agenda - imapimap.vic.gov.au/uploads/meeting agendas/2016 august/imap... · attachment 4 attachment...

26 August 2016

1

Agenda

Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee

Meeting No 43

8.00 am – 10.00 am Friday 26 August 2016 Maribyrnong City Council

Reception Room, Council Administration Offices, Cnr Hyde & Napier Streets, Footscray

Committee

Members Cr Cameron McDonald, Mayor, Maribyrnong City Council (Chair) Cr Claude Ullin, Mayor, City of Stonnington Cr Ken Ong, Chair Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee, City of Melbourne Cr Roberto Colanzi, Mayor, City of Yarra Cr Bernadene Voss, Mayor, City of Port Phillip Ms Vijaya Vaidyanath, Chief Executive Officer, City of Yarra Mr Stephen Wall, Chief Executive Officer, Maribyrnong City Council Ms Tracey Slatter, Chief Executive Officer, City of Port Phillip Mr Geoff Cockram, Acting Chief Executive Officer, City of Stonnington Ms Linda Weatherson, Acting Director City Operations, City of Melbourne

Associate Partner

Representatives

Mr Adrian Salmon, Assistant Director Statutory Approvals, State Planning Services, DELWP Mr Rod Anderson, Strategy Innovation & Engagement Regional Manager-Port Phillip, DELWP Mr Nick Beckingsale, Director Transport System Planning, Transport Pol & Plan Div, DEDJTR Mr Steve Booth, Director Metro Business Engagement, DEDJTR Mr Vince Punaro, Regional Director NW Region, VicRoads Ms Emily Mottram, Director Urban Renewal, Metropolitan Planning Authority

IMAP Ms Elissa McElroy, IMAP Executive Officer

Guests Ms Helen Hardwick, Program Manager Tourism Policy, Wayfinding & Infrastructure, CoM Mr Steve Nagle, Manager Business & Tourism, CoM Mr Frank Costa, Senior Network Policy & Standards Engineer, VicRoads Mr Alan King, Statutory Planning Officer, Transport & Planning, VicRoads Ms Kaye Tuddenham, General Manager Branch and Customer Information, PTV Mr Marc Saville, Acting Brand & Partnerships Manager/Wayfinding & Customer Information Manager, PTV Ms Suzie Wickes, Coordinator Activation & Relationship Management, CoMar Mr Dale Stewart, Senior Recreation Planner, CoM Ms Azadeh Mousavi, IMAP Project Officer, CoM Ms Angela Hann, Manager Leisure Facilities/Acting Manager Libraries and Recreation, CoM

Mr Stuart Draffin, General Manager Planning & Amenity, City of Stonnington IMAP Champions Ms Jane Waldock, Assistant Director Planning & Placemaking, City of Yarra Ms Jacqui Banks, Manager Strategy and Growth, City of Port Phillip Ms Kelly Martini, Coordinator Corporate & Community Planning, City of Stonnington Mr Geoff Robinson, Manager Engineering Services, City of Melbourne Ms Katy McMahon, Manager Development Facilitation, Maribyrnong City Council

26 August 2016

2

PRELIMINARIES

Item Time Alloc.

Agenda Topic Responsibility

1. 2 mins Commence 8.00am

Appointment of Chair

Cr Cameron McDonald, Mayor, Maribyrnong City Council

IMAP Executive Officer

2. 2 mins Apologies

Cr Claude Ullin, Mayor, City of Stonnington Chair

3. 1 min Members Interest

Disclosure by members of any conflict of interest in accordance with s.79 of the Act

Chair

ITEMS

Item Time Alloc.



Confirmation of Minutes (Attachment 1) Recommendation 4.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to confirm

the draft minutes of the IMAP Implementation Committee No. 42 held on 27 May 2016 as an accurate record.

Chair


Business Arising (Attachment 2) Recommendation 5.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the

actions undertaken in response to Business Arising from the previous minutes.

Correspondence Inward: Att 2a - Katherine Ortiz, Conference Secretariat, 9th International Urban Design Conference – acceptance of ESD factsheets abstract Outward: Letters to 23 submitters on the Draft Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26 (Not attached)


6.

2 mins Commence 8.09am

IMAP Communication and Governance (Attachment 3) Recommendation 6.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. note the Communications and Governance Briefing Paper.

b. approve the IMAP Implementation Committee meeting dates for November 2016 – November 2017.

Attachments:

Att 3a -CoS Councillors Bulletin – Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26 adoption

Att 3b –IMAP Meeting dates for 2016-17



Financial Report (Attachment 4) Recommendation 7.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to receive

the IMAP Financial Report for the financial year ending 30 June 2016.


26 August 2016

3


IMAP Annual Report 2015-16 and Summary (Attachment 5 to follow) Recommendation 8.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. adopt the IMAP Annual Report and Summary 2015-16; and b. authorise the CEO City of Stonnington to approve its

distribution



Progress Report (Attachment 6) Recommendation 9.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the

IMAP Progress Report for August 2016.



IMAP Review (Attachment 7) Recommendation 10.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note

progress on the implementation of the new plan.



Action 2.2 Visitor Wayfinding Signs Project (Attachment 8 to follow) Recommendation

11.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee endorse the Melbourne Wayfinding Signing Master Style Guide.

Helen Hardwick, CoM and State Government reps


Action 11 Regional Tourism ( Attachment 9) Recommendation 12.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to recognise

the progress made by the IMAP TWG on initiatives supported by the IMAP Implementation Committee.

IMAP Executive Officer (for Sheri Peters, CoPP), Suzie Wickes, CoMar

13. 1 min Action 11 Regional Tourism - Out of Committee Approval (Attachment 10) Recommendation: 13.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee ratify the following

decision made out of Committee and confirmed on 28 July 2016:

That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

IMAP Inner Melbourne Map Licence:

a. Approve the licensing of the IMAP Inner Melbourne Map to Cultural Tourism Victoria for the approved purposes as detailed in Schedule 1 of the licence for a period of one year at no fee, from the date the agreement is executed; and

b. Authorize the CEO's to sign the license agreement on

behalf of the IMAP Councils. Experience Culture Guide Agreement

a. Approve the Experience Culture Guide Agreement

between the IMAP Councils and Cultural Tourism Victoria for a period of one year from the date the Agreement is executed.

b. Authorise the CEO's to sign the Experience Culture

Guide Agreement on behalf of the IMAP Councils.


26 August 2016

4

14. 15 mins

Commence 9.05am

Action 5.5 Infrastructure development – IMAP Regional Active Sport and Recreation Facilities Planning Study project. (Attachment 11) Recommendation

14.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the progress on Phase 1 of the Recreation Project.

Dale Stewart CoM Azadeh Mousavi CoM/IMAP


Discussion - School Zoning guidelines Councillor Colanzi to introduce.

Cr Colanzi, CoY

CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Meeting to be closed in accordance with Sections 89 (2) (d, e, f, h) of the Local Government Act (1989)

Public and Associate Members can be excluded for these items

Item Time Allot.



Confirmation of Minutes (Attachment 12) Recommendation 17.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to confirm

the draft Confidential minutes of the IMAP Implementation Committee No. 42 held on 27 August 2016 as an accurate record.

Chair


Discussion – Metropolitan Partnerships Geoff Cockram to introduce.

Geoff Cockram, CoS


IMAP CLUE – Proposal for a preliminary investigation (Attachment 13) Recommendation: 18.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolve to:

(a) approve the proposal to undertake the initial investigation stage of the IMAP Councils’ data requirements, identifying the IMAP councils’ requirements for data based decision making, and

(b) approve project funding for the preliminary investigation and report in accordance with the proposal; and

(c) agree to defer development of a Business Case for an IMAP

CLUE until the outcomes of the investigation are known.


19. 2 Mins Commence 9.52am

Action 11 IMAP Tourism Map licence – Destination Melbourne Ltd (Attachment 14) Recommendation 19.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. approve the licensing of the IMAP Inner Melbourne Map

to Destination Melbourne Ltd for the approved purposes as detailed in Schedule 1 of the licence for a period of 2 year from the date the agreement is executed.

b. authorise the CEO's to sign the license agreement on behalf of the IMAP Councils.


26 August 2016

5

OTHER BUSINESS

Item Time Allot.



Any other business Close Next Meeting Friday 25 November 2016 (8.00am) City of Port Phillip - Council Chamber, St Kilda Town Hall, Carlisle Street, St Kilda

(Consider 9th December alternative date - venue availability confirmed)

Chair

ATTACHMENTS Item No

Attachment No

Attachment Topic

4. Attachment 1 DRAFT Minutes of the IMAP Implementation Committee meeting No. 41 held on 27 May 2016

5. Attachment 2 Attachment 2a

(Not attached)

Business Arising

Correspondence Inward: Katherine Ortiz, Conference Secretariat, 9th International Urban Design Conference Outward: Letters to 23 submitters on the Draft Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26

6. Attachment 3 Attachment 3a Attachment 3b

IMAP Communications and Governance report CoS Councillors Bulletin – Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26 adoption IMAP Meeting dates for 2016-17

7. Attachment 4 Attachment 4a Attachment 4b

IMAP Finance report IMAP Operating and Capital Works statement for the 12 months to 30 June 2016 IMAP Budget and Expenditure by Project


IMAP Annual report 2015-16 – late item to follow IMAP Annual report Summary 2015-16 – late item to follow

9. Attachment 6 IMAP Progress Report August 2016

10. Attachment 7 IMAP Review progress report


Action 2.2 Visitor Wayfinding Signs Project progress report– late item to follow Visitor Wayfinding Master Style Guide – late item to follow

12. Attachment 9 Action 11 Regional Tourism Annual report

13. Attachment 10 Action 11 Regional Tourism - Out of Committee approval – email confirmation

14. Attachment 11 Action 5.5 Infrastructure development – Recreation Project progress report

Confidential agenda items

16. Attachment 12 Confidential Minutes of the IMAP Implementation Committee No 42 held 27 August 2016

18 Attachment 13 IMAP CLUE proposal for a preliminary investigation

19 Attachment 14 IMAP Tourism map licence agreement - DML

26 August 2016 Attachment 1

1

DRAFT Minutes Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee

Meeting No 42

8.00 am – 10.00 am Friday 27 May 2016 City of Stonnington

Council Meeting Room, Level 2, 311 Glenferrie Road, Malvern

Attendance:

Committee Members

Cr Claude Ullin, Mayor, City of Stonnington (Chair) Cr Ken Ong, Chair Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee, City of Melbourne Cr Roberto Colanzi, Mayor, City of Yarra Cr Cameron McDonald, Mayor, Maribyrnong City Council Mr Warren Roberts, Chief Executive Officer, City of Stonnington Mr Geoff Lawler, Director City Operations, City of Melbourne Ms Vijaya Vaidyanath, Chief Executive Officer, City of Yarra Mr Stephen Wall, Chief Executive Officer, Maribyrnong City Council

Associate Partner

Representatives

Mr Adrian Salmon, Assistant Director Statutory Approvals, State Planning Services, DELWP Mr Rod Anderson, Strategy Innovation & Engagement Regional Manager-Port Phillip, DELWP Mr Steve Booth, Director Metro Business Engagement, DEDJTR Mr David Teague, Director Transport and Planning, VicRoads – for V Punaro & N Beckingsale Ms Jane Monk, Director Inner City, Metropolitan Planning Authority

IMAP Elissa McElroy, IMAP Executive Officer

Guests Ms Carol Jeffs, Director Community Services, City of Port Phillip – for T Slatter Mr Steven McKellar, Sustainable Design Architect, City of Port Phillip Mr Euan Williamson, Environmental Sustainable Development Advisor, City of Yarra Ms Sheri Peters, City Business Officer - Tourism Industry Devt, Marketing & Comms, CoPP Ms Virginia Miller, City Business Officer – Industry, Investment & Research, CoPP Mr Stuart Draffin, General Manager Planning & Amenity, City of Stonnington IMAP Champions Ms Jacqui Banks, Manager Strategy and Growth, City of Port Phillip

PRELIMINARIES 1. Appointment of Chair

1.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to appoint Cr Claude Ullin, Mayor, City of Stonnington as the Chair of the Meeting.

MOVED MS VAIDYANATH / Cr Colanzi A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

2. Apologies

2.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the following apologies: Ms Tracey Slatter, Chief Executive Officer, City of Port Phillip Cr Bernadene Voss, Mayor, City of Port Phillip


2

Mr Vince Punaro, Regional Director, Metro NW Region, VicRoads Mr Nick Beckingsale, Director Transport System Planning, Transport Pol & Plan Div, DEDJTR MOVED CR MCDONALD / Cr Ong A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

3. Members Interest - Disclosure by members of any conflict of interest in accordance with s.79 of the Act. - Mr Lawler declared an interest in relation to item 14 due to his advisory roles with the University of

Melbourne - Ms Vijaya Vaidyanath declared an interest in relation to items 13 and 16 due to her board role with

DML. ITEMS 4. Confirmation of Minutes

4.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to confirm the draft minutes of the IMAP

Implementation Committee No. 41 held on 26 February 2016 as an accurate record. MOVED MR LAWLER / Cr Ong A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

5. Confirmation of Minutes Mr Lawler noted an amendment to page 4 para 6 – replace ‘requiring’ with ‘limiting’. 5.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to confirm the draft (amended) minutes of the

IMAP Executive Forum No. 19 held on 19 May 2016 as an accurate record. MOVED MR ROBERTS / Cr Colanzi A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Action: Amend Draft IMAP Executive Forum Minutes No 19 as detailed

6. Business Arising 6.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the actions undertaken in response to

business arising from the previous minutes. MOVED MS VAIDYANATH / Cr McDonald A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

7 Financial Report The Executive Officer noted the forecast figures have been provided for the final quarter, and items to be carried forward are explained in the notations. She drew attention to the balance available for Action 9.2 which is the subject of a report later in the agenda. 7.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to receive the IMAP Financial Report for the

nine months ending 31 March 2016. MOVED MR WALL / Mr Lawler A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

8. IMAP Communication and Governance The Executive Officer noted the updates to the current working groups, and the attached media article and collateral which have been prepared by the City of Stonnington for promoting the urban manufacturing project website to help push it to 1000 entries. 8.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the Communications and Governance

Briefing Paper.

MOVED MR LAWLER / Cr Colanzi A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

9. Progress Report Mr Lawler noted a history of past advocacy listed in the Progress Report and suggested IMAP consider renewing our acquaintance with the Ministers. There was general support for this initiative. The Executive Officer advised this report provides an historic running record of progress on IMAP’s


3

projects and will be recommenced once the new Plan is available. 9.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the IMAP Progress Report for May

2016 MOVED CR COLANZI/ Cr McDonald A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Action - Further opportunities for IMAP advocacy with the Minister to be discussed by the Executive Forum

10. IMAP Review The Executive Officer confirmed that 2 councils have approved the new Inner Melbourne Action Plan and that all councils will have reviewed it by the end of the financial year. Questions/Comments It was noted that future discussions with DHHS on affordable housing could be held with the Executive Forum. The Executive Officer noted that IMAP’s future work in this area could be considered by the new Working Groups and discussed by the committee at a later date. 10.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. note the current work being undertaken to adopt the Revised Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-2026.

b. note the submissions received from the University of Melbourne and DHHS as part of the external consultation process on the revised Plan and pass on the Committee’s thanks for their interest in the plan

c. invite representatives from DHHS to the Executive Forum’s next discussion on affordable housing

MOVED MR ROBERTS / Cr Colanzi A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

11. Action 9.4 Green Demonstration Projects –

The Executive Officer outlined IMAP’s financial contribution to this project as a partner on the University of Melbourne’s 3 year ARC Linkage grant, along with Melbourne Water. The final payment is on track for this financial year, with the research work due for completion in 12 months. She recommended the research team be asked to present to the committee in the next calendar year and attached an update report from Dr Williams to the agenda to advise on current progress to date.

Mimicking natural ecosystems to improve green roof performance

Questions/Comments Committee members clarified that the University owns the IP for this work through the signed funding Agreement with the University. The list of publications was noted and a question asked about whether these related to the current work being undertaken. The Executive Officer noted the project was part of ongoing work at the Burnley campus and the research team publications would relate to that general body of work. The Committee were interested in:

• whether IMAP can leverage from these updates/ publications; and • how these findings from the research group can be practically applied- in addition to the Growing

Green Guide - and gain greater exposure through implementation work being undertaken by Councils and others in the community to create green spaces and cool the city.

11.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the update report from the University

of Melbourne on the research project entitled “Mimicking natural ecosystems to improve green roof performance”.

MOVED CR MCDONALD / Mr Lawler A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Action: The Executive Officer to follow up on how the Burnley research can add to the work undertaken on

the Growing Green Guide through greater application in the Melbourne context so that we can achieve more awareness and greening in inner Melbourne

12. Action 9.2 Environmental Sustainable Design – Factsheets project Steven McKellar, Sustainable Design Architect (CoPP) and Euan Williamson, Environmental Sustainable

Development Advisor (CoY) attended for this item. They distributed packs of the completed series of


4

Sustainable Design Factsheets to members of the Committee. Mr Williamson noted that the factsheets:

• assist with sustainable design assessment in the planning process (SDAPP) • are getting good traction with neighbouring Councils through a licensing agreement – with the

recent inclusion of Geelong, 20 Councils are using the Factsheets • completion of 5 additional Factsheets in the past year has added to the original 11 in the series,

providing subcategory topics • propose the series to be further extended to cover aspects such as Daylight – identified in the

Apartments Study as a key to new development design – and to provide further information on new standards Councils would like to see developers consider.

Mr McKellar advised the report puts together two proposals: • the first option covers 3 new factsheet topics for $11.5K (including the modelling task); • the second option provides for the two additional topics of Car share and Innovation for a total

budget of $16.5K. The first three topics are seen as quite critical – the additional two complement the set and support work being undertaken in other parts of Council. Carol Jeffs (CoPP) arrived at 8.28am.

Questions/Comments Query regarding the planning decision to remove the Factsheets as reference documents to the ESD

amendment: A: The Factsheets detail best practice; those Councils party to the ESD amendment employ

them anyway. It was proposed the IMAP Councils advocate to the State Government for the factsheets to be recognised as Reference Documents when the local policy is adopted as state policy. It is a fast moving industry, reliant on technologies, and factsheets/reference documents require ongoing updates.

Could IMAP recommend these guidelines for the Apartment Guidelines framework while it is still at its formative stage? Advocate or facilitate best practice along with the 20 or so councils using the factsheets, as part of the submission process? A: Some staff on this working group are also part of the development of the apartment

standards. They are currently developing the technical standards and trying to ensure a match up with Councils’ work. Stakeholder consultation will commence in a couple of months with a draft prepared by the end of the year. So far there are no conflicts.

Suggested there are funds in the IMAP budget that could be allocated to complete this work and recommended all proposed sheets be prepared. Car share information is useful to encourage developers to incorporate provision into their developments.

Councils have car share systems in place on the street and policies to promote car share. This idea promotes developers to include them inside the property and in off-street building car parks. Will be good for industry to get used to that idea and start to include these spaces automatically.

12.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. approve the development of three new fact sheets on Daylight (including Daylight Modelling) and Windows & Glazing and Ventilation at a cost of approx. $11,500 for external consultant and design fees; and

b. approve the further budget provision of $5,000 for two additional fact sheets (Total budget $16,500 for five factsheets) to include the topics of Car Sharing, and Innovation Strategies

MOVED MR ROBERTS / Ms Vaidyanath

A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Action: Amend Budget to reflect change to Action 9.2 expenditure

13. Action 11 Regional Tourism- Inner Melbourne Cultural Guide Proposal Ms Vaidyanath declared an interest and left the meeting at 8.35am Sheri Peters, City Business Officer - Tourism Industry Development, Marketing & Communications (CoPP) attended for this item. Ms Peters outlined the proposal to develop a Cultural Guide with the funds remaining in this year’s Tourism budget. She noted Cultural Tourism Victoria (CTV) produces a booklet for


5

the region with limited entries for inner Melbourne. In this proposal: • All councils would get equal benefit • It would feature inner Melbourne’s beautiful buildings, arts and heritage and connect the sites as a

journey through various transport modes, using IMAP’s tourist map as a base. • $20K would be spent on copies; distribution and assessment would be undertaken • The project meets the criteria for IMAP projects • The project would be assessed and reported back to the IMAP Committee before any further

commitments to extend the project were made. Questions/Comments Is this duplication of any other publication?

A: there is nothing this comprehensive for inner Melbourne Entries in the CTV guide are paid for – is this proposed here?

A: No – unless we choose to replicate in future years and need to seek funds The CTV guide has large institutions included – are big or small locations proposed?

A: Propose a mix of small and large destinations and a variety of art galleries, and cultural experiences – a different and unique publication. All councils are happy to list 14 sites each, giving wide variety.

Great idea, provides a wider range of experiences; love the idea and the way it links to transport Is funding available from Creative Victoria?

A: Met with Cultural Tourism Victoria who are interested in adding Inner Melbourne to their Guide. Metro rail realignment and changes on St Kilda road will require some changes to the map to show people how they get around. Is there an online presence proposed?

