Data Provided by the City of Port Phillip

Tennis Facility Weekdays 9am to 5pm Weekdays Evening Saturday Sunday Feedback/Additional Notes

Port Melbourne Tennis Club (3 courts)

Leased facility, the Club have access 24/7 and can program accordingly

Albert Park Lawn Tennis Club (2 tennis courts)

Leased facility, the Club have access 24/7 and can program accordingly

Melbourne Park Tennis Complex (22 outdoor courts & 7 indoor courts) Leased facility to Tennis Australia, managed by Parks Victoria - Albert Park

Table 4 – Arts Precinct (Gasworks Arts Park): Preliminary Audit Utilisation Data Provided by the City of Port Phillip

Weekdays 9am to 5pm Weekdays Evening Saturday Sunday Feedback/Additional Notes

Gasworks Arts Park

Medium Medium - Heavy

Monthly farmers market in the Park; daytime and evening theatre performances at various times; occasional open artists studios; galleries open when the offices and theatres are open. Site includes café.

Table 5 – Libraries: Preliminary Audit Utilisation Data Provided by the City of Port Phillip

Libraries Weekdays 9am to 5pm Weekdays Evening Saturday Sunday Feedback/Additional Notes

Port Melbourne (Port Phillip) medium medium light closed

Libraries are generally open 10 - 6/8pm weekdays & 10 - 2/5 Sat and Albert Park open 2-5pm Sundays.

Emerald Hill (Port Phillip) light light light closed

Albert Park (Port Phillip) medium medium medium light

Middle Park (Port Phillip) light light light closed



195

Table 6 – Playgrounds: Preliminary Audit Utilisation Data Provided by the City of Port Phillip

Playgrounds by Suburb Weekdays 9am to 5pm Weekdays Evening Saturday Sunday Feedback/Additional Notes

Port Melbourne

Buckingham Reserve, Port Melb Low Low-medium Low-medium Low-medium Play area high priority for play upgrade in next 5 years

Crichton Reserve, Port Melb Low Low- medium Medium Medium

Cyril Letts Reserve, Port Melb Low Low- medium Medium Medium

Edwards Park, Port Melb Medium High High High

Garden City Reserve, Port Melb High High High High Low use play area changed to high use following major upgrade

J L Murphy Reserve, Port Melb Low Low low-medium Low-medium Play area identified as needing upgrade in masterplan

Morris Reserve Tennis Club, Port Melb Low low Low Low

Port Melbourne Foreshore Low-medium Low Medium Medium

R F Julier Reserve, Port Melb Low Low Low Low

Sangster Reserve, Port Melb Low Low Medium Medium

Walter Reserve, Port Melb Low Low Medium Medium

South Melbourne

Gasworks Park, Sth Melbourne Low-medium Low Low-medium Low-medium

Very poor play facilities - requires major upgrade. Design underway 12/13

Ludwig Stamer Reserve, Sth Melb Low-medium Low Low-medium

Park-Eastern Reserve, Sth Melb Medium Low Medium-high medium-high


vo

lu

me

3


196


Skinners Adventure Playground, Sth Melb High Low -medium High High

Sol Green Reserve, Sth Melb Low-medium Medium Medium Medium

Docklands & Southbank

New Quay Promenade NA

Docklands Park NA

Grant St, Southbank NA

Albert Park (may include playgrounds beyond the 2 km radius)

Albert Park Foreshore High High High High Currently under construction

Albert Park Lake NA

Danks St Medians, Albert Park Medium Medium High High

Little Finlay Reserve, Albert Park Low Low Low Low

Little Page Reserve, Albert Park Low low Low Low

Lyal/Iffla Reserve, Albert Park Medium low Medium-high Medium-high

St Vincent Gardens, Albert Park High Medium High High

Middle Park (may include playgrounds beyond the 2 km radius)

Ashworth St Reserve, Low Low Low-medium Low-medium



197


Middle Park

Frank & Mary Crean Reserve, Middle Park Low Low Low-medium Low-medium

H R Johnson Reserve, Middle Park Low Low low-medium Low-medium

Jacoby Reserve, Middle Park High High High High Cowderoy café makes this site popular

Neville St Reserve, Middle Park Low Low low-medium Low-medium

Table 7 – 4 Year Old Sessional Kindergartens: Preliminary Audit Utilisation Data Provided by the City of Port Phillip

4 Year Old Kindergartens Weekdays 9am to 5pm Weekdays Evening Saturday Sunday Feedback/Additional Notes

Port Melbourne Uniting Kindergarten; heavy

Albert Park Preschool Centre; heavy

Lady Forster Kindergarten; heavy

Lilian Cannam Kindergarten; heavy

Civic Kindergarten; and heavy

Middle Park Kindergarten. heavy


vo

lu

me

3


198

Table 8 – 3 Year Old Sessional Kindergartens: Preliminary Audit Utilisation Data Provided by the City of Port Phillip 3 Year Old Kindergartens Weekdays 9am to 5pm Weekdays Evening Saturday Sunday Feedback/Additional Notes