A: Cultural Tourism Victoria are looking at a digital platform. If IMAP partner with them, there is the opportunity to join this.

What about those places that ask “Why aren’t we in it?” Have costs for an app or other method of publishing been considered?

A: The project team will wait until they can evaluate the Guide before considering other options. The main costs are for printing at this stage.

Creative Victoria recently provided funding for an officer salary for 3 years at MAV. IMAP could talk to them about this because tourism is such a large part of the economy.

13.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. support the development of a pilot, Inner Melbourne Cultural Guide and the proposed distribution strategy for a budgeted cost of $41,000 from the existing IMAP Tourism funds

b. support the evaluation of the Cultural Guide 10 months from initial production and distribution to determine if the pilot Cultural Guide has been a success and should continue to be produced.

MOVED MR LAWLER / Cr Ong A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Ms Vaidyanath returned to the meeting at 9.15am Action: Project team to follow up with Cultural Tourism Victoria regarding Creative Victoria project funding contribution.

14. Action 7.2 Supporting Creative Industries – Urban Manufacturing project Mr Lawler declared an interest and left the meeting at 9.15am. Ms Vaidyanath returned to the meeting.

Ms Virginia Miller, City Business Officer – Industry, Investment & Research (CoPP) attended for this item. Ms Miller reported back on the project budget and expenditure for Phase 1 and the outcome of the ARC Linkage Grant. The project had been reviewed by the IMAP Executive Forum and, as a result, the Project Team sought to progress to Phase 2 as previously outlined. Questions/Comments Cr Ong noted the development of the Fishermans Bend (FB) strategy and the State Government’s release today of the precinct plan. The Ministerial Advisory Committee had been looking at what sort of future industries will apply in the employment precinct. He asked how that future linked to this research.

A: FB has been taken into account in this research and how to accommodate future business in that region. The Steering Group members could be expanded to ensure proposals for this area are covered, although it was noted that FB was not the main purpose of this study.


6

Ms Monk noted that there was no suggestion FB is becoming a residential enclave. This study is primarily in response to the question about rezoning of legitimate employment land; the force of residential changes on zoning decisions; and the influence of residential development on increasing the value of land. Mr Wall felt the focus needed to be less on renewal areas, and be about the existing older industrial land and its conversion to residential and the affect this has on those areas. Cr McDonald noted many infill sites and Maribyrnong defence land would be great for small manufacturing. People ask for more jobs, not more houses, in these areas. Ms Jeffs asked that Stage 2 of the research consider both residential and industrial areas to incorporate this thinking. Re-imagining residential areas by identifying ways to incorporate small business would also be helpful. Cr Ong noted that despite a push for Arden Macaulay zoning to be residential, the mixed use or business zoning has been maintained: as such, it has a significant difference in value, and areas like FB still need thinking about. 14.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolve to;

A. endorse the commencement of Phase 2 with existing allocated funds B. endorse the Urban Manufacturing Project Management Team continuing to seek additional

external non-IMAP funding to meet the earlier resolution of matched funding C. include in-kind contributions from the University of Melbourne as counting toward project

contributions

MOVED MR ROBERTS / Cr McDonald A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Mr Lawler returned to the meeting at 8.55am

CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

The Meeting closed in accordance with Sections 89 (2) (d, e, f, h) of the Local Government Act (1989). Procedural Motions: That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to proceed into Confidential Business and the meeting be closed to the public as the matter to be considered falls within the ambit of: Section 89 (2) (h) (any other matter which the Council or Special Committee considers would prejudice the Council or any person) of the Local Government Act 1989. [Time 8.55am] MOVED CR COLANZI / Cr McDonald A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves that the meeting be re-opened to the public. [Time 9.20am] MOVED MR ROBERTS / Cr Colanzi A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

17. OTHER BUSINESS

Cr Colanzi noted the media had targeted ‘white flight’ within our primary schools, leaving local schools with students from predominantly disadvantaged families. He asked that the zoning guidelines, which were affecting the socio-economic dynamics within Yarra, be discussed at the next meeting. Cr McDonald and Cr Ong noted similar issues across their municipalities, in effect isolating cultural and economic groups. Some discussion has occurred with the Department of Education on solutions. To note for the next agenda. Action: School zoning guidelines for discussion on next agenda. The meeting closed at 9.25am.


7

At the close of the meeting, photos were taken of those elected members present for the IMAP Annual Plan. Next Meeting Friday 26 August 2016 (8.00am) Maribyrnong City Council, Reception Room, Council Administration Offices, Footscray

IMAP Implementation Committee Meeting 27 May 2016 – Endorsement of Minutes

Chairperson: Cr Ullin _________________________ Date ________________ RESOLUTIONS 1.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to appoint Cr Claude Ullin, Mayor, City of Stonnington as the Chair

of the Meeting. 2.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the following apologies:

• Ms Tracey Slatter, Chief Executive Officer, City of Port Phillip • Cr Bernadene Voss, Mayor, City of Port Phillip • Mr Vince Punaro, Regional Director, Metro NW Region, VicRoads • Mr Nick Beckingsale, Director Transport System Planning, Transport Pol & Plan Div, DEDJTR

4.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to confirm the draft minutes of the IMAP Implementation Committee No. 41 held on 26 February 2016 as an accurate record.

5.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to confirm the draft (amended) minutes of the IMAP Executive Forum No. 19 held on 19 May 2016 as an accurate record.

6.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the actions undertaken in response to business arising from the previous minutes.

7.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to receive the IMAP Financial Report for the nine months ending 31 March 2016.

8.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the Communications and Governance Briefing Paper.

9.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the IMAP Progress Report for May 2016 10.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. note the current work being undertaken to adopt the Revised Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-2026. b. note the submissions received from the University of Melbourne and DHHS as part of the external consultation

process on the revised Plan and pass on the Committee’s thanks for their interest in the plan c. invite representatives from DHHS to the Executive Forum’s next discussion on affordable housing

11.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the update report from the University of Melbourne on the research project entitled “ Mimicking natural ecosystems to improve green roof performance”.

12.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to: a. approve the development of three new fact sheets on Daylight (including Daylight Modelling) and Windows &

Glazing and Ventilation at a cost of approx. $11,500 for external consultant and design fees; and b. approve the further budget provision of $5,000 for two additional fact sheets (Total budget $16,500 for five

factsheets) to include the topics of Car Sharing, and Innovation Strategies 13.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. support the development of a pilot, Inner Melbourne Cultural Guide and the proposed distribution strategy for a budgeted cost of $41,000 from the existing IMAP Tourism funds

b. support the evaluation of the Cultural Guide 10 months from initial production and distribution to determine if the pilot Cultural Guide has been a success and should continue to be produced.


8

14.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to;

A. endorse the commencement of Phase 2 with existing allocated funds B. endorse the Urban Manufacturing Project Management Team continuing to seek additional external non-IMAP

funding to meet the earlier resolution of matched funding C. include in-kind contributions from the University of Melbourne as counting toward project contributions

Procedural Motions: That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to proceed into Confidential Business and the meeting be closed to the public as the matter to be considered falls within the ambit of: Section 89 (2) (h) (any other matter which the Council or Special Committee considers would prejudice the Council or any person) of the Local Government Act 1989. [Time 8.55 am] That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves that the meeting be re-opened to the public. [Time 9.20 am] ACTIONS PUBLIC RECORD

Item Responsibility Action Due

5. EF Minutes

Executive Officer Amend Draft IMAP Executive Minutes No 19 as detailed June 2016

9. Progress report

Executive Officer/ Executive Forum

Further opportunities for IMAP advocacy with the Minister to be discussed by the Executive Forum

TBA

11. Action 9.4

Executive Officer Executive Officer to follow up on how the Burnley research can add to the work undertaken on the Growing Green Guide through greater application in the Melbourne context so that we can achieve more awareness and greening in inner Melbourne

Aug 2016

12. Action 9.2

Executive Officer Amend Budget to reflect change to Action 9.2 expenditure Aug 2016

13. Action 11

Tourism working group

Project team to follow up with Cultural Tourism Victoria regarding Creative Victoria project funding contribution.

Aug 2016

17 Other Bus

Executive Officer School zoning guidelines for discussion on next agenda.

Aug 2016


Report prepared by Elissa McElroy IMAP Executive Officer

IMAP Implementation Committee Business Arising 26 August 2016

A IMAP Implementation Committee (25 May 2012) Responsibility Action Due Progress 15 Action 6.3


Arrange preparation of a submission to the Department of Justice on changes to the definitions; meeting with the Minister

July 2012

Aug 2015

In Progress: working group established to initiate submission – commenced 5 Feb15.

B IMAP Implementation Committee (28 November 2014) Responsibility Action Due Progress 12 Action 9.4 GGG

Coordinator Green Infrastructure CoM

The Coordinator Green Infrastructure, City of Melbourne to identify appropriate staff to attend the Policy Reference group and report back on issues raised.

TBA

C IMAP Implementation Committee (27 November 2015) Responsibility Action Due Progress 14 Housing


Executive Officer to add Affordable Housing discussion to the February agenda.

Feb Deferred to later meeting by Exec Forum

D IMAP Implementation Committee (26 February 2016) Responsibility Action Due Progress 6

Bus Arising

S Booth DEDJTR

D Stewart CoM /Executive Officer

Steve Booth noted he would follow up Nick Foa regarding information to RTBs. IMAP Executives to follow up with a letter to the CEO MPA re funding for stage 1 of the Recreation Facilities project.

May

TBA

Await clarification of budget requirements for phase 1

E IMAP Executive Forum (19 May 2016 – and 30 May 2014) Responsibility Action Due Progress 13 Other Bus (30 May 2014) and Item 6 IMAP CLUE

CoM - Manager City Research (Austin Ley)

Convene a Working Group of the IMAP Councils with City of Melbourne’s Manager City Research (Austin Ley) to examine sharing the costs and benefits of establishing an IMAP CLUE . Austin Ley to prepare a report on an IMAP CLUE and refer it to the Executive Forum for comment.

ASAP TBC

Being considered by Exec Forum

7 Parking Levies

Cycling Network project team

Refer the suggested development of a regional project plan and outcomes to complete the Inner City cycling network to the Cycling Network project team to report back.

TBC

8 IMAP review


IMAP Executive Officer to prepare an overview of the working groups roles and purpose under the new plan for further discussion by the Executive Forum.

July 2016 In progress

F IMAP Implementation Committee (27 May 2016) Responsibility Action Due Progress 9. Progress report

Executive Officer/ Executive Forum

Further opportunities for IMAP advocacy with the Minister to be discussed by the Executive Forum

TBA

11. Action 9.4

Executive Officer Executive Officer to follow up on how the Burnley research can add to the work undertaken on the Growing Green Guide through greater application in the Melbourne context so that we can achieve more awareness and greening in inner Melbourne

Aug 2016 In Progress

12. Action 9.2

Executive Officer Amend Budget to reflect change to Action 9.2 expenditure

Aug 2016 Completed

13. Action 11

Tourism working group

Project team to follow up with Cultural Tourism Victoria regarding Creative Victoria project funding contribution.

Aug 2016 Completed

17 Other Bus Executive Officer School zoning guidelines for discussion on next agenda.

Aug 2016 Refer item 16


Report prepared by Elissa McElroy IMAP Executive Officer

Correspondence

From

Regarding

Inward: Att 2a - Katherine Ortiz, Conference Secretariat, 9th International Urban Design Conference Outward: (Not attached) Letters to 23 submitters on the Draft Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26

Advising success of ESD Factsheets project abstract for presentation at the 9th International Urban Design Conference Advising of changes to the draft plan as a result of their submission

Recommendation: That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the actions undertaken in response to business arising from the previous minutes.

1

Elissa McElroy

From: Steven Mckellar [[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, 21 July 2016 6:03 PMTo: Elissa McElroy; Euan <Euan. Williamson@yarracity. vic. gov. au> WilliamsonSubject: Fwd: Abstract Submission Confirmation - International Urban Design Conference 2016

Thanks both for your help, It's in now fingers crossed we get nominated!

Steve Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message: From: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: 21 July 2016 at 4:53:11 PM AEST

To: Steven <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Abstract Submission Confirmation - International Urban Design Conference 2016 Reply-To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>

Dear Steven Thank you for your abstract submission to the International Urban Design Conference 2016. Abstracts open: Monday 6th June 2016

Abstracts close: Monday 25 July 2016 Notification to authors: Friday 5 August 2016 Author acceptances: Monday 15 August 2016 Draft program available: Friday 19 August 2016 Full papers for peer review: Monday 19 September 2016

We will contact you using the following information which you provided: Name: Mr Steven McKellar Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Your Abstract:

2

The IMAP Factsheet partnership - a sustainable development success story The Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) is a collaborative partnership between the Cities of Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Yarra and Maribyrnong. These inner Melbourne Councils work together to strengthen the liveability and built environment outcomes across municipal boundaries to deliver an intelligent

interconnected urban realm. A project that typifies this approach is the Sustainable Design in the Planning Process (SDAPP) fact sheet suite. The SDAPP framework contains 10 key sustainable building categories which provide detailed advice on sustainable building design at the planning permit application stage.

The smartest way to integrate sustainability into development is to ensure that it is scoped and implemented during the preliminary phases of building design. The fact sheets support this ethos by providing detailed advice at the design stage which can be considered and integrated into submissions for town planning or development approvals processes. The fact sheets are formatted in an attractive and accessible format, include simple language, clear diagrams and images to support the technical content provided within.

With 32 metropolitan local government areas within Melbourne, consistency in the approach to planning is critical for our development industry. The SDAPP framework and fact sheet suite have recognised this and have been designed to be consistent for each council to adopt and implement. A total of 21 Councils will have adopted the fact sheet suite and SDAPP framework by the end of 2016. A licensing agreement protects

the content of the fact sheets, ensures consistency of best practice standards whilst supporting customisation of branding for each local council. The consistent best practice standards have now branched out beyond an educational fact sheet suite and now underpin both the BESS (Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard) web-based ESD assessment tool, and the ESD Local Policies in the planning schemes of 6 Melbourne councils.

Conference Secretariat [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

1

Elissa McElroy

From: Steven Mckellar [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, 5 August 2016 5:11 PMTo: Elissa McElroy; 'Euan Williamson'Subject: FW: Abstract Submission | International Urban Design ConferenceAttachments: Presenter Briefing Notes_Urban16_Forum.pdf

Congratulations team!!!!

Steve McKellar

Sustainable Design Architect | Sustainability T: 9209 6303 | E: [email protected] | W: www.portphillip.vic.gov.au Private Bag 3, St Kilda, VIC 3182

This message and any attachments may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you receive this message in error, please do not copy or distribute it. Instead, destroy it and notify the sender immediately. To the extent that this email contains information provided to Port Phillip City Council by other sources, Port Phillip City Council does not warrant that it is accurate or complete. To the extent that there are opinions or views expressed in this email, they are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Port Phillip City Council. Please do not delete or alter this notice.

From: Secretariat Urban Design [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, 5 August 2016 1:53 PM To: Steven Mckellar Subject: Abstract Submission | International Urban Design Conference

Mr Steven Mckellar

City of Port Phillip

Abstract Title: The IMAP Factsheet partnership - a sustainable development success story

Dear Steven,

I am pleased to advise that your abstract submitted for International Urban Design Conference has been accepted

for the Conference program.

During the review process, the program committee has allocated the following presentation stream and format to

your abstract, this may be different to the original stream for your abstract.

Presentation Stream: Sustainability in a smart city

Presentation Format: 15 minute Presentation within 90 minute Forum

We would appreciate it if you could indicate by return email if you accept or wish to decline this offer as a presenter

before Monday 15 August 2016.

Please find enclosed the Presenter Briefing Letter confirming any deadlines and details to help with your

presentation.

Conference registration is available online at: http://urbandesignaustralia.com.au/registration/

2

Please note: All presenters of the conference are required to register and pay their own attendance.

The committee is not in a position to offer funding assistance.

The first draft of the program will soon be available on the conference website. In the meantime, if I can help with

anything else, please just let me know.

Thank you for your submission.

Kind Regards,

Katherine

Katherine Ortiz | Conference Secretariat

9th International Urban Design Conference

Secretariat: PO Box 29, Nerang QLD 4211

Mob: 0435 308 794 Fax: 07 5527 3298

Email: [email protected]

URL: www.urbandesignaustralia.com.au


Report prepared by: Elissa McElroy, IMAP Executive Officer

IMAP Implementation Committee

Progress Report

IMAP Communications and Governance ___________________________________________________________________________________

Purpose

1 To advise the IMAP Implementation Committee of the progress of IMAP Communications and Governance during the last 3 month period.

Governance

2 IMAP Review:

Refer Item 10 Attachment 7 - IMAP Review update

Since May, work on the plan has included:

a. Attended CoY Council’s briefing 14 June and the CoM Council 31 May meeting as part of the approval process for the Inner Melbourne Action Plan. All five councils approved the plan by 28 June.

b. Updated the IMAP website regarding the new plan.

c. Responded to all submitters.

d. Prepared a note for the CoS Councillor Bulletin advising of the plan’s approval – see copy attached (Attachment 3a).

3 Annual Report:

Refer Item 8, Attachment 5.

a. A summary of the work undertaken by the IMAP Implementation Committee has been provided to all the IMAP Councils for inclusion in their 2015-16 Annual Reports

b. The IMAP Annual Report has been prepared.

4 Website domains:

a. Renewed the IMAP website domain for 2 years and the Growing Green Guide website for 3 years. Shifted Basecamp renewals to the IMAP account from CoPP.

5 Meeting Dates for 2016-17:

Refer Attachment 3b.

a. Please see attached the proposed meeting dates for the IMAP Implementation Committee for November 2016 and during 201 for Committee approval.

b. It is proposed that the November 2016 meeting be changed from 25 November to 9 December to allow Councillors more time after the election to be briefed on the proposed IMAP projects under the new plan, for inclusion in the Three Year Implementation Plan.

Communications

6 During the last 3 months the following activities have involved the Executive Officer and others in IMAP communications:

o Action 2.2 Wayfinding Signage Master Style Guide

Refer Item 11 Attachment 8 on the agenda

30 May/30 June/6 July - meetings of the Project Steering Group

Final edits completed on the Master Style Guide (MSG).

Consultation undertaken for final comments on the MSG from council staff and external agencies



An abstract submitted to the 9th International Urban Design Conference 2016 on the

Wayfinding Signage project has been provisionally accepted for presentation of a poster at the conference 7th-9th November at Canberra.

o Action 5.2 Affordable Housing – Community Land Trust project

The CLT Steering Group met by conference call on 2 June for a project update.

o Action 5.5 Community Infrastructure – Recreation Facilities Study

Refer Item 14 Attachment 11 on the agenda.

Working group meetings have been held fortnightly – 5 meetings during June through August

Legal advice sought regarding shared data.

A Workshop is planned for recreation staff and GIS officers on 22 August.

o Action 7.2 Support Creative Businesses (Urban Manufacturing)

The working group met 8 and 14 June to determine Phase 2 tasks: they fall into three main areas – policy options development; access and analysis of government data; analysis of survey data which can proceed concurrently.

The Steering Group met 17 June and 5 August to monitor progress.

City of Stonnington appointed a publicist to develop marketing collateral to advance interest in the Makers.Melbourne site and advertise its existence – see attachment 3c to this report.

o Action 9.2 ESD factsheets

Work has commenced developing the new Factsheets extension series approved at the last IMAP meeting.

An abstract submitted to the 9th International Urban Design Conference 2016 on the

ESD factsheet project has been accepted for presentation in November at Canberra.

o Action 11 Regional Tourism

Refer Items 12 and 13 (Attachments 9 and 10)

The Tourism Working Group (TWG) met with Cultural Tourism Victoria (CTV) on 8 June to discuss the Cultural Guide proposal. A further meeting was held with City of Stonnington staff on 29 June for further clarification on this project. Legal counsel at CoS was consulted on the subsequent Agreement with CTV. Out of Committee approval was sought to meet print deadlines.

The Chair TWG and the IMAP Executive Officer met with Destination Melbournce (DML) staff on 27 June and 15 July to discuss a joint partnership for promotion and marketing services supplied by DML.

The TWG met on 8 July to overview progress on these projects.

o Other

Attended the City of Stonnington Economic Development Policy workshop on 10 August

Attended the Offstreet Bicycle and Motorcycle Parking Technical Working Group inaugural meeting held by CoM on 23 June.

Attended the meeting with DTPLI representative, Terry Garwood, Deputy Secretary Local Infrastructure and Land at CoS regarding the Metropolitan Partnerships on 12 August.

Met with the Board Chair, Economic Development Australia re governance models.

Met wih Sasha Yarwood, Active Transport division at DEDJTR on 30 June for an update on the cycling strategy.



Recommendation

4. That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. Note the Communications and Governance Briefing Paper.

b. Approve the IMAP Implementation Committee meeting dates for November 2016 – November 2017.

Attachments:

Att 3a -CoS Councillors Bulletin – Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26 adoption

Att 3b –IMAP Meeting dates for 2016-17

Att 3c - CoS InStonnington magazine – Makers.melbourne publicity

Councillors’ Bulletin – 6 July 2016

INNER MELBOURNE ACTION PLAN 2016-2026

On 28 June 2016, the revised Inner Melbourne Action Plan was approved by the Cities of Yarra and Port Phillip. With these last two Council approvals, all five IMAP Councils have now approved the plan during May and June.

As the Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-2026is now formally adopted by the IMAP Councils, the plan will be published and launched.

Twenty three submissions were received on the plan and submitters will now be advised of any changes made as a result of their comments.

Next steps include the identification of project priorities for IMAP’s implementation. In conjunction with the IMAP Executive Forum, the working groups will be convened to prepare a short list of projects and undertake some initial scoping for each business case.

Possible projects can then be considered by councillors for their feedback during November/December prior to the review by the IMAP Implementation Committee. The IMAP Implementation Committee will finalise timing and funding proposals at their year-end meeting so that initial projects can be included in the 2017-18 budget.

Please contact Elissa McElroy, IMAP Executive Officer on Ext 1110 for further information.

STONNINGTON JAZZ FESTIVAL

Stonnington Jazz Festival 2016 was a successful event for all involved with over 5,300 people in attendance across all ticketed and free events.

Artistic Director Chelsea Wilson pulled together a fantastic program comprising of 100% Australian Jazz performances. The festival included 4 premiere events, 25 council produced shows, 32 bands, 11 venues, a program of 10 satellite events and 24 local restaurants, cafes and bars offering pre and post-shows specialties to celebrate all things jazz in Jazz Express.

This year’s exciting and accessible program attracted a younger and wider reaching audience than ever before with 69% of those surveyed visitors to Stonnington and 52% under the age of 44.

The new branding also proved to be a hit with a number of sold out shows, and a total estimated PR value of all media $1,178,137.

For more information please contact Jessica Morrison, Economic and Cultural Development, Ext 1166 or email [email protected].

ROOLA BOOLA 2016

It’s been a successful and fun filled week with Roola Boola Children’s Arts Festival now wrapping up for 2016. The festival saw 1511 tickets sold with the Box Office totalling $20,590 across all events. Highlights of the festival were Justine Clarke’s colourful and interactive shows which sold out weeks in advance.

The remainder of the umbrella events will come to a close in the final week of the school holidays.

For more information please contact Tanya Dickson, Economic and Cultural Developmenton Ext 1345 or [email protected]

1

26 August 2016 Attachment 3b

IMAP - Meeting Schedule 2016 - 2017 IMAP Implementation Committee Meetings (Quarterly) 2016 Meeting 44 Date / Time Host Chair

Friday 25

th November

City of Port Phillip

9 December 2016 (8.00am)

Mayor

Council Chamber St Kilda Town Hall Carlisle Street

2017 Meeting 45 Date / Time Host Chair

Friday 24

th

City of Yarra February 2017 (8.00am)

Mayor

Meeting Room 1 Richmond Town Hall Bridge Road

Meeting 46 Date / Time Host Chair

Friday 26

th

City of Melbourne May 2017 (8.00am)

Chair Future Melbourne [Planning] Committee

Council Meeting Room, Level 2, Town Hall Admin Building Swanston Street


Friday 25

th

City of Stonnington August 2017 (8.00am)

Mayor

Council Chamber Malvern Town Hall Cnr High St & Glenferrie Road


Friday 24

th

Maribyrnong City Council November 2017 (8.00am)

Mayor

Reception Room, Level 1 Maribyrnong Council offices Cnr Hyde & Napier Streets, Footscray

2018 Meeting 49 Date / Time Host Chair

Friday 23

rd

City of Port Phillip February 2018 (8.00am)

Mayor

Council Chamber St Kilda Town Hall Carlisle Street


Page 1 of 4 Report prepared by E McElroy, IMAP Executive Officer


Financial Report for the Financial Year ending 30 June 2016

1 July 2015 – 30 June 2016 ___________________________________________________________________________________

Background

1. The IMAP financial position was last noted at the IMAP Implementation Committee meeting held on 27 May 2016.

2. Retained Earnings carried forward from the 2014-15 financial year totalled $433,067 (excluding

GST). $60,222 of this total is the surplus in the tourism projects account.

Income

3. Income indicates the Carry Forward of $433,067 during the first quarter.

The IMAP councils were invoiced in the second quarter for their 2015-16 contributions totalling $275,000. During the 4

th quarter the IMAP Councils received:

a reimbursement from the Department of Finance and Treasury for the Regional Management Forum projects. i.e. $48,684 or $9,737 per IMAP Council

funding from Stonnington and Port Phillip towards the Recreation Project (Action 5.5)

additional funding from Melbourne towards the Wayfinding Signage pilot stage of the project (Action 2.2).

funding from the Metropolitan Planning Authority as their contribution towards the Urban Manufacturing project (Action 7.2).

Income for the year, less the carry forward, was therefore $373,684. 4. Total Income for the 12 month period to 30 June 2016: 2800 Sundry Income:

Retained Earnings carried forward from 2014-15 $ 433,067 IMAP Councils Annual Tourism contribution (5 Councils) $ 100,000 Moreland City Council Urban Manufacturing project contribution $ 10,000 City of Stonnington contribution to Recreation project $ 10,000 City of Port Phillip contribution to Recreation project $ 10,000 City of Melbourne contribution to Signage pilot project $ 10,000 Metropolitan Planning Authority contribution to Urban Manufacturing project $ 10,000 Dept of Finance & Treasury reimbursement RMF projects $ 48,684 $ 631,751 2810 Contract Income: IMAP Councils Annual IMAP Contribution (5 Councils) $ 175,000

_______________________________________________________________________________

TOTAL OPERATING INCOME $806, 751 ________________________________________________________________________

Expenditure

5. Total Expenditure for the 12 month period to 30 June 2016:

4180 Training Conferences Action 9.4 Premiers Sustainability awards $ 180 4104 Postage and Courier

IMAP Postage Aug $ 76



Postage Sept $ 127 Postage Oct $ 97 Postage Nov $ 72 Postage Dec $ 129 Postage Jan/Feb $ 69 Postage Mar $ 74 Postage Apr $ 137 Postage May $ 98 Postage Jun $ 113 Postage Jun $ 99 Couriers Aug $ 305 Couriers Dec $ 340 Couriers Feb $ 120 Couriers May $ 360 $ 2,217

4108 Stationery IMAP Stationery $ 85 Stationery reimb $ 67 Stationery reimb $ 67 $ 219 4130 Advertising IMAP Public Notice Draft IMAP consultation $ 2,235 4131 Promotional Publicity Action 9.2 Printing, Basecamp subs reimb - CoPP $ 1,518 Action 11 Official Visito Map DML print run contribution $ 46,350 $ 47,868 4142 Local travel IMAP Travel expenses $ 30 Travel reimb $ 5 $ 35 4150 Consulting Fees IMAP IMAP Review Completion Stage 2 $ 3,640 IMAP Review Completion Stage 3 $ 6,500 IMAP website Host Collabforge $ 3,216 IMAP GIS Host GroundTruth $ 7,200

IMAP Annual Report $ 3,100 IMAP AR Summary $ 2,500 Logo Updates $ 350

Action 2.2 Wayfinding MSG - Traffinity Payment 2 of 2 $ 8,000 Wayfinding Prototype Testing $ 23,027 First edit - Master Style Guide $ 2,800 2

nd edit Master Style Guide $ 2,600

Traffinity review $ 6,000 Reimb CoM contractor exps $ 4,000 Action 5.2 Housing Forum Yarra Film Contractor $ 2,000

Housing Forum Speaker fee/travel $ 2,500 Action 7.2 Urban Manufacturing Project Phase 1 $ 20,000 Action 9.2 ESD Factsheet Sunshading $ 385 ESD Factsheets Green Roofs $ 550 ESD Factsheets Additional work $ 990 ESD Factsheets Climate $ 440 ESD Factsheets Permeability $ 440 ESD Factsheets Update originals $ 1,650 Action 9.4 Distributed Energy (CSIRO Accrual) ($ 80,000) Distributed Energy - Final Payment $ 80,000

GGG website 3 year host renewal(VentraIP) $ 272 Action 11 IMAP Tourist map update $ 1,000 IMAP Tourism map additional edits $ 175 $ 103,335 4211 Staff catering (Miscoded as 4211) IMAP Catering IMAP May meeting $ 139 4211 Staff catering IMAP Catering: IMAP $ 195 Catering: IMAP $ 85

Catering IMAP (offsite meetings) $ 72



Catering IMAP (offsite meetings) $ 69 $ 421 4255 Vehicle Tollways

IMAP Tolls $ 30

TOTAL EXPENDITURE $156,679 ________________________________________________________________________ Operating Profit / (Loss) $ 650,073

________________________________________________________________________

NET SURPLUS $ 650,073 ________________________________________________________________________

6. Refer to Attachment 4b to see total expenditure against project budgets to date.

Carry Forwards 7. 2016-17 Carry Forward allocations and commitments.

Item $ committed in carry forward.

Update website Provision made to establish new website under new plan. Funding has awaited plan approval.

41,600

IMAP Review Project

Balance of project funding to go towards graphic design ($8000), printing 1000 copies ($10,000) and workshop facilitation (TBD)

27,498

Action 2.4 Wayfinding signs

Balance of Project funding to go towards editing, graphic design, printing and communication costs of the MSG, and completing the pilot project trialling new signs at key locations $10,000 CoM additional contribution for 2016-17

19,014 10,000

Action 5.5 Recreation facilities

Funding to reimburse CoM salary costs of project officer – yet to be invoiced $20,000 CoPP and CoS contributions to project received $30,000 CoMar, CoM and CoY contributions to be invoiced in 2016-17 $50,000 SRV grant to be provided for phase 2 in 2016-17

40,000 20,000

Action 7.2 Urban Manufacturing project

Funding to be applied to Phase 2 of the project which has recently commenced. To be allocated to facilitation of the Policy reference group, improving website data results, university data analysts etc $10,000 MPA contribution to project $10,000 City of Moreland contribution to project

20,000 10,000 10,000

Action 9.2 ESD Factsheets

Balance of project funding to be used for the 3rd

stage of this project, approved by IMAP May 2016. To be topped up by additional budget in 2016-17 as per funding approval.

4,356



Action 9.4 ARC Linkage grant contribution (green roof research)

Funding committed. Await University of Melbourne invoice 20,000

Action 11 Regional Tourism

Commitment to Destination Management Plan by DML Commitment to Cultural Guide by Cultural Tourism Victoria Cultural Guide IMAP expenses Balance of Tourism funding by IMAP Councils

50,000 2,500 29,700 10,000 18,583

DTF Reimbursement for IMAP councils

48 684

TOTAL

381,935

Priority projects Fund

Reallocated for new projects under the new plan 140,000

FINAL TOTAL

521,935

The balance is $650,073 – $521,935 = $128,138 which remains unallocated.

Recommendation 8. That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to receive the IMAP Financial Report for the

financial year ending 30 June 2016.

26 August 2016 Attachment 4a

IMAP Operating Report.

Operating & Capital Works Statement for period ended June 2016

EMCELROY 29-Jul-2016 10:11:19

EMCELROY 29-Jul-2016 10:11:19

Actuals Budget Variance Actuals Budget Variance

2810 - Contract Income 0 0 0 175,000 0 175,000

User fees 0 0 0 175,000 0 175,000

2800 - Sundry Income 68,684 0 68,684 631,751 0 631,751

Other Revenue 68,684 0 68,684 631,751 0 631,751

Total Operating Income 68,684 0 68,684 806,751 0 806,751

Employee Benefits 0 0 0 180 0 (180)

4104 - Postage & Couriers 459 59 (399) 2,217 714 (1,503)4108 - Stationery - General 67 0 (67) 219 0 (219)4130 - Advertising 0 0 0 2,235 0 (2,235)4131 - Promotional Publications 1,518 0 (1,518) 47,868 0 (47,868)4142 - Local Travel 0 0 0 35 0 (35)4150 - Consulting Fees 175 0 (175) 103,335 0 (103,335)4210 - Equipment > $ 1K 139 0 (139) 139 0 (139)4211 - Staff Catering 69 0 (69) 421 0 (421)4255 - Vehicle Tollways 0 0 0 30 0 (30)

Materials and Services 2,427 59 (2,367) 156,499 714 (155,785)

Bad and doubtful debts. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Community Grants 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance costs 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Operating Expenditure 2,427 59 (2,367) 156,679 714 (155,965)

Surplus/ (Deficit) for the year 66,258 (59) 66,317 650,073 (714) 650,786

Other comprehensive income / expenditure.

Depreciation and amortisation 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating Capital Expenditure 0 0 0 0 0 0

Net Surplus / (Deficit) 66,258 (59) 66,317 650,073 (714) 650,786

CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE

IMA

P P

roje

cts:

Exp

end

itu

re a

gai

nst

Bu

dg

et 2

015-

16E

xpen

dit

ure

fo

r th

e 12

mo

nth

s en

din

g 3

0 Ju

ne

2016

RE

VE

NU

EB

UD

GE

T

20

15-1

6Y

ear

10A

CT

UA

LS

1st

qtr

AC

TU

AL

S 2

nd

q

trA

CT

UA

LS

3rd

q

trA

CT

UA

LS

4th

q

trT

ota

l YT

DV

AR

IAN

CE

No

tes

IMA

P C

ounc

ils A

nnua

l Con

trib

utio

n ($

35K

eac

h)17

5,00

017

5,00

017

5,00

00

C/F

ba

lan

ce f

or

con

trib

uti

on

to

ne

w p

roje

cts

an

d a

llo

cati

on

to

on

gin

g

pro

ject

s a

s p

er

pro

ject

bu

dg

ets

in

Th

ree

ye

ar

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Pla

n

IMA

P C

ounc

ils A

nnua

l Tou

rism

Con

trib

utio

n ($

20K

eac

h)10

0,00

010

0,00

010

0,00

00

IMA

P M

ap L

icen

ce fe

es70

0-7

00M

orel

and

City

Cou

ncil

Con

trib

utio

n (A

ctio

n 7.

2)10

,000

10,0

0010

,000

City

of S

tonn

ingt

on c

ontr

ibut

ion

(Act

ion

5.5)

10,0

0010

,000

10,0

00C

ity o

f Por

t Phi

llip

cont

ribut

ion

(A

ctio

n 5.

5)10

,000

10,0

0010

,000

City

of M

elbo

urne

con

trib

utio

n (A

ctio

n 2.

2)10

,000

10,0

0010

,000

Met

ropo

litan

Pla

nnin

g A

utho

rity

cont

ribut

ion

(Act

ion

7.2)

10,0

0010

,000

10,0

00D

ept T

reas

ury

and

Fin

ance

RM

F R

eim

burs

emen

t48

,684

48,6

8448

,684

Tot

al R

even

ue

275,

700

027

5,00

010

,000

88,6

8437

3,68

497

,984

PR

OJE

CT

AL

LO

CA

TIO

NS

BU

DG

ET

2015

-16

Yea

r 10

AC

TU

AL

S 1

st q

trA

CT

UA

LS

2n

d

qtr

AC

TU

AL

S 3

rd

qtr

AC

TU

AL

S 4

th

qtr

To

tal Y

TD

VA

RIA

NC

EN

ote

s

Com

mitt

ed -

Fun

ded

No

tes

IMA

PP

osta

ge, c

ourie

r, tr

avel

st

atio

nery

, log

o, c

ater

ing

Ong

oing

An

nu

al c

ost

s7,

000

78

885

561

31,

154

3,41

0

-3

,590

Re

turn

to

IM

AP

fu

nd

IMA

PA

nnua

l Rep

ort d

esig

n an

d pr

int

Ong

oing

An

nu

al C

ost

s6,

000

5,

600

5,60

0

-4

00R

etu

rn t

o I

MA

P f

un

d

IMA

PG

IS E

xpen

ses

Ong

oing

An

nu

al c

ost

s7,

600

7,

200

7,20

0

-4

00R

etu

rn t

o I

MA

P f

un

d

IMA

PW

ebsi

te H

ostin

gO

ngoi

ngA

nn

ua

l co

sts

3,40

0

3,21

63,

216

-184

Re

turn

to

IM

AP

fu

nd

IMA

PU

pdat

e w

ebsi

teN

ew41

,600

-

-41,

600

C/F

- C

urr

en

t -

pro

ject

fo

r 2

01

6-1

7 t

o r

efl

ect

ne

w p

lan

IMA

PIM

AP

Rev

iew

Pro

ject

Cur

rent

C/F

wd

$2

4,8

73

+ c

urr

en

t fu

nd

ing

$

15

K (

Ap

pro

ved

Fe

b 2

01

5)

39,8

73

10

,140

2,23

512

,375

-2

7,49

8C

/F -

Cu

rre

nt-

pu

bli

cati

on

in

20

16

-17

of

ne

w p

lan

2.4

Way

findi

ng s

igns

C

urre

ntV

isito

r S

ign

Ma

ste

r S

tyle

Gu

ide

C

/Fw

d $

45

,44

0 +

Wyn

dh

am

co

ntr

ibu

tion

$2

0k

65,4

40

31

,027

2,80

0

12

,600

46,4

27

-19,

013

C/F

- C

urr

en

t p

roje

ct,

com

mit

ted

exp

en

dit

ure

5.2

Affo

rdab

le H

ousi

ng -

H

ousi

ng F

orum

Cur

rent

Fu

nd

s a

pp

rove

d M

ay

20

15

5,

000

2,

000

2,

500

4,

500

-500

Re

turn

to

IM

AP

fu

nd

5.5

Infr

astr

uctu

re D

evel

opm

ent:

Rec

reat

ion

faci

litie

s pr

ojec

tC

urre

ntF

un

ds

ap

pro

ved

Exe

c F

oru

m J

an

2

01

6 (

Sa

lary

)40

,000

-

-

-

-40,

000

C/F

- C

urr

en

t Sa

lary

6 m

on

ths

co

ntr

act

-p

aya

ble

to

Co

M -

co

mm

itte

d

Ba

lan

ce o

f Fu

nd

s p

rovi

de

d fo

r in

itia

l w

ork

2,20

0

-

-2,2

00R

etu

rn t

o I

MA

P f

un

d

Urb

an

Ma

nu

fact

uri

ng

-P

roje

ct c

ost

s $

30

0k:

$9

0K

fro

m IM

AP

($

18

k p

er

cou

nci

ls).

Su

bje

ct to

ma

tch

ed

fun

ds

CC

/AR

C.

C

/Fw

d $

20

k

40,0

00

20

,000

20,0

00

-20,

000

C/F

- C

urr

en

t b

ud

ge

t fo

r p

ha

se 2

of

pro

ject

-

com

mit

ted

.

Gre

en

Ro

of i

niti

ativ

es

- b

ala

nce

C

/Fw

d20

7

18

0

27

2

452

24

5U

niM

elb

AR

C g

ran

t co

ntr

ibu

tion

: Y

ea

r 3

of 3

(C

om

mitt

ed

)20

,000

-

-

-2

0,00

0C

/F -

Cu

rre

nt-

PO

su

pp

lie

d.