Albert Park Preschool Centre heavy

Lady Forster Kindergarten (1 group per week) heavy

Lilian Cannam Kindergarten (2 groups per week) heavy

Port Melbourne Uniting Kindergarten (1 group per week) heavy

Civic Kindergarten (1 group per week) heavy

Middle Park Kindergarten (2 groups per week) heavy

Table 9 – Maternal & Child Health: Preliminary Audit Utilisation Data Provided by the City of Port Phillip

3 Year Old Kindergartens Weekdays 9am to 5pm Weekdays Evening Saturday Sunday Feedback/Additional Notes

Port Melbourne MCH Heavy

South Melbourne MCH Heavy

Docklands MCH - The Harbour Family and Children's Centre n/a

Albert Park MCH Heavy

Middle Park MCH Heavy



199

Table 10 – Long Day Child Care: Preliminary Audit Utilisation Data Provided by the City of Port Phillip

Long Day Child Care Centre Weekdays 9am to 5pm Weekdays Evening Saturday Sunday Feedback/Additional Notes

City Kids Early Learning Centre medium Best estimate only

Ada Mary A'beckett Children's Centre Inc heavy

Albert Park College Childcare Centre heavy

Clark Street Children's Centre heavy

Coventry Children's Centre heavy

Lady Gowrie Child Centre (Melb) Inc n/a

Little Assets - Melbourne City Early Learning Centre n/a

Penguin Childcare Melbourne n/a

South Melbourne Kids Station Childcare medium Best estimate only

South Melbourne Mission Free Kindergarten heavy

WonderKindy Port Melbourne medium Best estimate only

A.B.C. Developmental Learning Centre - Melbourne Central n/a

Clarendon Children's Centre Co-op heavy

Dot 2 Dot Early Learning Centre medium Best estimate only


vo

lu

me

3


200


Emerald Hill Child Care Centre heavy

Kids on Collins n/a

Little Stars at Bourke Children's Centre n/a

Melbourne City Child Care n/a

Melbourne City Childcare and Kindergarten n/a

QV Children's Centre n/a

Sentia Early Learning n/a

South Melbourne Child Care heavy

Defence & ABC Child Care Centre n/a

Table 11 – Occasional Child Care: Preliminary Audit Utilisation Data Provided by the City of Port Phillip


Genesis Port Melbourne n/a

Southport Playhouse medium

Montessori Community Preschool medium

ReCreation Child Minding n/a

Charlton Brown Group n/a

Event Child Care n/a

MAC Early Learning Centre n/a

Melbourne Sports & Aquatic Centre Not identified



201

Table 12 – Public Community Meetings Spaces / Venues for Hire: Preliminary Audit Utilisation Data Provided by the City of Port Phillip

Facility Name by suburb Weekdays 9am to 5pm Weekdays Evening Saturday Sunday Feedback/Additional Notes

Port Melbourne

Fishermans Bend Community Centre (100 people) High High Low Low

Port Melbourne Community Centre (100 people) High High Medium Medium

Port Melbourne Community Room (80 people) Medium High Low Low

Port Melbourne Community Centre (60 people) Medium Medium Medium Medium

Sandridge Community Centre (60 people) Low Low Medium Medium

South Melbourne

St Luke's Hall (80 people)

Sol Green Recreation Centre (80 people) Medium Medium High Low

South Melbourne Community Centre (100 people) Medium Medium Medium Medium

South Melbourne Commons (100-180 people)

Albert Park

Gasworks Theatre (220 people)

Mary Kehoe Community Centre (80 people) High Medium Medium Low

Power House Conference &


vo

lu

me

3


202

Facility Name by suburb Weekdays 9am to 5pm Weekdays Evening Saturday Sunday Feedback/Additional Notes

Corporate Training Room (15-100 people)

Powerhouse Function Centre (150-1000 people)

Melbourne Sports & Aquatic Centre (50-700 people)

Middle Park

Middle Park Community Centre (20 to 80 people) High High High Low

Middle Park Primary School (Hall 1, 100 people; Hall 2, 100 people)

Table 13 – Council Community Centres: Preliminary Audit Utilisation Data Provided by the City of Port Phillip


The Hub @ Docklands (Melbourne City Council)

Boyd Community Centre Southbank (Melbourne City Council)

Fishermans Bend Community Centre(City of Port Phillip) High High Low Low

Liardet Community Centre Port Melbourne (City of Port Phillip & Major Hub) High High Medium Medium

Port Melbourne Community Centre and Trugo Club (City of Port Phillip) Medium Medium Medium Medium

Port Melbourne Community Medium High Low Low



203


Room (City of Port Phillip)

Sandridge Community Centre and Trugo Club (City of Port Phillip) Low Low Medium Medium

Sol Green Community Centre South Melbourne (City of Port Phillip) Medium Medium High Low

South Melbourne Community Centre Medium Medium Medium Medium

South Melbourne Town Hall Community Hub High Medium Low Low

Mary Kehoe Community Centre Albert Park (City of Port Phillip) High Medium Medium Low

Middle Park Community Centre (City of Port Phillip) High High High Low

Fishermans Bend Preliminary Community Infrastructure Needs...

Documents

Transcript of Fishermans Bend Preliminary Community Infrastructure Needs...