Invo

ice

du

e f

or

tota

l a

mo

un

t

Cur

rent

Dis

trib

ute

d E

ne

rgy

Ma

p C

SIR

O -

a

ccru

ed

-

pa

id

-

0C

om

ple

ted

Cur

rent

DM

L M

ap

ag

ree

me

nt Y

ea

r 3

2

01

5/1

6 T

BC

+3

% C

PI

47,7

41

46

,350

46,3

50

-1,3

91 C

/F b

ala

nce

to

To

uri

sm a

cco

un

t

App

rove

d N

ov 2

015

DM

L D

est

ina

tion

Mg

t Pla

n fu

nd

ed

fr

om

C/ F

wd

$5

0k

(C/F

wd

wa

s $

$5

71

33

)50

,000

-

-50,

000

C/F

-

Co

mm

itte

d -

De

stin

ati

on

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Pla

n t

o b

e c

om

me

nce

d

20

16

-17

Cur

rent

3 y

ea

r T

ou

rism

Str

ate

gy

- Y

ea

r 3

of

3 (

$5

0K

+ C

/ Fw

d b

al

$7

13

3+

22

59

)59

,392

1,17

5

1,

175

-58,

217

C/F

-

com

mit

ted

to

Cu

ltu

ral

Gu

ide

. B

ala

nce

to

To

uri

sm a

cco

un

t

Com

mitt

ed -

Fun

ded

- R

eallo

cate

d fo

r fu

ture

pro

ject

s

IMA

PP

riorit

y P

roje

cts

Fun

dC

urre

ntF

or

rea

lloca

tion

un

de

r th

e n

ew

pla

n14

0,00

0

-140

,000

C/F

fo

r a

llo

cati

on

to

ne

w P

lan

To

tal E

xpen

dit

ure

585,

782

32,9

28

50

,578

10,1

03

63

,069

156,

678

(429

,104

)

Net

Su

rplu

s (D

efic

it)

310,

082

-

217,

006

Op

enin

g B

alan

ce o

f IM

AP

Acc

ou

nt

433,

067

043

3,06

7C

losi

ng

Bal

ance

of

IMA

P A

ccou

nt

122,

985

-

0

650,

073

Atta

chm

ent 4

b

Gre

en D

emon

stra

tion

Pro

ject

s

C/F

- C

urr

en

t -

ad

dit

ion

al

4 f

act

she

ets

ap

pro

ved

- co

mm

itte

d

26 A

ugus

t 201

6

Reg

iona

l Tou

rism

Str

ateg

y 11

1,51

8

5,

973

-4,3

56

Cur

rent

7.2

Sup

port

Cre

ativ

e B

usin

esse

sC

urre

nt

9.2

Cur

rent

4,45

5

9.4

10,3

29

E

nviro

nmen

tally

Sus

tain

able

D

esig

n -

com

mer

cial

bu

ildin

gs

ES

D P

olic

ies

ad

voca

cy b

ud

ge

t - fo

r fa

ctsh

ee

ts u

se. B

ala

nce

C/F

wd

$

10

k (C

om

mitt

ed

)

REVENUEBUDGET 2016-17Year 11

Carry forwardsBudget + Carry

forwardsACTUALS 1st

qtrACTUALS

2nd qtrACTUALS 3rd

qtrACTUALS 4th

qtrTotal YTD VARIANCE

Current

IMAP Councils Annual Contribution ($35K each) 175,000 175,000 -175,000

IMAP Councils Annual Tourism Contribution ($20K each) 100,000 100,000 -100,000IMAP Map Licence fees 700 700 -700City of Melbourne contribution (Action 5.5) 10,000 10,000 -10,000City of Yarra contribution (Action 5.5) 10,000 10,000 -10,000City of Maribyrnong contribution (Action5.52) 10,000 10,000 -10,000. 0 0SRV Grant (Held by CoM?) Action 5.5 = $50K 0 0

Total Revenue 305,700 305,700 0 0 0 0 0 -305,700

PROJECT ALLOCATIONSBUDGET 2016-17Year 11

Carry forwardsBudget + Carry

forwardsACTUALS 1st

qtrACTUALS

2nd qtrACTUALS 3rd

qtrACTUALS 4th

qtrTotal YTD VARIANCE

Committed - Funded Notes Current

IMAP RMF reimbursement Current Reimbursement from DTF 48,684 48,684 . . . . . .

IMAPPostage, courier, travel stationery, logo, catering

Ongoing Annual costs 4,600 4,600 .

. . . . .

IMAPAnnual Report design and print

Ongoing Annual Costs 6,000 6,000 . . .

IMAP GIS Expenses Ongoing Annual costs 7,850 7,850 . . .

IMAP Website Hosting Ongoing Annual costs 3,400 3,400 . . .

IMAP Update website New One off project to refelct new plan 41,600 41,600 . .

IMAP IMAP Review Project Current (Approved Feb 2015) 27,498 27,498 . . . .

2.4 Wayfinding signs CurrentCoM additional contribution $10k for 2016-17

10,000 19,013 29,013 . . . .. .

5.5Infrastructure Development: Recreation facilities project

CurrentFunds approved Exec Forum Jan 2016 (Salary)

30,000 60,000 90,000 . . . .

7.2Support creative

IndustruesCurrent Urban Manufacturing Project Phase 2 30,000 40,000 70,000 . . .

9.4 Gren demo projects CurrentUniMelb ARC grant contribution: Year 3 of 3 (Committed)

20,000 20,000 - - 0

Current DML Map agreement Year 4 TBC 49,173 49,173 . . .Approved Nov 2015

DML Destination Mgt Plan funded from C/ Fwd

50,000 50,000 . .

Approved May 2016

Cultural Guide 42,200 42,200

Current Tourism projects - TBD 50,827 18,583 69,410 . .. .

Committed - Funded - Reallocated for future projects

. Priority Projects Fund . . 91,000 140,000 231,000

Total Expenditure 299,350 463,250 762,600 - - - - - Net Surplus (Deficit) 456,900- 0Opening Balance of IMAP Account 650,073 0 0Closing Balance of IMAP Account 193,173 - 0 0Please note that the funding calculation does not include Operational Costs of $40,000 per council in 2016/17.

11Regional Tourism

Strategy

20,856 4,356 .. .

26 August 2016 Attachment 4c

9.2Environmentally

Sustainable Design - commercial buildings

CurrentESD Factsheets series 3 (approvedMay 2016)

16,500

IMAP Budget for 2016-17

. ..

Annual Report 2015 > 2016

Inner Melbourne Action Plan ‘IMAP’

Making Melbourne more liveable

Contents

›› Foreword› 1

›› Introduction› 2The Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2

›› Highlight›of›the›Year› 4The Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26 4

Summary of Goals and Strategies 5

›› Progress›2015-16› 6Action›2.2›Wayfinding signage 6

Action›5.2›Affordable Housing 8

Action›5.5›Infrastructure Development – Regional Active Sport & Recreation Facilities Planning Study 9

Action›7.2›Supporting creative businesses – Urban Manufacturing 10

Action›9.2 Environmentally sustainable design 12

Action›9.4›Green Demonstration Projects – ARC Linkage grant: 13 ‘Mimicking natural ecosystems to improve green roof performance’

Action›11›Regional Tourism Program 15

›› Governance› 16IMAP Governance 16

IMAP Communications & Advocacy 16

Membership of the IMAP Implementation Committee 17

IMAP Reporting 18

Promotion and communication of IMAP projects 20

›› Financial›Statement› 21IMAP Financial Statement to 30 June 2016 22

›› Appendix› 23Statement of attendance 23

›› Progress›Summary› 24

›› Map› › 28

›› Contact›Information› 30

On behalf of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee we present this, the tenth and last IMAP Annual Report under our original Inner Melbourne Action Plan, highlighting the key achievements of the IMAP Special Committees during 2015-16.

The final approval of the new Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26 in June 2016 has been a major highlight for the IMAP Councils this year. Over 250 staff and councillors have participated in developing the plan over 18 months. The draft plan was downloaded over 230 times when advertised and great support for the partnership approach was obvious from the feedback received. The IMAP Councils now look forward to developing the IMAP projects of the future.

The Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) continues to be a successful collaboration between the cities of Melbourne, Port Phillip, Yarra, Stonnington and the Maribyrnong City Council, working together on inner city regional issues to help make Melbourne one of the world’s most liveable cities.

During 2015-16 the IMAP Implementation Committee has seen excellent progress continuing to be made by teams developing projects as varied as the Visitor Wayfinding Signage Master Style Guide, extending the Sustainable Design Factsheets series, commencing a major regional study on Active Recreation Facilities to assist in planning for future growth, researching the importance of small and start up urban manufacturing businesses to our economy and continuing to advocate for our visitor economy and affordable housing.

IMAP’s Growing Green Guide for the development of green roofs also continues to gain acclaim being awarded the 2015 Premiers Sustainability Award for Education and a Government section finalist. The IMAP councils continue to support University of Melbourne research in this important area.

We take this opportunity to recognize the commitment of the many Council officers and representatives from partnering organizations who continue to work collaboratively to deliver the IMAP projects.

Foreword

Cr Ken OngChair Future Melbourne [Planning] Committee City of Melbourne

Cr Cameron McDonaldMayor Maribyrnong City Council

Cr Claude UllinMayor City of Stonnington

Cr Roberto ColanziMayor City of Yarra

Cr Bernadene VossMayor City of Port Phillip

Annual Report 2015>2016 1

The›Inner›Melbourne›Action›Plan

The Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) sets out 11 regional strategies and 57 actions to address one simple objective: to make the Inner Melbourne Region more liveable. The IMAP region hosts the capital city of Victoria, incorporating the major financial, administrative, retail, cultural, and entertainment functions of the State.

The Inner Melbourne Action Plan is unique in bringing key government stakeholders together to develop and deliver regionally based actions within an effective governance framework. IMAP strategies and actions are identified as key areas for regional cooperation within the central city.

For ten years, Melbourne’s inner Metropolitan Councils – the cities of Melbourne, Yarra, Stonnington, Port Phillip and, more recently, Maribyrnong City Council – have worked together to develop and implement the strategies and actions set out in the Inner Melbourne Action Plan. Their aim is to strengthen the liveability, attractiveness and prosperity of the region and respond to growth and changes occurring in the inner city.

The IMAP projects have been successful in fostering ongoing cooperation, goodwill and active participation between IMAP stakeholders. IMAP is uniquely positioned to have an ongoing role in the development of the Inner Melbourne region.

With the inclusion of the Maribyrnong municipality in 2013, and the publication of the State Government’s Plan Melbourne strategy, the IMAP partner Councils have undertaken a review of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan to identify our priorities for the next 5-10 years.

During 2015-16 the new Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-2026 was approved by the five IMAP Councils in June 2016 and will commence implementation from 2016-17. A number of transition projects from the former plan will continue to be implemented under these new strategies.

Introduction

Inner Melbourne Action Plan2

Highlight of the Year

Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26The review of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan was completed during 2015-16.

The processA number of surveys and workshops held in 2014 identified the main priorities for the plan, and the first draft was produced in March 2015. Following receipt of staff comments, the IMAP Implementation Committee and Councillors were informally briefed on the contents during May through July 2015. Further revisions in conjunction with senior staff provided greater focus to the proposed regional strategies. The Regional Management Forum (RMF) project developing Measures of Liveability was also able to provide some draft performance measures for inclusion.

At the August meeting of the IMAP Implementation Committee, the Committee reviewed and endorsed the draft plan and recommended it for consultation with Councils and the public.

The consultation stageCouncil briefings were held during November and December and sign off to advertise the plan for external comment was achieved. Additional briefings were also given to the RMF and Municipal Association Victoria’s planning committee.

The draft plan was made available on a central website, Connect Stonnington from 27 January to 29 February 2016 and promoted through the 5 councils’ and IMAP websites, stakeholder correspondence, public notice and social media. There were 594 page visits and the draft was downloaded 213 times. Twenty three people or organizations made a submission through the website or by email. Submissions generally supported the partnership approach and the proposed joint actions of the five councils. Minor changes have been made to the draft plan as a result of the feedback received.

The revised Plan was referred to the IMAP Councils and adopted without change during May and June 2016.

Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26The new plan has been developed around the Vision Statement and five main goals. Inner Melbourne will continue to improve its internationally-renowned liveability whilst responding to rapid growth. This will be achieved by promoting the following goals:

› Goal 1: A globally significant, strong and diverse economy

› Goal 2: A connected transport network that provides real travel choices

› Goal 3: Diverse, vibrant, healthy and inclusive communities

› Goal 4: Distinctive, high quality neighbourhoods and places

› Goal 5: Leadership in achieving environmental sustainability and climate change adaptation.

Twenty outcome statements noted under these goals further identify where we would like Inner Melbourne to be in ten years time.

These visionary statements helped drive the identification of 27 regional strategies (summarised on page 5) – which make up the detail of the new plan. The IMAP Councils and others will aim to implement these strategies over the next few years.

Working groups and project teams help identify and undertake projects to implement these strategies over time. Proposed projects (or Actions) need to be developed which meet the stated project criteria and propose a business case for funding, prior to approval by the IMAP Implementation Committee.


Summary of Goals and Strategies

Priority›freight›

network

Integrated›connected›network

Public››transport›

improvements›

Cycling›friendly

Reduce›impact›of››through›traffic

Great››place›for››walking

Re-prioritise››road›

space

Transport

Plan›for›an›integrated›open›space›

network

Develop›integrated›greening›

strategies

Create›design›

standards›for›buildings›&›the›public›

realm

Create›quality›

neighbourhoods›and›positive›development›

outcomes

Improve›planning›

and›design›of›significant›

public››spaces

Neighbourhoods and places

Develop›flood›mitigation›

approaches

Improve›resilience››to›impacts›of›climate››

change

Increase››uptake›of›

environmental›sustainable›

design

Reduce›water›consumption›and›nitrogen›in›waterways

Reduce›greenhouse›

gas›emissions

Leaders in adaptation and sustainability

Increase›affordable››

housing

Improve›design›and›amenity›in›

apartments

Provide›integrated›community›

services

Partner›with›

education›providers

Deliver››regional››

sporting›&›recreation›facilities

Improve›health›

wellbeing›and›safety

Communities

Promote›specialist›clusters

Market››tourism›

destination

Ensure›safe›

vibrant›places

Economy

Foster›the›

knowledge›economy


> Progress 2015-16

Strategy 2: Effectively link transport routes so that the inner Melbourne region is accessible throughout by walking, cycling and public transport

Action›2.2›Wayfinding signageThe experience of cities in other parts of the world is that good wayfinding signage can encourage walking and exploration, deliver health and economic benefits, result in journey time savings and produce improvements to the public realm.

In late 2012, the CEOs of the Melbourne Tourism Partnership* established the Melbourne Visitor Signage Coordinating Committee, with the objective to make it easier for visitors to explore Melbourne by improving wayfinding signage. This was to be achieved through:

› establishing principles of signing

› outlining ‘business rules’ for designing and installing signs

› identifying opportunities for collaboration between state agencies and local Councils

The Committee’s response to the CEOs’ brief has been to:

› develop a Master Style Guide for Melbourne’s wayfinding signage (outlining the principles and ‘business rules’); and to

› collaborate on pedestrian wayfinding signage design: a design that would be consistent across municipal boundaries and ‘read’ with public transport signs.

During 2015-16, the Committee’s work covered the following:

1. The Melbourne Wayfinding Signing Master Style Guide

The Committee completed the first draft of the Master Style Guide in December 2015. The Committee was advised and assisted in this work by traffic engineer, David Nash, from Traffinity.

In early 2016, representatives of the nine authorities on the Committee consulted internal colleagues on the draft and amendments were made to the Guide based on their feedback.

Design of the Guide is now underway. To assist users of the Guide, illustrations, diagrams and images will complement the text. It is proposed that the published (illustrated) version of the Master Style Guide will be submitted to the six Councils for adoption, and that each Council will review existing signage policy or draft new signage policy with the Guide as a Reference Document.

2. Wayfinding signage (infrastructure) designThe principles and guidelines outlined in the Master Style Guide were applied to the design of a new pedestrian wayfinding signage ‘family of signs’ and a prototype developed. GIS teams at Melbourne, Port Phillip and Wyndham Councils produced maps for the prototype after agreeing to layers, fonts and other details.

In November 2015, the prototypes were tested with 455 people in three sites across Melbourne: Werribee Train Station, Station Pier and the CBD.


The results were very positive: 81% of respondents said they would use the signs sometimes or always.

As well as the Master Style Guide, the prototype applies what was learnt from the IMAP signage pilot project (2009), from user testing conducted in other cities, and from visitor research undertaken in Melbourne.

Work on the Master Style Guide and the prototype testing was funded by the IMAP Councils and Wyndham City Council.

During 2015, the City of Melbourne also separately commissioned SGS Economics and Planning to scope the requirements for a business case for extending the wayfinding signage system across metropolitan Melbourne. SGS’s work included a summary of benefit-cost ratios (BCR) achieved following investment in integrated wayfinding signage systems in London, Birmingham and Toronto. In each case, the BCR was positive.

3. Wayfinding signage (infrastructure) pilot and user testing

In early 2017, City of Melbourne (CoM) will pilot the new ‘family’ of wayfinding signs in North Melbourne and around the Southern Cross Station precinct. The pilot has a number of aims:

› To assist users to move between pedestrian and public transport networks;

› To explore ways to lower costs of fabrication and maintenance, and improve environmental performance of the signage;

› To improve legibility and accessibility of information carried by wayfinding signs; and

› To make it easy for people to engage with local businesses and services.

The pilot project is an opportunity to test the new signage ‘family’ – and the principles and ‘business rules’ behind the design – with users.

The user testing involves intercept surveys, stakeholder interviews and accompanied journeys. Pre-installation user testing conducted in late 2015 provides a baseline against which results from post-installation testing can be compared. Post-installation testing will be conducted in late 2017.

Preferences for digital and physical wayfinding information are part of the user testing.

External Partners: The Melbourne Tourism Partnership* comprised City of Melbourne, Tourism Victoria, Public Transport Victoria, Melbourne Convention Bureau, Victorian Major Events Company and Destination Melbourne Ltd.

The Coordinating Committee comprises Maribyrnong, Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Yarra and Wyndham City Councils and Public Transport Victoria, VicRoads and Tourism Victoria (now the Events and Visitor Economy branch of Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources).

Enquiries from other Councils are welcome.


> Progress 2015-16

Strategy 5: Plan to accommodate 90,000 more dwellings by 2030.

Action›5.2›Affordable Housing

Community Land Trust Research ProjectThe project’s primary aim is to undertake research on Community Land Trust (CLT) options in the Australian context. In Phase 1, a University of Western Sydney team undertook research on CLTs in the USA and UK and their implementation in Australia, and developed the Australian Community Land Trust Manual in February 2013. The Manual includes an overview of CLTs, their relevance and potential in Australia, tax issues, possible organisational structures, preliminary financial modelling, two possible legal mechanisms (long-term leaseholds and modified shared equity) and a model long-term lease, co-ownership deed and constitution.

Phase 2 of the Project involves working with banks and lending institutions to develop appropriate loan products for CLT residents; and working with organisations implementing CLT housing; completing up to four in-depth case studies, with a diversity of sites, organisational structures and market conditions.

During 2015-16 time was spent resolving preliminary establishment issues encountered by the case studies; and considering challenges around balancing sustainability and affordability objectives in the design and build costs. The June 2016 meeting of the Project Steering Group planned some focus group initiatives and workshops for 2016-17 to share knowledge and understanding around some of these difficulties.

Housing SymposiumA Housing Symposium entitled ‘The Future of Inner City Social Housing: Options for Local Government’ was hosted by the City of Yarra on World Homelessness Day on 9 October 2015 and attended by 90 people. Two panels of invited industry stakeholders commented on their experience with housing issues. A short film ‘The Future of Social Housing in the Inner City’, was produced to premier at the Forum, canvassing a wide range of views by decision makers on affordable housing issues.

CLT xternal partners: University of Western Sydney; University of Sydney; St Kilda Community Housing; Mount Alexander Community Land Ltd; Hobart Ecovillage; SEMZ Property group; Tasman Ecovillage; Committee for Lorne.


Action›5.5›Infrastructure Development – Regional Active Sport & Recreation Facilities Planning StudyThe aim of this project is to assess the future provision of sport and recreation facilities, with the focus on active outdoor sport and recreation facilities and aquatic centres for the IMAP area. The project will be completed in two stages:

› Stage 1 – Information Coordination and Analysis.

› Stage 2 – Future Planning.

Following a deal of lead up work by the IMAP Councils, in January 2016 the IMAP Executive Forum:

› Resolved to proceed with the IMAP Regional Active Sport and Recreation Facilities Planning Study.

› Approved the revised project plan and funding proposal subject to Sport and Recreation Victoria (SRV) funding and the appointment of a project officer based at City of Melbourne.

› Approved and authorized the involvement of key staff from the IMAP councils, the timely provision of data for the project, and access and use of council systems for data collation and sharing.

In April the project was successful in receiving $50,000 funding from the State Government Community Sport Infrastructure Fund, which ensures that both stages of the project can be achieved under the approved funding proposal.

The study formally commenced in May 2015 with the commencement of the study Project Officer (6 month position). The Project Working Group, comprising representatives for the IMAP councils along with representatives from Sport and Recreation Victoria (SRV) and the Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA), determine the project activities and priorities, discuss tasks and resolve issues and facilitate access to organisations, data and information.

Key actions completed to date include: › Identification of project needs, actions and

data requirements by reviewing background documents and similar projects.

› Data preparation, collection and integration from the IMAP councils, SRV, MPA and other stakeholders – This process required identification of the data and information to be gathered and the attributes of importance to the project. Collating and synthesizing the data from different sources has been a key focus and is

subject to continual review and refinement. This phase includes pinpointing the location of sport facilities, defining the types of sports facilities and their components, and seeking participation data for sporting codes and facilities.

› Data Organization: The list of active sports across the IMAP region has been extracted and the list of data requirements for sports facilities has been prepared and reviewed. The conceptual model and physical structure of an ‘IMAP Sport and Recreation Geo-database’ have been designed and documented and are being updated based on stakeholder feedback.

› Mapping: Existing sport and recreation facilities (sourced from IMAP partners and other key stakeholders) have been mapped and are subject to ongoing review and refinement by the Project Officer and study stakeholders.

Key actions to be completed:Further Data Gathering: The project requires two types of data

› Sport facilities data:

› Participation data: The participation data is provided by a number of sources, e.g. State Sporting Associations (SSA’s – currently some SSA’s i.e. Football Federation Victoria, Badminton, Rugby and Gymnastics have shared data) and the IMAP Councils.

› Data organization: This includes:

- Updating existing maps

- Editing existing database tables

- Data entry in Geo-database

- Assigning collected attribute tables to spatial features on maps

› Basic Analysis on the existing distribution of sports and recreation assets to find out how balanced they are across the IMAP region; and analysis on the current provision of sport facilities to explore their adequacy to meet present needs.

External partners: Metropolitan Planning Authority; Sport and Recreation Victoria


> Progress 2015-16

Strategy 7: Promote the inner Melbourne region as an investment location for knowledge rich business sectors.

Action›7.2›Supporting creative businesses – Urban ManufacturingIMAP is assessing the value to Melbourne in nurturing small urban makers and innovators. Against a backdrop of rising house prices in inner city areas, councils are under increasing pressure to make decisions about land reallocation from urban employment land uses to residential zoning. This study aims to help guide strategic decisions about rezoning of urban commercial and industrial-zoned land in the IMAP area.

Research undertaken by the IMAP Councils and the University of Melbourne on the significance of small urban Makers to inner Melbourne’s urban employment land is informing decisions about industrial and commercial land use versus residential land use.

This groundbreaking project recognizes and analyses the contribution of small urban Makers to the social, cultural and economic fabric of the inner city, and assesses the value in preserving a place for small, high-value added, highly-innovative urban Makers and innovators in the central city and immediate inner suburban areas.

Until now, Australia has had no clear definition of a small urban Maker/manufacturer. Evidence to date reveals that small urban Makers range from ‘makers’ who may not have traditionally been thought to be makers to more time-honored maker crafts, with the addition of a high value-added service component.

A digital platform launched in November 2015 at http://makers.melbourne is capturing data and researching hundreds of makers across dozens of industry sectors. The industries are as diverse as 3D printing, animation, furniture design and manufacture, food and beverage production, industrial and product design, textiles, architecture, home wares and theatrical prop design to millinery and wig making – to mention just a few. The research to date is strongly suggesting Melbourne has an emerging new, high value-added, knowledge-intensive production sector made up of small vibrant, urban Makers, many with distinct and unique features, often including added service components to their product.


Through collaboration with the Moreland City Council, local businesses and creative specialists operating in this space, the project team has been examining the complex urban systems underlying small urban manufacturing from three angles:

› A land perspective – examining what’s currently happening in industrial/commercial zoned land.

› A sector perspective – ensuring the survival, growth and capacity to innovate

› An economic perspective – investigating the ongoing economic benefits to the Inner Melbourne region.

Understanding these three areas is assisting in determining the implications for planning controls and design in inner city industrial and commercial zones. Collaboration and data sharing across the IMAP Councils, Federal and State Government, the University of Melbourne and Moreland City Council have underscored the findings and outcomes of the research to date. The research has been enhanced by the interest shown by Makers and through their contributions to the project.

External Partners: The University of Melbourne; Metropolitan Planning Authority; Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning; Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources; Moreland City Council.


> Progress 2015-16

Strategy 9: Substantially improve the environmental performance of the inner Melbourne region

Action›9.2›Environmentally sustainable designA suite of 10 Sustainable Design fact sheets has been jointly developed by the IMAP Councils and made available to the public since their launch in May 2012, providing detailed advice on sustainable building design requirements that should be addressed during the early design process and when lodging a planning permit application. The fact sheets underpin the Sustainable Design in the Planning Process (SDAPP) framework.

In 2016 an additional set of 5 fact sheets (known as the 2nd suite) were added to the original set as supplementary sheets which expanded on the original themes and provided more detailed information for how to design and implement sustainability initiatives at the planning stage. These sheets included:

› Melbourne Climate

› Site Permeability

› External Shading

› Green Walls and Roofs (a supplementary sheet informed by the Growing Green Guide)

› Rating Tools

Licensing for the fact sheets in this period has also expanded with 15 Councils (in addition to the 5 IMAP councils) signing an Intellectual Property (IP) Licence Agreement to use and share the fact sheets with each of their respective development communities.

This facilitates consistent application of sustainable design assessment across municipal boundaries, which is looked on favourably by some applicants who often submit for planning approval with multiple councils.

In May 2016 the IMAP Council agreed to fund an additional 5 fact sheets (known as the 3rd suite) to again further expand on the initial themes and provide clear guidance for specific sustainable design initiatives at the planning stage. The new topics inlcude:

› Daylight – aligned with category 1.0 Indoor Environment Quality

› Ventilation – aligned with category 1.0 Indoor Environment Quality

› Windows and Glazing – aligned with category 5.0 Materials

› Car Share – aligned with category 6.0 Transport

› Innovation Strategies – aligned with category 9.0 Innovation

Since the launch of the first 11 fact sheets, the feedback from the general development industry and other Victorian Councils has been very positive. Planning permit applicants value the technical guidance provided and the fact that Councils’ expectation in regard to ESD performance standards has been clearly described.

It is anticipated that once the 3rd suite have been completed a launch will be held for the 2nd and 3rd fact sheet suite in 2017.

External Partners: The factsheets are currently being promoted by the following Councils in addition to the IMAP councils: Banyule, Darebin, Greater Dandenong, Greater Geelong, Hume, Knox, Kingston, Manningham , Maroondah, Monash, Moonee Valley, Moreland, Nillumbik, Whitehorse, Whittlesea, – and CASBE (Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment). Copies of the Sustainable Design Factsheets are available on the IMAP and Council websites. Council enquiries are welcome.


Strategy 9: Substantially improve the environmental performance of the inner Melbourne region

Action›9.4›Green Demonstration Projects – ARC Linkage grant: Mimicking natural ecosystems to improve green roof performance IMAP Councils together with Melbourne Water and the Australian Research Council are funding a three year University of Melbourne project designed to improve the hydrological and energy performance of green roofs by learning from natural ecosystems. It is hoped that improving the stormwater capture and cooling functions of green roofs will increase their uptake in medium density areas such as Melbourne’s inner city.

The research team, led by Dr Nicholas Williams, started the project in mid-2014 and have made good progress in the 2015-16 year. They have now completed two major experiments, the nutrient uptake experiment reported last year and a 9 month green roof module experiment designed to test the effect of plant diversity on green roof hydrology and thermal performance. The development of the 3 PhD students has been particularly pleasing.

PhD student Andrea Pianella, who is quantifying green roof thermal performance, won a scholarship to spend 2 months working with a green roof researcher at the Colorado School of Mines to refine his thermal models.

He has completed his 2nd experiment which involved monitoring temperatures in green roof modules. He has also finalised the data collection from un-planted experimental green roofs at Burnley and then coordinated their planting with a mixture of 4 species.

This will help the research team separate out the effects of substrates and plants on green roof cooling. He has had one paper published, two conference papers accepted and will submit two additional journal articles shortly.

PhD student Zheng Zhang is investigating the role of diverse versus simple green roof planting palettes on the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff and nutrient uptake rates. The results of her green roof module experiment indicate that there are significant differences in the hydrological performance of the two planting types, especially in the delay of peak runoff, total stormwater retention and soil water content. This means that it is possible to improve green roof stormwater performance by planting lots of different plant forms on a green roof.

Joerg Werdin PhD research focusses on improving the plant available water and nutrient retention capacities of green roof substrates without increasing the system weight by amending them with target-engineered biochars. As biochar properties are highly variable, favourable process conditions and feedstock choices specifically aimed at improving green roof substrate properties have been identified by conducting a literature search. Joerg’s candidature was successfully confirmed in late 2015 and he is currently comparing the anatomy of 17 woody feedstocks on a cellular level to predict the water holding capacity of biochars based on feedstock properties.

John Rayner accepting the Sustinability award


> Progress 2015-16Key publications/presentations to dateFarrell C, Szota C, Arndt SK. Urban Plantings: ‘Living Laboratories’ for Climate Change Response. Trends in Plant Science 20(10): 597-599.

Szota, C. Farrell, C, Williams, N.S.G., and Fletcher, T.D. 2016. A practical tool for designing vegetated roofs to optimise rainfall retention Un outil pratique pour optimiser la rétention des eaux pluviales dans les toitures végétalisées Paper presented at Novatech conference, Lyon, France, June 28-July 1, 2016.

Clarke, R.E., Pianella, A., Shabani, B and Rosengarten, G. (2016) Steady-state thermal measurement of moist granular earthen materials. Journal of Building Physics 1-19.

Pianella, A. (2015). The thermal performance of green roofs. Invited lecture, University of Colorado, August, 2015.

Pianella, A, Aye, L & Williams, NSG (2015). Green roofs in Australia: analysing thermal benefits and policy. State of Australian Cities, Gold Coast.

Pianella, A, Aye, L & Williams, NSG (2015). Thermal conductivities of green roof substrates. Architectural Science Association, Genoa, Italy.

Szota, C, Fletcher, TD, Desbois, C, Williams, NSG, Raynor, J & Farrell, C. (submitted). Using calculated available water storage of substrates significantly overestimates rainfall retention by green roofs. Landscape and Urban Planning.

Raynor, J, Farrell, C & May, P (2015) Evaluating substrate performance to design better performing green roof growing mixes International Symposium on Growing Media, Composting and Substrate Analysis, Vienna University of Technology, Sept 7-11.

External Partners: The University of Melbourne; Melbourne Water, Australian Research Council


Strategy 11: Promote the Inner Melbourne Region as a tourism destination

Action›11›Regional Tourism Program2015-16 was the last year of the current three-year Strategic Tourism Plan for IMAP. The purpose of the IMAP Tourism Working Group (TWG) is to work collaboratively to:

› Influence visitors and locals to choose Inner Melbourne as a place to visit, explore and return; and

› Make it easy for visitors and locals to explore and engage with Inner Melbourne.

The major focus of year three was to:

1. Update the IMAP Committee on significant changes taking place within the Victorian tourism structure. This included inviting the Interim CEO of Visit Victoria to meet with the IMAP Executive Forum.

2. Undertake a comprehensive review and update of the IMAP regional tourism map (artwork), for licensing to tourism partners.

3. Ensure the continuation and success of the Melbourne Official Visitors Map, a joint collaboration with Destination Melbourne, with an annual circulation of one million copies, ensuring distribution and visitor reach for the IMAP regional tourism map, which is included within this brochure.

4. Provide support for the research and development of the Greater Melbourne Destination Management Plan, to be undertaken by Destination Melbourne in 2016-17. The plan will contain an IMAP regional destination management sub-plan. Two IMAP TWG members form part of the Steering Group for this project.

5. Negotiate an IMAP – Destination Melbourne Partnership to ensure greater content coverage and presence for inner Melbourne Council destinations, across most of the print and digital collateral, produced by this tourism organisation.

6. Initiate the development of a Cultural Guide for Inner Melbourne, through collaboration with Cultural Tourism Victoria, which will showcase the depth and breadth of cultural experience across the inner Melbourne regions in print and digital formats. The printed guide (50,000) will be released in September 2016, with the digital platform to be developed later in the year if funding submissions to Visit Victoria and Creative Victoria are supported.

7. Enable all IMAP Councils to participate in the 2015 Melbourne Knowledge Week events.

External Partners: Destination Melbourne Ltd; Visit Victoria


Governance

IMAP GovernanceIMAP will work to implement the projects and actions contained in the rolling IMAP 3-year Implementation Plan and ensure systems are in place to engage staff, and meet budgets, grant funding requirements and timeframes to complete projects on time.

IMAP will continue to develop its effectiveness on behalf of the 5 member councils, to improve governance across the inner Melbourne region and nurture the relationships that underpin IMAP.

IMAP Communications & Advocacy › IMAP will continue to partner with key

stakeholders to deliver on key issues affecting the liveability of the inner Melbourne region.

› IMAP will continue to build on the IMAP website, the Growing Green Guide website and the Makers.Melbourne website as a communication tool and document repository.

› IMAP will communicate the status of current Actions, partnerships and successes widely to promote the benefits of regional collaboration across the inner Melbourne Region.

› IMAP will consult widely across the five IMAP Councils to develop the Implementation Plan for the Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26 which advances the priorities of the Inner Melbourne region Councils.


Cr Ken OngChair Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee, City of Melbourne (1 July 2015 – 30 June 2016)

Mr Geoff LawlerDirector City Operations, City of Melbourne (1 July 2015 – 30 June 2016)

Cr Phillip VlahogiannisMayor, City of Yarra (1 July 2015 – November 2015)

Cr Roberto ColanziMayor, City of Yarra (November 2015 – 30 June 2016)

Ms Vijaya VaidyanathChief Executive Officer, City of Yarra (1 July 2015 – 30 June 2016)

Cr Melina SehrMayor, City of Stonnington (1 July 2015 – November 2015)

Cr Claude UllinMayor, City of Stonnington (November 2015 – 30 June 2016)

Mr Warren RobertsChief Executive Officer, City of Stonnington (1 July 2015 – 30 June 2016)

Cr Amanda StevensMayor, City of Port Phillip (1 July 2015 – November 2015)

Cr Bernadene VossMayor, City of Port Phillip (November 2015 – 30 June 2016)

Ms Tracey SlatterChief Executive Officer, City of Port Phillip (30 July 2015 – 30 June 2016)

Cr Nam QuachMayor, Maribyrnong City Council (1 July 2015 – November 2015)

Cr Cameron McDonaldMayor, Maribyrnong City Council (November 2015 – 30 June 2016)

Mr Stephen WallChief Executive Officer, Maribyrnong City Council (30 July 2015 – 30 June 2016)

Committee Members: 1 July 20155 – 30 June 2016

Associate Committee Members The Terms of Reference provides that representatives from the following associate partner organisations are invited to attend the meetings of the IMAP Implementation Committee.

› Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) – 2 representatives;

› Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR) – 2 representatives;

› Metropolitan Planning Association – 1 representative;

› VicRoads – 1 representative.

Membership of the IMAP Implementation CommitteeThe Cities of Melbourne, Yarra, Stonnington, Port Phillip and the Maribyrnong City Council have each established identically constituted section 86 Special Committees, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989. These Committees meet as one, and provide a coordinated decision-making process to facilitate the implementation of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) dated January 2006,

as adopted by member Councils in December 2005. Maribyrnong City Council established its Special Committee in June 2013 to come into effect on 1 July 2013.

The Committee consists of members, being one councillor and the Chief Executive Officer (or specified Executive Director) from each of the municipalities.


Governance

IMAP Reporting

Executive’s Forum The Executive’s Forum is a leadership meeting of IMAP’s senior executives, aimed at determining and driving regional priorities and programs, identifying synergies and opportunities and providing support to the IMAP Executive Officer. Forums are held as the need arises. Outcomes of the IMAP Executive’s Forums are reported back to the IMAP Implementation Committee in formal minutes as an agenda item for discussion and ratification.

7 August 2015Key items on the agenda were:

› IMAP governance documents update

› IMAP Review: reviewing content of the draft plan

› Action›2.2›Visitor›wayfinding›signage›project:›redesign of wayfinding signs

› Action 11 Regional tourism: update on Visit Victoria restructure

Minutes were tabled and ratified at the 28 August 2015 IMAP Implementation Committee meeting.

28 January 2016Key items on the agenda were:

› Action 2.2 Visitor wayfinding signage project: discussion on future options and piloting new designs

› Action 5.5 Infrastructure development: Regional active sport and recreation facilities planning study – funding and project plan approval

› Action 11 Regional tourism: meeting with the Acting CEO Visit Victoria

› IMAP Three Year Implementation Plan: reallocation and funding for the recreation facilities project

Minutes were tabled and ratified at the 26 February 2016 IMAP Implementation Committee meeting.

19 May 2016Key items on the agenda were:

› Action 7.2 Supporting creative businesses: Urban manufacturing project – clarification of Phase 2 funding

› Action 11 Regional tourism: update on funding the Destination Management Plan

› IMAP CLUE: discussion on investigating a Census of Land and Employment across IMAP Councils

› Parking levies: briefing

› IMAP Review: consideration of submissions

Minutes were tabled and ratified at the 27 May 2016 IMAP Implementation Committee meeting.

IMAP Implementation Committee Meetings

28 August 2015 (Host: City of Port Phillip)

Key items on the agenda were:

› IMAP governance documents: 2015 update

› Draft IMAP Annual Report 2014-15 and summary

› IMAP Review: endorsement of the Draft Plan for consultation and Council briefings

› Action 2.2 Visitor wayfinding signage project: forward strategy proposal from the Coordinating Committee

› Action 5.5 Infrastructure development: Regional active sport and recreation facilities planning study – project brief proposal

› Action 7.2 Supporting creative business: Urban manufacturing project – draft Phase 1 report and application for ARC grant funding

› Action 11 Regional tourism: Presentation – Destination Melbourne Ltd regarding their Destination Management Plan and visitor program proposal

› Action 11 Regional tourism: Annual report and 2015-16 Action Plan; agreement with Destination Melbourne Ltd on distributing the Official Visitor Map extended


› Communications: submission to Creative Victoria on the urban manufacturing project ; University of Western Sydney bulletin noted the Community Land Trust research with the IMAP councils

Minutes were tabled and ratified at the 27 November 2015 IMAP Implementation Committee meeting.

27 November 2015 (Host: City of Yarra)


› IMAP Three Year Implementation Plan: review of the 3 year budget

› IMAP Review: update on briefings with IMAP councils and the public consultation process

› Action 5.2 Affordable Housing: report on the Future of Inner City Social Housing Forum

› Action 5.5 Infrastructure Development: Regional active sport and recreation facilities planning study – update on quotations

› Action 11 Regional tourism: report on the Destination Management Plan proposal

› Communications: letters of support for the Urban Manufacturing ARC Linkage grant; IMAP comments on the City of Melbourne Tourism Action Plan; State Government notification and media release of the Premiers Sustainability Award for IMAP’s Growing Green Guide; media release on the Future of Inner City Social Housing Forum held at City of Yarra.

Minutes were tabled and ratified at the 26 February 2016 IMAP Implementation Committee meeting.

26 February 2016 (Host: City of Melbourne)


› IMAP Review: update on the public consultation process

› Action 2.2 Visitor wayfinding signage project: review of the draft visitor signs Master Style Guide, and the signage infrastructure pilot and evaluation

› Action 5.5 Infrastructure development: Regional active sport and recreation facilities planning study – report on revised methodology and funding

› Action 7.2 Supporting creative business: Urban manufacturing project – final Phase 1 report and update on the direction for Phase 2

› Presentations: review of two Regional Management Forum projects and update on the Plan Melbourne framework by Metropolitan Planning Authority representatives

› Communications: Moreland City Council involvement in the Urban Manufacturing project confirmed; update on the Community Land trust research project; Public Notice for Draft Plan consultation.

Minutes were tabled and ratified at the 27 May 2016 IMAP Implementation Committee meeting.

27 May 2016 (Host: City of Stonnington)


› IMAP Review: update on submissions

› Action 7.2 Supporting creative business: Urban manufacturing project – update for Phase 2

› Action 9.2 Environmental sustainable design: Update and extension of the ESD Factsheets series

› Action 9.4 Green demonstration projects: Update on the University of Melbourne’s research: ‘Mimicking natural ecosystems to improve green roof performance’ project (ARC Linkage Grant partner)

› Action 11 Regional tourism: Consideration of a proposal to develop a Cultural Guide

› Communications:›Urban Manufacturing project media release

Minutes were tabled and ratified at the 26 August 2016 IMAP Implementation Committee meeting.


Governance

Promotion and communication of IMAP projectsThe work of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan was publicised as follows during the year:

Governance › Circulated the IMAP Annual Report 2014-15 in

November 2015.

› IMAP Review: meetings with specialist groups on the draft plan occurred in July 2015 and a number of briefings of senior staff undertaken. Consultation with the 5 IMAP Councils occurred in November 2015 and the draft plan was publically advertised for submission in late January for one month. Twenty-three public submissions were received. Following minor amendments, the plan was adopted by all five Councils during May – June 2016.

› The IMAP Councils contributed significant staff time to work on the Regional Management Forum’s Measures of Liveability project. The liveability measures will be reflected in the new Inner Melbourne Action Plan where possible.

Housing › A Housing Forum entitled ‘The Future of

Inner City Social Housing: Options for Local Government’ was hosted by the City of Yarra and attended by 90 people on 9 October 2015. Two panels of invited industry stakeholders commented on their experience with housing issues. A short film was produced to premier at the Forum, canvassing a wide range of views by decision makers on affordable housing issues. A media release in October 2015 advertised the upcoming forum.

Sustainability › In October 2015, the Growing Green Guide

was awarded the Premiers Sustainability Award 2015 for Education and was a finalist in the Government section. This success was also covered by a media release on 30 September 2015.

Regional development › IMAP’s partners, Destination Melbourne,

distributed one million copies of the IMAP tourism map as the Official Visitor Map during the year.

› The IMAP Tourism Working Group provided a submission on the City of Melbourne Tourism Action Plan in November 2015.

› IMAP continued to liaise with the Wyndham Council, Tourism Victoria, Public Transport Victoria and VicRoads on the Master Style Guide being developed through the Visitor Signage Coordinating Committee.

› All IMAP Councils participated in the 2015 Melbourne Knowledge Week events.

› The Urban Manufacturing project is being undertaken in conjunction with The University of Melbourne and the City of Moreland. The agreement with the University to joint fund the project was signed in August 2015. A submission was made to Creative Victoria in July 2015 outlining the objectives of this project. The project launched its Maker.Melbourne website to canvass information from small Makers in Inner Melbourne and developed a press release in May 2016 to encourage subscribers to the website.

› The IMAP Councils have partnered with the Metropolitan Planning Authority and Sport & Recreation Victoria (SRV) to undertake the Regional Active Sport & Recreation Facilities Planning Study. The project has been successful in being awarded a SRV regional planning grant of $50,000 in 2016.

Transport › Council staff from across the IMAP Councils

attended two forums in September and October 2015 with ARRB consultants, providing transport, local laws and planning input to the AusRoads study: ‘Overcoming Barriers to off-peak freight movement in Urban Areas’.

› The Through Traffic modelling data from the VISTA database was made publically available on the IMAP website’s GIS in November 2015.


Financial statementTotal›income›for the 2015-16 financial year to the Inner Melbourne Action Plan [IMAP] derived from IMAP partner Councils and other contributors was $373,685.›

This includes the IMAP partner Councils’ annual project contribution of $175,000, and $100,000 for the regional tourism projects undertaken by IMAP. Additional funding was received as follows:

› IMAP received a reimbursement from the Department of Treasury and Finance for the Regional Management Forum projects, undertaken jointly with the State Government, as the project went under-budget.

› The City of Moreland and the Metropolitan Planning Authority contributed $10,000 each towards the IMAP Urban Manufacturing research project, as partners on the project steering committee.

› The Cities of Stonnington and Port Phillip made their budgeted contributions towards the Recreation Project of $10,000 each.

No Victorian government grants were received directly by IMAP.

The total›expenditure›for the 2015 -16 financial year for professional services, website administration and sundry items relating to IMAP Actions was $156,678.

This results in a positive balance to the IMAP account in the financial year of $217,006.›

Retained›Earnings›carried forward from the previous financial year as at 1 July 2015 was $433,067.

Therefore the Accumulated Surplus for the year ending 30 June 2016 was $650,073. This revenue includes:

› the Councils’ RMF project refund being held in the IMAP account ($48,685);

› publication and website funding held over awaiting plan approval ($69,000);

› funding allocated to ongoing commitments ($212,900);

› funding paid ahead for 2016-17 projects ($50,000); and

› funds reallocated from deferred projects ($140,000)for allocation to new priorities under the new Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26.

These funds will be carried forward. The positive balance in the account is due to the timing in implementing these projects.


Financial statement

IMAP Financial Statement as at 30 June 2016Actual to 30 June 2016

Income $

Annual IMAP Council Partner contributions 175,000

Annual IMAP Council Tourism contributions 100,000

Other contributions › DFT reimbursement from Regional Management Forum Projects 48,684 › Action 2.2 – City of Melbourne contribution to Signage pilot 10,000 › Action 5.5 – City of Stonnington contribution to Recreation Project 10,000 › Action 5.5 – City of Port Phillip contribution to Recreation Project 10,000 › Action 7.2 – City of Moreland contribution to Urban Manufacturing research 10,000 › Action 7.2 – Metro Planning Authority contribution to Urban Manufacturing research 10,000

98,684

Total Income 373,684

ExpenditureProfessional Services › Action 2.4 Wayfinding Signs: Visitor Signs project 46,426 › Action 5.2 Affordable Housing: Housing Forum 4,500 › Action 7.2 Support Creative Business: Urban Manufacturing project 20,000 › Action 9.2 Environmental Sustainable Design: Factsheets project 5,973 › Action 9.4 Green Demonstration Projects: Growing Green Guide 453 › Action 11 Regional Tourism 47,526

156,678

IMAP Annual Report 2014-15 5,600

IMAP Website & GIS Administration 10,215

IMAP Review 12,375

Sundry Expenditure 3,410

Total Expenditure 156,678

Net Profit for Year Ending 30 June 2016 217,006

Retained Earnings Carried Forward (2014-15) 433,067

Accumulated Surplus for Year Ending 30 June 2016 650,073

Notes: The IMAP Executive Officer position has been hosted by the City of Stonnington with the IMAP Councils each contributing a quarter of the operational costs annually from 2010/11 to 2012/13 and a fifth from 2013-14. This contribution is not indicated above.


Appendix

Statement of attendanceFrom 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016

Committee member Position IMAP Implementation Committee Membership dates to 30 June 2014

Meeting Attendance

Attended Apology Total Meetings

Cr Phillip Vlahogiannis Mayor, City of Yarra Jul 2015 – Nov 2015 1 0 1

Cr Roberto Colanzi Mayor, City of Yarra Nov 2015 – Jun 2016 3 0 3

Cr Jane Touzeau Acting Mayor, City of Port Phillip Aug 2015 1 0 1

Cr Bernadene Voss Mayor, City of Port Phillip Nov 2015 – Jun 2016 2 1 3

Cr Melina Sehr Mayor, City of Stonnington Jul 2015 – Nov 2015 0 1 1

Cr Claude Ullin Mayor, City of Stonnington Nov 2015 – Jun 2016 3 0 3

Cr Ken Ong Chair, Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee, City of Melbourne

Jul 2015 – Jun 2016 3 1 4

Cr Nam Quach Mayor, Maribyrnong City Council Jul 2015 – Nov 2015 1 0 1

Cr Cameron McDonald Mayor, Maribyrnong City Council Nov 2015 – Jun 2016 3 0 3

Ms Vijaya Vaidyanath Chief Executive Officer, City of Yarra

Jul 2015 – Jun 2016 3 1 4

Ms Tracey Slatter Chief Executive Officer, City of Port Phillip

Jul 2015 – Jun 2016 2 2 4

Mr Warren Roberts Chief Executive Officer, City of Stonnington

Jul 2015 – Jun 2016 3 1 4

Mr Geoff Lawler Director, City Operations, City of Melbourne

Jul 2015 – Jun 2016 4 0 4

Mr Stephen Wall Chief Executive Officer Maribyrnong City Council

Jul 2015 – Jun 2016 4 0 4

Associate Partner Representatives

Associate Member Representing Meeting Attendance

Attended Apology Total Meetings

Mr Adrian Salmon Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) 4 0 4

Mr Rod Anderson Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) 2 2 4

Ms Rebecca Collins Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR)

0 1 1

Mr Nick Beckingsale Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR)

0 3 3

Mr Steve Booth Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR)

4 0 4

Mr David Teague VicRoads 3 0 3

Mr Bryan Sherritt VicRoads 1 0 1

Ms Jane Monk Metropolitan Planning Authority 4 0 4


Progress Summary

Ten years of IMAPStrategy Action Status Deliverable

Heritage 1.1 Heritage statement of significance (2006)

Completed › Brochure: ‘Liveable Walkable Melbourne – the structure, character and significance of Inner Melbourne’

1.2 Public realm infrastructure standards

1.3 Built form controls

1.4 Boulevards & major roads

1.5 Key urban squares

Link Transport Routes

2.1 Regional physical infrastructure

2.2 Wayfinding signage

› Phase 1 (2008-10)

Completed › Received LAAP grant funding: $158,500 inc GST › Grant & Assocs report: ‘The Development of Inner Melbourne Wayfinding Signage’ – development of an integrated signage strategy and ‘family’ of signs

› Development of ‘heads up’ mapping › Delivery of 54 signs (12xLevel 1 signs; 10xLevel 2 signs; 21xLevel 3 signs; 11xLevel 4 signs).

› Phase 2 (2012 – ) Current › Received Wyndham City Council funding: $20,000 and City of Melbourne additional funding $10,000

› Melbourne Wayfinding Signs Master Style Guide (Draft) › Prototype testing of new sign designs based on Legible London

2.3 Bicycle network legibility

Phase 1 (2008)

Completed › Report: ‘Bicycle Victoria’s Review of the Priority Bike Route Network for IMAP’

Phase 2 (2013 – ) Current

2.4 Pedestrian priority areas – Green light project (2007-10)

Completed › Received LAAP grant: $207,500 inc GST › 2 years planning to identify key crossing sites, establish control sites, monitor the existing situation and determine the treatment required to deliver Green Light priority to foot traffic at 20 crossing sites

› Conference paper delivered by Dept of Transport: ‘Improving Pedestrian Access across Arterial Roads’, N Hutchinson 2010.

2.5 Bicycle network (2009 – ) Ongoing advocacy

› 75% completion of ‘quick wins’ and linked cycle route works across municipal boundaries identified by Action 2.3

2.6 Tram & Rail network Ongoing advocacy

Traffic Congestion

3.1 Commuter car use Closed

3.2 Roads as Places

3.3 Regional parking management

› Parking management (2009) Completed › Report: ‘Parking Management Principles’(2009)

› Car share (2010) Completed › GHD report: ‘Car Sharing Research’ (2010)

3.4 40% by 2020 Closed

3.5 Reduced through traffic (2011-14)

Completed › SKM report: ‘Reducing Through Traffic’ (2014) › Through traffic modelling (based on VISTA data) loaded on IMAP GIS


Strategy Action Status Deliverable

Public Transport

4.1 Travel Smart Closed

4.2 Street design standards

4.3 Think Tram Ongoing advocacy

4.4 Enhanced bus priority Ongoing advocacy

4.5 Improved public transport infrastructure

Ongoing advocacy

4.6 Public transport pricing Closed

4.7 Improvements to public transport services (2012)

Completed › City of Melbourne Transport Strategy 2012

Population Increase

5.1 Regional housing statement (2007)

Ongoing advocacy

› Developed Housinginvictoria.com website with Swinburne University

5.2 Affordable housing

› Affordable housing planning overlay (2004 – 2011)

Completed › SGS report on ‘Affordable Housing... A Strategic framework’ (2004)

› SGS report on ‘ An affordable housing overlay... Implementation model..’ (2007)

› BIRUU report on ‘Advice on the issues of the Inner Region Affordable Housing Overlay’ (2008)

› Community Land Trust model (2011 – )

Current › AHS report on ‘Affordable Housing development models’ (2011) – commissioned by CoPP

› UWS Report ‘The Australian Community Land Trust Manual 2013’ (part funded with a range of interstate partners)

› University of Western Sydney Partnership Award 2013

› Housing forum – Yarra (2015) Completed › Public Forum ‘The Future of Inner City Social Housing’ – 9 October 2015, attended by 90 people

5.3 Integrating public housing (2012)

Completed › Kliger report on ‘State and Local Government Collaboration: The Future Direction for Master Planning Public Housing.’ (2012)

5.4 Social infrastructure & services

5.5 Infrastructure development (2015 – )

› IMAP Regional Active Sport & Recreation Facilities Planning Study

Current › Received SRV Regional Planning Grant $50,000 exc GST(2016)

Activity Centres

6.1 Activity centre local policy

6.2 Activity centre public environment

6.3 Managing conflicts (2008-11)

Completed › Developed Cumulative Impact Assessment checklist and Tools for managing impact of accumulated licensed premises (2009)

› Identified issues with legislative definitions (2009) › Arranged staff and executive briefings with VCGLR (2011)

6.4 New cultural facilities

6.5 Activity centre services


Progress SummaryStrategy Action Status Deliverable

Knowledge Rich Business Sectors

7.1 Government industry links Closed

7.2 Support creative businesses (2014 – ) › Urban Manufacturing Project Current › Received Carlton Connect grant $70,000

› Received City of Moreland funding $10,000 › Received MPA funding $10,000 › University of Melbourne report on ‘Phase 1 The Dilemma of Urban Employment Land...’(2015)

› Established Maker.Melbourne website

7.3 Improved information Closed

7.4 Regional economic development statement (2008)

Completed › Brochure: ‘Making Melbourne more Liveable – A Partnership for Regional Economic Prosperity’ (2008)

7.5 Wireless broadband Closed

7.6 Exporting health services Closed

7.7 Universities & regional development (2008 – 12) › Work Integrated Learning project

Completed › Student Placement Inventory developed to assist Councils employ more students – listed on IMAP website (2012)

› Student Placement Showcase held at Melbourne Knowledge Week 2011 and 2012 with universities

› LGPro presentation 2012 › Delivered paper to ACEN International conference 2012

Freight 8.1 Priority for freight movement

8.2 Improved links to the port

Environmental Sustainability

9.1 Regional sustainability targets (2009)

Completed › ARUP report ‘Carbon Footprint for IMAP Councils’: 2009

9.2 Environmental sustainable design (2011 – ) › Phase 1-10 factsheets Completed › Completed series 1: 10 ESD Factsheets (2012)

› Developed licence agreement with non-IMAP councils › Completed series 2: 5 additional factsheets (2016)

› Phase 2-5 additional factsheets › Phase 3 (2016) – 4 additional sheets in progress

Completed

Current

9.3 Water sensitive urban design (2009 – 14)

› WSUD Local Policy Planning Amendment

Completed › WSUD Local Policy Planning Amendment gazetted across 4 councils in 2014

9.4 Green demonstration projects

› Water Sensitive Cities (2011) Completed › CPG report on: ‘Transitioning to a Water Sensitive City’ (2011)

› Green roofs, walls and facades (2013-15)

Completed › VASP (Victorian Adaptation & Sustainability Partnership) programs funding grant $250,000

› Established the Growinggreenguide.org website › Published ‘Growing Green Guide: A guide to green roofs, walls and facades in Melbourne and Victoria, Australia’.(2014)

› Report :’Working toward demonstration sites for green roofs, walls and facades in Melbourne’ (2014) – fully costed case studies

› Report:’Green Roofs, Walls and Facades Policy Options Background Paper’.(2013)

› Paper delivered to 7th Liveability Cities conference NSW July 2014 › Victoria Landscape Architecture Award 2014 – Research & Communication

› Premiers Sustainability Award 2015 – Education › Premiers Sustainability Award 2015 – Government finalist


Strategy Action Status Deliverable

Environmental Sustainability continued

› UniMelb green roof research (2014 – )

Current › Partner in successful ARC Linkage grant to University of Melbourne: ‘Mimicking natural ecosystems to improve green roof performance’

› Distributed Energy Completed › CSIRO project contribution $700,000 › CSIRO report ‘Inner Melbourne Energy Consumption 2011-2026 › Energy use modelling data loaded on Councils’ GIS

9.5 Community capacity for sustainability

9.6 Recycled water for open space (2007-08)

Completed › Report ‘Water Management for Open Space – Technical Notes and Case Studies’(2008)

› SKM report ‘Use of Non-Potable Water to Irrigate Public Open Space in Inner Melbourne’ (2008)

Regional Open Space Network

10.1 Regional open space & trail network

10.2 Physical infrastructure needs

10.3 Open space links

10.4 Riparian open space project

10.5 Wild life links

10.6 Foreshore open space

10.7 Waterways planning & management

Regional Tourism

11.1 Inner Melbourne map Completed /Current

› Developed Inner Melbourne Map (2008) & its broad distribution individually and in publications , extended to Footscray (2013-4) and became Official Visitor Map (2015)

› Undertook Comparative Research Study on three popular Visitor Maps 2009

› Developed map Licence agreement (2013) › Developed IMAP MoU for map Intellectual Property (2013)

11.2 Regional tourism programme

Completed /Current

› Developed Regional Experience packages – five 3-day itineraries (2008) and ten 1-day itineraries

› Presence at Melbourne Tourism Industry Exchange 2008 › Undertook Visitor Profile Study & Value of Tourism research 2009 › Undertook Skybus promotion of Inner Melbourne (2012-13) › Arranged Famil tours of volunteers (Ballarat and Geelong) to promote inner Melbourne (2012-13)

› Involvement in CAUTHE conference 2012, Tourism and Events Excellence Conference 2012, MYKI visitor pack

› Promoted an inner Melbourne joint events website at AIDS 2014 conference

› Assisting with tourism bus route development 2015 › Liaison with VTIC, Destination Melbourne, Tourism Victoria for Inner Melbourne ongoing


For further information, please contact: Elissa McElroy IMAP Executive Officer

Officer Location – City of Stonnington 311 Glenferrie Road, Malvern VIC 3144 PO Box 21 Prahran Vic 3181

Telephone: 8290 1110 Mobile: 0404 248 450 Email: [email protected]

www.imap.vic.gov.au

Photos courtesy of the IMAP Councils.

Design by Johanna Villani Design.

Contact information

Inner Melbourne Action Plan ‘IMAP’

Making Melbourne more liveable

Annual Report Summary 2015 > 2016

On behalf of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee we present this, the tenth Annual Report under our original Inner Melbourne Action Plan, highlighting the key achievements of the committee during 2015-16.

The final approval of the new Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26 in June 2016 has been a major accomplishment for the IMAP Councils this year. Over 250 staff and councillors participated in developing the plan and it has been well supported for its partnership approach in the public feedback. The IMAP Councils now look forward to developing the IMAP projects of the future.

The Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) continues to be a successful collaboration between the cities of Melbourne, Port Phillip, Yarra, Stonnington and the Maribyrnong City Council, working together on a diverse range of inner city regional projects to help make Melbourne one of the world’s most liveable cities. One of IMAP’s success stories this year was continued recognition of the Growing Green Guide for the development of green roofs, which received the 2015 Premiers Sustainability Award for Education.

Welcome

Cr KenOngChair, Future Melbourne [Planning] Committee, City of Melbourne

Cr Cameron McDonaldMayor, Maribyrnong City Council

Cr Bernadene VossMayor, City of Port Phillip

Cr Roberto ColanziMayor, City of Yarra

Cr Claude UllinMayor, City of Stonnington


For ten years, Melbourne’s inner Metropolitan Councils - the cities of Melbourne, Yarra, Stonnington, Port Phillip and Maribyrnong City Council have worked together to develop and implement the strategies and actions set out in their first Inner Melbourne Action Plan. Their aim is to strengthen the liveability, attractiveness and prosperity of the region and respond to growth and changes occurring in the inner city to ‘make the Inner Melbourne Region more liveable’.

The IMAP projects have been successful in fostering ongoing cooperation, goodwill and active participation between IMAP stakeholders. IMAP is uniquely positioned to have an ongoing role in the development of the Inner Melbourne region.

In June 2016 the new Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-2026 was approved by the five IMAP Councils and will commence implementation from 2016-17. A number of transition projects from the former plan will continue to be implemented under these new strategies.

Introduction

The Inner Melbourne Action Plan


Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26The review of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan was completed during 2015-16, after a number of surveys, workshops and briefings identified the main priorities and comments on the first draft. Further revisions provided greater focus during 2015 and, in August, the IMAP Implementation Committee endorsed the draft plan and recommended it for formal consultation with Councils and the public.

Following Council briefings during November-December, the draft plan was promoted for public comment in early 2016. Submissions generally supported the partnership approach and the regional strategies proposed for Inner Melbourne. The revised Plan was referred to the IMAP Councils and adopted without change during May-June 2016.

Achievements of 2015-16


The new plan has been developed around five main goals:

› Goal 1: A globally significant, strong and diverse economy

› Goal 2: A connected transport network that provides real travel choices

› Goal 3: Diverse, vibrant, healthy and inclusive communities

› Goal 4: Distinctive, high quality neighbourhoods and places

› Goal 5: Leadership in achieving environmental sustainability and climate change adaptation.

Twenty outcome statements noted under these goals further identify where we would like Inner Melbourne to be in ten years time. These helped drive identification of 27 regional strategies – which make up the detail of the new plan.

The IMAP Councils and others will aim to implement these strategies over the next few years. Cross Council working groups will help identify and undertake projects annually, under the guidance of the IMAP Implementation Committee.


Wayfinding signageAction 2.2

Good wayfinding signage can encourage walking and exploration, deliver health and economic benefits, result in journey time savings and produce improvements to the public realm.

In late 2012, the Melbourne Visitor Signage Coordinating Committee was established with the objective to make it easier for visitors to explore Melbourne by improving wayfinding signage through establishing principles of signing, outlining ‘business rules’ for signs and identifying opportunities for collaboration between state agencies and local Councils.

The Committee has been developing a Master Style Guide (MSG) for Melbourne’s wayfinding signage and collaborating on pedestrian wayfinding signage design, that would be consistent across municipal boundaries and‘read’ with public transport signs.

During 2015-16, the Committee’s work covered the following:

1. The Melbourne Wayfinding Signing Master Style Guide

The Committee completed the first draft of the Master Style Guide in December 2015 and in early 2016, representatives consulted internal colleagues on the draft and amendments were made to the Guide based on their feedback. Design of the Guide is now underway. It is proposed that the published Master Style Guide be adopted by the 6 Councils – and others – as a reference document.



2. Wayfinding signage (infrastructure) design

The MSG principles and guidelines were applied to the design of a new pedestrian wayfinding signage ‘family of signs’ and a prototype developed and tested in November 2015 with 455 people in three sites across Melbourne: Werribee Train Station, Station Pier and the CBD. 81% of respondents said they would use the signs sometimes or always.

During 2015, the City of Melbourne also scoped the business case requirements for extending the wayfinding signage system across metropolitan Melbourne.

3. Wayfinding signage (infrastructure) pilot and user testing

In early 2017, City of Melbourne will pilot the new ‘family’ of wayfinding signs in North Melbourne and around the Southern Cross Station precinct to test the new signage ‘family’ - and the principles and ‘business rules’ behind the design – with users, against pre-installation baseline data.

Enquiries from other Councils are welcome.


Affordable Housing Action 5.2 ‘Community Land Trust (CLT) Research Project’ – Phase 2

The project’s primary aim is to undertake research on Community Land Trust (CLT) options in the Australian context.

In Phase 1, a University of Western Sydney team undertook research on CLTs in the USA and UK and their implementation in Australia, and developed the Australian CLT Manual in February 2013. The Manual includes an overview of CLTs, tax issues, organisational structures, financial modelling, legal mechanisms (long-term leaseholds and modified shared equity) and provides a model long-term lease, co-ownership deed and constitution.

Phase 2 of the Project involves working with banks and lending institutions to develop appropriate loan products for CLT residents; and completing up to four in-depth case studies, with organisations implementating CLT housing.

During 2015-16, priorities include resolving establishment issues and balancing sustainability and affordability objectives in the housing design. Further workshops to share information are planned for 2016-17.

Housing Symposium

A Housing Symposium entitled ‘The Future of Inner City Social Housing: Options for Local Government’ was hosted by the City of Yarra and attended by 90 people on 9 October 2015. Two panels of invited industry stakeholders commented on their experience with housing issues. A short film was produced to premier at the event which canvassed a wide range of views by decision makers on affordable housing issues.



Infrastructure Development Action 5.5 ‘Regional Active Sport & Recreation Facilities Planning Study’

The aim of this project is to assess the future provision of sport and recreation facilities, with the focus on active outdoor sport and recreation facilities and aquatic centres for the IMAP area.

The project will be completed in two stages:

› Stage 1 - Information Coordination and Analysis.

› Stage 2 - Future Planning.

In April the project was successful in receiving $50,000 funding from the State Government Community Sport Infrastructure Fund, which ensures that both stages of the project can be achieved under the approved funding proposal.

The project requires two types of data - sport facilities data and participation data. The data needs to be organised to enable basic analysis on the existing distribution of sports and recreation assets.

During 2015-16, the work of the project team covered the following:

› Identification of project needs, actions and data requirements

› Data preparation, collection and integration from the IMAP councils, SRV, MPA and other stakeholders

› Data Organisation: The conceptual model and physical structure of an ‘IMAP Sport and Recreation Geo-database’ have been designed and documented and are receiving feedback.

› Mapping: Existing sport and recreation facilities have been mapped and are subject to ongoing review.


STO

2320

JVD

Creative IndustriesAction 7.2 ‘Urban Manufacturing Project’

IMAP is assessing the value to Melbourne in nurturing small urban makers and innovators. This study aims to help guide strategic decisions about rezoning of urban commercial and industrial-zoned land in the IMAP area.

The research analyses the contribution of small urban Makers to the social, cultural and economic fabric of the inner city, and assesses the value in preserving a place for small, high-value added, highly-innovative urban makers and innovators in the central city and immediate inner suburban areas.

A digital platform launched in November 2015 at http://makers.melbourne is capturing data and researching makers across industry sectors, revealing an emerging, high value-added, knowledge-intensive production sector made up of small vibrant, urban makers, many with distinct and unique features, often including added service components to their product.

The project team has been investigating urban manufacturing from three angles: A land perspective, a sector perspective and an economic perspective. Understanding these three areas is assisting in determining the implications for planning controls and design in inner city industrial and commercial zones. The research has been enhanced by the interest shown by Makers and through their contributions to the project.



Strategic Partnerships

Environmentally sustainable designAction 9.2

A suite of 10 Sustainable Design factsheets developed by the IMAP Councils since 2012 provide detailed public advice on sustainable building design requirements. In 2016 five additional fact sheets (known as the 2nd suite) were added as supplementary sheets which expanded on the original themes and include: Melbourne Climate, Site Permeability, External Shading, Green Walls and Roofs (a supplementary sheet informed by the Growing Green Guide) and Rating Tools.

15 Councils (in addition to the 5 IMAP Councils) use and share the fact sheets, thereby providing consistent application of sustainable design assessment across municipal boundaries.

In May 2016 the IMAP Councils agreed to fund an additional 5 fact sheets ( the 3rd suite) to again further expand on the initial themes and provide clear guidance on Daylight, Ventilation, Windows and Glazing, Car Share and Innovation Strategies.

Since the launch of the first fact sheets series, feedback from the development industry and other Victorian Councils has been very positive. Planning permit applicants value the technical guidance provided and that Councils’ ESD performance standard expectations have been clearly described.

The Sustainable Design Factsheets are available on the IMAP and Council websites. Council enquiries are welcome.



Green Demonstration Projects Action 9.4 ‘Mimicking natural ecosystems to improve green roof performance.’

IMAP, Melbourne Water and the Australian Research Council are funding a three year University of Melbourne project led by Dr. Nick Williams, which is designed to improve the hydrological and energy performance of green roofs by learning from natural ecosystems. It is hoped that improving the stormwater capture and cooling functions of green roofs will increase their uptake in Melbourne’s inner city.

Since commencing mid-2014, the research team have completed the nutrient uptake experiment reported last year and a 9 month green roof module experiment designed to test the effect of plant diversity on green roof hydrology and thermal performance.

PhD student Andrea Pianella is quantifying green roof thermal performance and has completed his 2nd experiment monitoring temperatures in green roof modules. He finalised the data collection from un-planted experimental green roofs at Burnley and coordinated their planting with a mixture of 4 species, to help the research team separate out the effects of substrates and plants on green roof cooling.


PhD student Zheng Zhang is investigating the role of diverse versus simple green roof planting palettes on the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff and nutrient uptake rates. Her green roof module experiment results indicate that it is possible to improve green roof stormwater performance by planting lots of different plant forms on a green roof.

Joerg Werdin PhD research focusses on improving the plant available water and nutrient retention capacities of green roof substrates without increasing the system weight by amending them with target-engineered biochars. The research compares the anatomy of 17 woody feedstocks on a cellular level to predict the water holding capacity of biochars based on feedstock properties.

The Growing Green Guide

The Growing Green Guide: A guide to green roofs, walls and facades in Melbourne and Victoria, Australia – a 130 page hard copy and online guide developed by IMAP in conjunction with the University of Melbourne and State Government, won the Premiers Sustainability Award for Education in October 2015.

See www.growinggreenguide.org


Regional Tourism Action 11

2015-16 was the last year of the current three-year Strategic Tourism Plan for IMAP. The major focus of year three was to:

› Update the IMAP Committee on significant changes taking place within the Victorian tourism structure.

› Undertake a comprehensive update of the IMAP regional tourism map for licensing to tourism partners.

› Ensure the continuation and success of the Melbourne Official Visitors Map, a joint collaboration with Destination Melbourne (DML), with an annual circulation of one million copies, ensuring distribution and visitor reach for the IMAP regional tourism map, which is included within this brochure.

› Provide support for the development of the Greater Melbourne Destination Management Plan, to be undertaken by DML in 2016-17.

› Negotiate an IMAP-DML Partnership to ensure greater content coverage and presence for Inner Melbourne Council destinations across DML’s print and digital collateral.

› Initiate the development of a Cultural Guide for Inner Melbourne, through collaboration with Cultural Tourism Victoria for release in September 2016.

› Enable all IMAP Councils to participate in the 2015 Melbourne Knowledge Week events.



We take this opportunity to recognise the commitment of the many council officers and representatives from partnering organisations who continue to work collaboratively to deliver the IMAP projects. The external partners assisting with the IMAP projects are:

Action 2.2 • Melbourne Tourism partnership (Destination Melbourne Ltd, City of Melbourne, Melbourne Convention Bureau, Tourism Victoria, and the Victorian major Events Company), VicRoads, Public Transport Victoria, City of Wyndham

Action 5.2 • University of Western Sydney; University of Sydney; St Kilda Community Housing; Mount Alexander Community Land Ltd; Hobart Ecovillage; SEMZ Property group; Tasman Ecovillage; Committee for Lorne

Action 5.5 • Metropolitan Planning Authority; Sport and Recreation Victoria

Action 7.2 • The University of Melbourne; Metropolitan Planning Authority; Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning; Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, Moreland City Council

Action 9.2 • IMAP factsheets are licensed to the Cities of Knox, Kingston, Darebin, Nillumbik, Whitehorse, Whittlesea, Banyule, Hume, Moreland; Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment

Action 9.4 • Green roof research: The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Water, Australian Research Council

Action 11 • Destination Melbourne Ltd, and Visit Victoria

IMAP Review

• IMAP Associates from State Government; Metropolitan Planning Authority; Regional Management Forum; in association with councillors and staff from across the 5 IMAP councils

Further details of all IMAP actions and copies of resource material can be found on the IMAP website.

Strategic Partnerships


For further information please contact:Elissa McElroy


Officer Location – City of Stonnington

311 Glenferrie Road, Malvern 3144

PO Box 21 Prahran VIC 3181

Telephone: 8290 1110 Mobile: 0404 248 450

Email: [email protected]

For a copy of the IMAP Annual Report visit

www.imap.vic.gov.au

Photos supplied courtesy of the IMAP Councils.

Design by Johanna Villani Design.


1

IMAP Progress

Rep or t August 2016

The Inner Melbourne Act ion Plan (IMAP) identifies 57 actions within 11 regional strategies t o

help b uild t he inner Melbourne region t o em body creat ivit y, liveab ilit y,

p rosp er it y and sust ainab ilit y across a range of diverse neighbourhoods.

PROGRESS ON CURRENT PROJECTS

Action 2.2 Co-ordinated pedestrian and public transport signage system

IN PROGRESS - Initially completed in 2010, this project has been reactivated, focussed on visitor signage.

In December 2012, the IMAP Implementation Committee approved participation in the Melbourne Visitor Signage project and the coordinating committee was established to guide its work. The Committee seeks to:

Build common threads between roads, public transport, tourism, pedestrian, cycling and street directional signage systems across the inner Melbourne region.

Shared symbols and terminology will be applied across these key signage systems; and

Coordinated responses to signage requests by tourist attractions, precincts and major developments provided.

The Melbourne Visitor Signage coordinating committee comprises representatives of the five IMAP councils, City of Wyndham, Public Transport Victoria, VicRoads and Tourism Victoria.

The aim is to build a Master Style Guide setting out agreed signing principles, guidelines and language (the

‘business rules’) to be adopted by collaborating authorities.

In April 2015 Paul Street, the Program Manager of Transport for London’s Legible London wayfinding system visited for 12 days providing workshops on best practice examples, implementation processes and structures and a methodology for roll out of a comprehensive system.

Following the TfL visit, the committee structured its work into two streams:

1. Collaborative projects

Master Style Guide. The first draft of the guide is now completed and undergoing editing during 2016.

The guide outlines an agreed approach to content: signing principles, eligibility and selection criteria,

naming conventions, symbols and arrows, placement and location criteria, and ‘gateway’ signage.

o Signage Infrastructure Design Workshops are looking at the design issues of signs - functionality, legibility, accessibility and view from different distances. Prototype testing of a new design has been undertaken at sites in Melbourne, Port Phillip and Wyndham.

Pilot projects proposed for North Melbourne, central city, Balaclava Station and Station Pier will test the new sign design, content and placement with users: to understand their wayfinding needs and to build a robust evaluation framework.


2

2. Strategic approach

The project team are investigating:

the feasibility of building a single base map of metropolitan Melbourne for use by councils for wayfinding signage and other purposes; and

Commissioning a business case on the benefits of improved wayfinding signage in Melbourne.

The Visitor signage Master Style Guide (MSG) is now largely completed after a number of editing rounds and will be presented to the IMAP Implementation Committee for endorsement at its August 2016 meeting.

The Master Style Guide has been designed for adoption throughout the metro area but is also applicable Victoria wide.

It is hoped all Councils will individually and formally adopt the MSG as a Council reference document attached to their own council’s Signage Policy.

A communications strategy will be implemented to encourage wide adoption of the sign manual.

Action 2.3 Bicycle Network Legibility

IN PROGRESS – Initially completed in 2008, this project has been reactivated.

In March 2013, the IMAP Implementation Committee agreed to review and update the Priority Bicycle Network Map; to coordinate bike lane development priorities and capital projects by the 5 IMAP Councils and VicRoads across the inner Melbourne region.

Work to date has included:

October 2013: An initial meeting of the Working Group to scope the project.

November 2013: a workshop held in conjunction with State Government representatives started the collation of data on Council cycling initiatives, current and planned.

February 2014: DTPLI presented to the IMAP Committee on integrating the state and local government work through a coordinated series of additional workshops to establish key cycling corridors.

Joint workshops were held between April-June 2015 and feedback sought from the State Government on funding.

4 May 2015: the State Government hosted a workshop on Priority Cycling Corridors.

The project team identified priority council cycling works for inclusion in the IMAP Review process.

Action 5.2 Affordable Housing

COMPLETED - Stage 1: Planning mechanisms

IN PROGRESS - Stage 2: Community Land Trust Research

COMPLETED – Phase 1

“Affordable Housing Development Models” prepared by Affordable Housing Solutions [AHS] was made available by the City of Port Phillip to the IMAP councils in March 2011 for consideration.

Research undertaken on Community Land Trust models and their application in Australia is published in The Australian CLT Manual (refer copies held online).

IMAP and the City of Port Phillip were awarded the University of Western Sydney 2013 Partnership Award for their involvement in this project.

IN PROGRESS – Phase 2

Key research questions of this phase relate to:

identifying and researching appropriate financial products for the establishment of CLTs in

Australia: The team will work with banks and other lending institutions to develop appropriate loan

products for residents looking to buy a leasehold or shared equity interest in CLT housing


3

perform in-depth case studies. This task will involve the completion of up to four in-depth case

studies in a range of locations and scenarios.

Progress to date:

February 2014: The Scope of Work for Phase 2 was reported to the IMAP Committee meeting and advice that funding raising had been successful

November 2014: the first meeting for Phase 2 was held to discuss the next stage.

March 2015: the UWS Partnership Agreement was finalised.

An update on the CLT work was provided to the IMAP Committee at their meeting in May 2015 and in February 2016.

CLT Project partners met by conference call on 2 June 2016 to assess progress. A number of the case studies are still working through establishment issues and looking at design and build approaches which meet both sustainability and affordability aims. The discussion agreed a program of work planned for 2016-17.

A World Homeless Day Symposium ‘Future of Inner City Social Housing’ was held by the City of Yarra on 9 November 2015 to explore ways state and local government, as well as the private and non-government sector, can work together to increase the supply of social housing in inner Melbourne. A report on this event was considered at the November 2015 meeting.

Action 5.4 and 5.5 Social Infrastructure and Services/Infrastructure Development

IN PROGRESS - IMAP Regional Active Sport and Recreation Facilities Planning Study project.

Following work being undertaken by the Metropolitan Planning Authority and Sport and Recreation Victoria to plan for future requirements for open space, the Committee considered a proposal at the May 2015 meeting to investigate recreation facilities and open space requirements across the IMAP region, in response to future growth.

The detailed project brief was considered at the August 2015 meeting and a further report on funding implications were discussed in November 2015 and confirmed in February 2016.

An SRV regional planning grant application was submitted for this project and has been successful.

A Project Officer to assist the project commenced employment at the City of Melbourne on 16 May 2016.

Data gathering across the councils and state government agencies for the project has commenced.

An update on progress will be provided to the IMAP Committee at the August 2016 meeting noting the project has:

o completed a review of background documents and similar projects.

o identified the data and information to be gathered and the particular attributes of importance to the project. Collating and synthesizing the data from different sources across IMAP Councils and other stakeholders has been a key focus

o held numerous meetings with various representatives from the IMAP Councils, SRV and

MPA, State Government (DELWP), State Sport Associations, and Parks Victoria in order to

introduce the project, establish connections and gather further information and data.

Data Organization undertaken to date:

o The list of active sports across the IMAP region has been extracted.

o The list of data requirements for sports facilities has been prepared and is being reviewed by the Project Officer and PWG.

o The conceptual model and physical structure of an “IMAP Sport and Recreation Geo-database” have been designed and documented. The conceptual model and Geo-database schema are still being updated based on IMAP Councils and other key stakeholder feedback.


4

o Mapping: Existing sport and recreation facilities (sourced from IMAP partners and other key stakeholders) have been mapped and are subject to ongoing review and refinement by the Project Officer and study stakeholders.

Action 6.3 Managing Conflict in Activity Centres

IN PROGRESS A submission to address the disparity between planning and liquor licensing Definitions in the legislation with the Department Environment Land Water and Planning (DELWP) has been proposed by the IMAP Implementation Committee. An initial meeting to discuss the approach to be taken was held on 5 February 2015.

Action 7.2 Support Creative Industries

COMPLETED – Stage 1 Creative Industries

IN PROGRESS – Stage 2 Urban Manufacturing

In a separate initiative, representatives of the IMAP Councils and University of Melbourne are investigating urban manufacturing in the Inner Melbourne region.

The IMAP Committee considered the initial brief and recommendations at the November 2014 and February 2015 meetings to finalise the funds, timeframe and objectives for this project.

The following approach has been proposed for this project:

Phase 1 (7 months) – Existing Resources, Pilot Study, and Definition

Phase 2 (6 months) - Major survey and preliminary economic analysis.

Phase 3 (3-5 years) – Economic Impacts.

PHASE 1 - PROJECT UPDATE

A stakeholder workshop held on 28 May 2015 identified the need to broaden the project to include Moreland Council region and explore a technological method for conducting the survey.

The project team confirmed the information required to examine a complete picture of all three approaches – land, sector, and economic; is currently not in existence for Victoria to provide key data for the analysis of economic development in small manufacturing sectors.

Moreland Council joined the project team and made a funding contribution

An update to the Steering Committee on 11 June 2015 identified that the Project should apply for an ARC Linkage Grant. Parts of Phase 1 & 2 were combined to complete the online survey and ensure sufficient evidence of the research is available to report back to the IMAP Implementation Committee for endorsement and continuation of the project, prior to any application for ARC Linkage Grant funding. The draft report for Phase 1 was considered by IMAP Committee in August 2015.

The final report for Phase 1 was adopted in February 2016: it outlines the findings from the analysis of existing data, inception workshop, and framing of the qualitative and quantitative studies that comprise the research. The report summarises the original project proposal and several strategic decisions modifying the scope and path of the research.

The Maker. Melbourne website is live and has attracted over 140 entries from local businesses. The City of Stonnington assisted with raising the website’s profile.

The Executive Forum reviewed the funding for Phase 2 at its meeting on 19 May 2016 and endorsed commencement of the next stage of the project.

.

Action 9.2 Environmentally Sustainable Design – commercial buildings

COMPLETED Stage 1 & 2

Work commenced in December 2010 to identify ESD topics to be written up in the form of Factsheets for publication. The first 10 Factsheets pack was formally launched at the City of Melbourne on 11 May 2012. The Factsheets have been licensed for re-badging and use by other Melbourne Councils.


5

The Working Group reported in May 2014 that the 10 original fact sheets, designed to support the SDAPP framework, have since become reference documents for the six local governments who had adopted the proposed local planning scheme amendment for ESD.

In August 2014 the working group investigated having CASBE oversee Council access to the Factsheets, to uphold standards and improve consistency. This has not eventuated.

5 additional topics were recently completed in 2016. The factsheet set now includes:

Topics include:

1.0 Indoor environment quality 2.0 Energy efficiency 2.1 Sunshading 3.0 Water efficiency 4.0 Stormwater management 4.1 Site Permeability 5.0 Building materials 6.0 Transport 7.0 Waste management 8.0 Urban ecology 8.1 Green roofs, walls and facades 9.0 Innovation 10.0 Construction and building management Melbourne’s Climate (including adaptation) ESD Tools

The working group has finalised and updated all factsheets and will relaunch the series in 2016.

Approximately 20 Councils across Melbourne now use the factsheets under an IMAP licence. Additional factsheets to further extend the series were approved at the IMAP Implementation Committee

meeting on 27 May 2016. Work has now commenced. The project will be presented at the 9

th International Urban Design Conference to be held in Canberra in

November.

Action 9.4 Green Demonstration Projects

IN PROGRESS- Green Roofs Research Project - Australian Research Council Linkage Grant

In 2013 the IMAP Implementation Committee partnered in an ARC Linkage Grant with the University of Melbourne and Melbourne Water for further research on the measurable impacts of green roofs: "Mimicking natural ecosystems to improve green roof performance”. The research project outcomes will provide design, monitoring and management recommendations for Green Roofs, particularly in relation to stormwater quality and quantity, temperature (building energy efficiency) and improved biodiversity.

Dr Nick Fisher, University of Melbourne updated the IMAP Committee on their research at the February 2015 meeting. A further update report was provided for the IMAP Implementation Committee meeting on 27 May 2016.

Strategy 11 – Regional Tourism

ONGOING A 3 year strategy was adopted in May 2013 inclusive of a detailed Action Plan for the financial year. To date the working group has;

Renewed licensing of the IMAP map to tourism peak bodies.

Placed map and video material on the IMAP website for IMAP Councils to link with.

Evaluated the Skybus Campaign, completed in August 2013

Changed the IMAP map to include Footscray, Maribrynong

Undertaken joint opinion research with DML on the Official Visitor Guide and the IMAP tourist map.

Evaluated alternatives to printing and distributing the map and options for distribution of the tourist maps.

The IMAP Map was included in the 15,000 AIDs conference delegate’s pack


6

Approved an agreement with DML for printing and distribution of the IMAP map through the Official Visitors Map. This has been extended for a further year.

Agreed to part fund development of a Destination Management Plan for Metro Melbourne to be undertaken by DML

In January 2016 IMAP’s senior executives met with the interim CEO of Visit Victoria. The Tourism Working group will report back to the August 2016 meeting on its development of a Cultural Guide and the outcome of negotiations with Destination Melbourne for joint service provision in 2016-17.

IMAP Review IN PROGRESS

On 28 June 2016 all 5 IMAP Council had approved the new Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26. The plan will now be edited and printed. The working groups will also be convened in the next couple of months to determine priorities going forward for consideration by councils later in the year. _________________________________________________________________________________________

The following Actions have been COMPLETED:

Action 1.1 Inner Melbourne Statement of Significance

Action 2.2 Co-ordinated pedestrian and public transport Signage – Wayfinding signs

Action 2.3 Bicycle Network Legibility – Priority Bicycle Network Report

Action 2.4 Walking links and pedestrian priority areas - Greenlight project

Action 3.3 Regional Parking Management - Report on Parking; Car sharing

Action 3.5 Reduced through traffic – Development of a Through Traffic model

Action 5.2 Affordable Housing - Needs Website (May 08); planning overlay, Australian CLT Manual

Action 5.3 Integrating Public Housing Estates – Collaborative framework report

Action 6.3 Activity Centres - Cumulative Impact Assessment tools; Local planning amendments

Action 7.4 Regional Economic Development - Statement

Action 7.7 Universities and Regional Development – Student placement processes, publication

Action 9.1 Regional Sustainability Targets – Audit of IMAP Councils

Action 9.2 Environmental Sustainable Design (Part) – design of 15 Sustainable Design Factsheets

Action 9.3 Water Sensitive Urban Design - Model Guidelines and Local Planning Amendment approvals

Action 9.4 Green Demonstration projects - Water Sensitive Cities Report

Action 9.4 Green Demonstration Projects – Growing Green Guide – green walls, roofs & facades

Action 9.4 Green Demonstration projects – Distributed Energy mapping

Action 9.6 Use of Recycled Water in Open Space – Technical Notes

Action 11.1 Inner Melbourne Map – Inner Melbourne Visitor Map (extended to Footscray), Volunteer Famils, Skybus videos

Action 11.2 Regional Tourism Program – Research & Itineraries, Conference sponsorship

Other Achievem ent s The Growing Green Guide (Action 9.4) has:

Won the education category of the 2015 Premier’s Sustainability Awards, and was a finalist in the Government

category; and


7

Won the ‘research and communication” category in the Victorian branch of the Australian Institute of Landscape

Architects (AILA) awards, in November 2014.

University of Western Sydney 2013 Partnership Award – for the Australian Community Land Trust (CLT) Manual

Merit Award for Regional Action in Water Sensitive Urban Design at the Stormwater Victoria Awards

IMAP Bicycle Network - Presentation at the Bike Futures 2009 Conference

Presentation to Planning Students at Melbourne University 2009 & 2010

Governance

Annual Reports

Goods & Services Procurement Policy and MoU

Governance & Relationships Report

IMAP Plan Review 2010; Financial Review 2010

Memorandum of Understanding – Intellectual Property

IP Licence Agreements – ESD Factsheets, IMAP Regional Tourism Map Communications

IMAP Geographic Information System (GIS)

IMAP Website and GrowingGreenGuide.org website

National Conference presentations (2009, 2011 & 2012)

Club IMAP

Council Briefings Advocacy

Ministerial Briefings – Ministers Wynne, Madden, Kosky, Plibersek, Powell

IMAP acknowledgements:

State Government’s Cycling Strategy

Interdepartmental Committee (Department of Justice)

Melbourne Water (WSUD)

Department of Transport Wayfinding Signs Guide

Department of Transport and VicRoads – Greenlight Project ______________________________________________________________________________________

The IMAP projects continue to add value, deliver stronger relationships, practical solutions and strategic directions, and influence the liveability and sustainability

of the inner Melbourne region.


1 Report prepared by: Elissa McElroy, IMAP Executive Officer

Inner Melbourne Action Plan

Progress Report

IMAP Review – Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016 - 26

__________________________________________________________________________________________ Purpose

1. To update the Committee on progress with the IMAP Review. Background

2. At the August 2015 Committee meeting the Committee resolved to:

Endorse the Draft Inner Melbourne Action Plan; and

Recommend the five member Councils be briefed on the Draft Plan. The Councils were briefed in November and consultation undertaken during February 2016.

3. Council approval process:

During May and June 2016, the revised plan was considered by all the IMAP Councils for approval. By 28 June 2016, all five Councils had adopted the Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2016-26.

City of Stonnington Council: 9 May Maribyrnong City Council Council: 17 May City of Melbourne Council: 31 May City of Port Phillip Council: 28 June City of Yarra Council: 28 June

4. Consultation:

Twenty-three submissions were received on the draft plan. Letters in response to the submission have been sent to all submitters. The IMAP website has been updated and a copy of the new plan is available for download.

Next steps

5. Production: There has been some minor editing of the new plan and it has been forwarded to the graphic designer for design and printing. Around 200 copies will be provided to each Council following initial distribution to key stakeholders. A launch of the plan is not proposed.

6. Liveability measures: Performance measures in the plan have been provided in a schedule at the back and can be further developed over time and the schedule updated as required. The Measures of Liveability project provided some guidance on the performance measures but that project remains incomplete and, following some government department changes, further work appears to now be unresourced. It is also unclear whether the data sources identified in that project will be available to local government.

7. Identifying Priority Projects: Development of a short list of projects under each goal now needs to commence. The Executive Officer has undertaken some work to identify appropriate staff to invite onto the working groups. As each Council is configured differently, it is clear there is considerable overlap in responsibilities, with some senior staff responsible for activities under several of the plan’s Goals. In addition, there is overlap within the plan itself. Therefore, for the initial identification of Action priorities, it is proposed one or two facilitated workshops be held with senior staff to assess priorities across all goals.

As a general rule, it is proposed that IMAP aim to concentrate on major strategic projects, with no more than 5 projects being undertaken at a time. The working groups will also be asked to consider where innovation, efficiencies and economies of scale can be achieved in-house through the IMAP partnership.

8. Council consultation: Councillors have expressed interest in having input into what projects are considered. It is proposed that a short list of projects across the 5 goal areas, that meet the project


2 Report prepared by: Elissa McElroy, IMAP Executive Officer

criteria, be prepared for briefing and consideration during the Councillor’s induction sessions at all Councils following the Local Government election. To allow time for this conversation across the five councils, the November IMAP meeting may need to be deferred until December. The aim will be to determine the first year projects of the Three Year Implementation Plan so that this can go forward to the Councils’ 2017-18 budget round.

Recommendation 9. That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note progress on the implementation of the new

plan.


DM #10033767

IMAP Implementation Committee Progress Report – Melbourne Visitor Signage project

Strategy 11: Promote the inner Melbourne region as a tourist destination Action 2.2: Coordinated pedestrian and public transport signage system

____________________________________________________________________________________

PURPOSE

1. To seek endorsement by the IMAP Implementation Committee of the Melbourne Wayfinding Signing Master Style Guide developed by the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee* and David Nash from Traffinity.

2. To update the IMAP Implementation Committee on the application of the draft Guide’s signing principles and guidelines to the design of pedestrian wayfinding signage infrastructure.

3. To advise the committee of next steps in the wayfinding signage project.

PROJECT PROGRESS

4. The final draft of the Melbourne Wayfinding Signing Master Style Guide (MSG) is now available (attached).

4.1 The MSG’s draft contents (signing principles and guidelines) were completed in December 2015.

4.2 Members of the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee consulted with internal colleagues (traffic engineers, urban designers, economic development staff) on the signing principles and guidelines contained within the draft MSG (February to April).

4.3 The MSG’s structure and content were reviewed following feedback from the consultation (March to June).

4.4 PTV has agreed to design the MSG. The MSG’s text will be supported by images, illustrations and diagrams to assist users of the Guide. The MSG will be a web-based document. A design brief has been developed and discussions have commenced (July and August).

5. Design of the pedestrian wayfinding signage infrastructure is nearing completion.

5.1 Signage design workshops were held with Committee members, Public Transport Victoria (PTV) and City of Melbourne (CoM) signage and map designers (September and October 2015).

5.2 Signage prototypes were tested with 455 people in the CBD, Station Pier and Werribee Train Station (November). Design changes were made based on the feedback.

5.3 Pre-installation user testing was conducted in the two designated pilot sites (North Melbourne and Southern Cross Station precinct) (November). Results from the testing provide a baseline against which post-installation user testing results can be measured.

5.4 Graphic standards workshops involving Committee members, PTV and CoM designers were conducted in February and June 2016.

5.5 Workshops were held to test signage design and maps with Vision Australia, the Accessibility teams from PTV, Yarra Trams and partner councils, and with members of accessibility communities (July)

6. Work on developing the Master Style Guide and the prototype testing was funded by IMAP and Wyndham City. The wayfinding signage project is managed and supported by the City of Melbourne.

NEXT STEPS

7. In early 2017, the Melbourne Wayfinding Signing Master Style Guide (the illustrated / designed version) will be submitted to the six participating Councils with a recommendation that each council:


DM #10033767

7.1 Adopts the Guide.

7.2 Reviews existing signage policy or drafts new signage policy with the MSG as a reference

document.

8. When adopted, the MSG will be launched and a communications and distribution program rolled out. The document will be promoted to councils through Victoria. As a result of the broad make-up of the Signage Committee, the MSG works well with other major signage systems operating in Melbourne and aims to establish a standard approach to wayfinding signage across the city.

8.1 Brand / communications managers from each of the councils will be consulted during the design of the MSG and on its launch, communication and distribution.

8.2 While the councils and agencies involved will be acknowledged, the document itself needs to remain reasonably generic to encourage its broad use.

9. In early 2017, City of Melbourne will install the new ‘family’ of pedestrian wayfinding signs in the two pilot areas. As part of the pilot, users will be surveyed about the new design, the operation of the signs as a system, and about their preferences for digital and physical wayfinding. Business, community services and public transport providers will also be surveyed as part of the pilot.

9.1 At its meeting on 28 January 2016, IMAP Executive Forum agreed to ‘support work on piloting the new wayfinding signs designs within City of Melbourne, and testing / validating the signs within other IMAP councils’.

10. January’s IMAP Executive Forum also resolved to ‘support the broader application of standardised wayfinding signage infrastructure across metro Melbourne by:

10.1.1 supporting preparation of a further report identifying the implications and costs of establishing and maintaining a wayfinding basemap in collaboration with VicMap. (Timing of investigation and report tbc.); and

10.1.2 investigating State Government support to roll out or advocate for standardised wayfinding signage across the metro area.

11. Work has not yet started on the basemap or proposals to roll out or advocate for standardised wayfinding. In early 2017, a further report will be submitted to IMAP Implementation Committee addressing these proposed next steps.

RECOMMENDATIONS

12. That the IMAP Implementation Committee: 12.1 Endorse the Melbourne Wayfinding Signing Master Style Guide. 12.2 Note progress on the signage infrastructure design. 12.3 Note proposed future work in the project.

MELBOURNE WAYFINDING SIGNING

MASTER STYLE GUIDE

Melbourne Visitor Signage Coordinating Committee and Traffinity

2016

2

Table of Contents

1 Background .............................................................................................. 4 1.1 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................... 4 1.2 What is wayfinding signage? ............................................................................ 5 1.3 Purpose ............................................................................................................. 5 1.4 Elements of the Master Style Guide ................................................................. 6

2 Context ...................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Scope ................................................................................................................ 8 2.2 Types of Signs................................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Road direction signs ...................................................................... 8

2.2.2 Pedestrian signs .............................................................................. 10

2.2.3 Public transport signs ................................................................... 11

2.2.4 Cyclist signs .................................................................................. 11 2.3 Existing Policy Documentation ....................................................................... 11

3 Signing Principles .................................................................................. 13 3.1 PRINCIPLE 1: FOCUS ON THE USERS ....................................................... 13 3.2 PRINCIPLE 2: REDUCE CLUTTER ............................................................... 13 3.3 PRINCIPLE 3: DISCLOSE INFORMATION PROGRESSIVELY ................... 13 3.4 PRINCIPLE 4: CREATE CONNECTIVITY ..................................................... 13 3.5 PRINCIPLE 5: BE CONSISTENT ................................................................... 14 3.6 PRINCIPLE 6: USE RESOURCES EFFICIENTLY ........................................ 14

4 Guidelines ............................................................................................... 15 4.1 Hierarchy of Destinations ................................................................................ 15

4.1.1 Regional .................................................................................................... 15 4.1.2 Suburbs ..................................................................................................... 16 4.1.3 Clusters ..................................................................................................... 16 4.1.4 Individual destinations............................................................................... 16

4.2 Wayfinding Signage Guidelines ...................................................................... 17 4.3 Eligibility and Selection Criteria Guidelines .................................................... 21

4.3.1 Eligibility criteria ........................................................................................ 21 4.3.2 Selection criteria ....................................................................................... 23

4.4 Naming Conventions Guidelines .................................................................... 24 4.4.1 Naming guidelines .................................................................................... 24 4.4.2 Change of name ....................................................................................... 25 4.4.3 Concise names ......................................................................................... 25 4.4.4 Acronyms .................................................................................................. 25 4.4.5 Omit unnecessary words .......................................................................... 26 4.4.6 Abbreviations ............................................................................................ 26 4.4.7 Commercial names ................................................................................... 27 4.4.8 Nicknames ................................................................................................ 28 4.4.9 Consistent names ..................................................................................... 28 4.4.10 Naming clusters of destinations ................................................................ 28 4.4.11 Naming tram and bus stops ...................................................................... 29

4.5 Advertising on Wayfinding Signs Guidelines .................................................. 29

3

4.6 Placement Guidelines ..................................................................................... 30 4.7 Symbols and Arrows Guidelines ..................................................................... 32

4.7.1 Symbols..................................................................................................... 32 4.7.2 Symbols for pedestrian, cyclist and public transport signs ...................... 33 4.7.3 General guidelines for the use of symbols ............................................... 43 4.7.4 Arrows ....................................................................................................... 44

4.8 Pedestrian Signs Guidelines ........................................................................... 47 4.8.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................... 47 4.8.2 Responsibility and ownership ................................................................... 47 4.8.3 Guidelines for pedestrian signing ............................................................. 47 4.8.4 Design of pedestrian signs ....................................................................... 52 4.8.5 Pedestrian sign design specification ........................................................ 55 4.8.6 Relationship between types of pedestrian signs ...................................... 56

4.9 Public Transport Signs Guidelines.................................................................. 57 4.9.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................... 57 4.9.2 Responsibility and ownership ................................................................... 57 4.9.3 Guidelines for public transport signing ..................................................... 57

4.10 Cyclist Signs Guidelines ............................................................................... 57 4.10.1 Responsibility and ownership ................................................................... 57 4.10.2 Cyclist signs for off-road paths ................................................................. 57 4.10.3 Signs on shared paths .............................................................................. 59 4.10.4 On-road cyclist signs ................................................................................. 59 4.10.5 Design of cyclist signs............................................................................... 59

4.11 Road Signs Guidelines ................................................................................. 60 4.11.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................... 60 4.11.2 Responsibility and ownership ................................................................... 60 4.11.3 Eligibility .................................................................................................... 61 4.11.4 Extent of signing ....................................................................................... 62 4.11.5 Limit to sign numbers at intersections ...................................................... 62 4.11.6 Design of road signs ................................................................................. 62 4.11.7 Mounting of road signs.............................................................................. 63 4.11.8 Standard through destinations .................................................................. 64

4.12 Maintenance and Updates ............................................................................ 64 Appendix A – Terminology ......................................................................... 65 Appendix B – Responsibilities for Different Sign Types .......................... 67 Appendix C – Relevant Legislation and Standards .................................. 68 Appendix D – Bibliography ......................................................................... 69 Appendix E – Advertising Signs ................................................................. 71 Appendix F – Examples of Integrated Wayfinding .................................... 72

Example Journey 1 ............................................................................................... 72 Example Journey 2 ............................................................................................... 73 Example Journey 3 ............................................................................................... 73

4

1 Background In 2012, the CEOs of the Melbourne Tourism Partnership (MTP) established the Melbourne Visitor Signage Project (the Project) to investigate improvements to those signage systems most used by visitors to Melbourne.

Although not specifically articulated in the Project’s name, its focus is on wayfinding signage. The CEOs’ aim was to build consistency between existing wayfinding signage systems in Melbourne; to increase their reliability by developing signing principles and ‘business rules’ for their design, installation and the information they carry.

To support the Project, the CEOs established the Melbourne Visitor Signage Coordinating Committee (the Committee) which included representatives from the Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) councils (Maribyrnong, Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Yarra), Wyndham City, Tourism Victoria (now Visit Victoria), Public Transport Victoria (PTV) and VicRoads.

The first initiative of the Committee has been to develop a Melbourne Wayfinding Signing Master Style Guide (the Guide) outlining a common approach to wayfinding signage, including signing principles, eligibility and selection criteria, naming conventions, symbols and arrows, placement and other guidelines.

This Guide also proposes a prototype for pedestrian wayfinding signage.

The Committee was advised by David Nash, a consultant traffic engineer with Traffinity, in the process of developing the Guide.

The Committee also referenced Transport for London’s (TfL) acclaimed Legible London wayfinding system – its design and development process – for much of its work in developing the Guide.

1.1 Acknowledgements The Melbourne Wayfinding Signing Master Style Guide is the result of the work of the members of the Melbourne Visitor Signage Coordinating Committee:

• Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) councils: o City of Maribyrnong

o City of Melbourne (Chair of the Committee)

o City of Port Phillip

o City of Stonnington

o City of Yarra

• Wyndham City

• Tourism Victoria (now Visit Victoria and DEDJTR)

• VicRoads

• Public Transport Victoria (PTV)

The Melbourne Tourism Partnership (MTP) comprises: • Tourism Victoria • City of Melbourne • Destination Melbourne • Victorian Major Events Company • Melbourne Convention Bureau • Public Transport Victoria

5

In addition, the committee acknowledges the inspiration and wayfinding advice provided by Paul Street, Legible London Programme Manager at TfL during his visit to Melbourne in April 2015.

1.2 What is wayfinding signage?

In his book, The Image of the City (1960), American urban planner Kevin Lynch defined ‘wayfinding’ as “a consistent use and organisation of the definite sensory cues from the external environment”.

Wayfinding relates to spatial problem solving. It describes the orientating and route decision-making process involved in reaching a destination. It encompasses indoor and outdoor navigation across all modes of travel and can be supported by a range of interventions, including urban design and built form, landmark recognition, internal structures, landscaping and tactile paving.

Other urban elements that contribute to wayfinding might include lighting, street furniture, public art, design elements such as pavement treatments, and new technologies such as digital navigational aids (mobile phones, tablets, websites, interactive maps, etc.).

Wayfinding signage is the total system of elements that allows people to navigate within and between streets, areas, landmarks and transport infrastructure. It includes signs, maps, naming conventions and graphic elements.

In Melbourne’s context, wayfinding signage applies to people using any mode of transport: walkers, public transport users, cyclists, motorcycle riders and drivers. A good wayfinding signage system meets the needs of all these users and helps people move easily between modes.

A wayfinding signage system helps people unfamiliar with an area to find their way. Users are generally visitors to the area. They may be international, interstate or regional visitors to Melbourne. Equally, they may be local residents who happen to be going to a place they don’t know or intending to use a route they are unfamiliar with or who have just moved in to the area. The purpose of the trip could be leisure, business, a conference or convention, education, medical, to visit friends and relatives, an event, shopping, social occasion or for recreation.

1.3 Purpose Many journeys made within Greater Melbourne involve travel on more than one mode of transport – walking, public transport, bicycles and/or road vehicles – and travel across more than one municipality

The purpose of the Melbourne Wayfinding Signing Master Style Guide is to provide a set of guidelines to improve the consistency and reliability of information carried by wayfinding signage systems across Melbourne; consistency and reliability within and across municipal boundaries and between transport modes.

It is intended as a guide for good signing practice for use by any council or agency.

The aim of the Guide is to ensure Melbourne has a wayfinding system that:

• helps people orientate themselves and easily find their way to their destinations;

6

• gives people confidence to stray from the main tourist routes and explore more of Melbourne;

• helps people to move easily between transport modes;

• encourages the use of sustainable modes of transport;

• is easily recognisable, functional, uncluttered and aesthetically pleasing; and

• is well maintained and up-to-date.

The Guide’s principles, guidelines and their application enable the progressive implementation of a consistent, high quality approach to a wayfinding signage system across Melbourne, and across all modes of travel. They are intended to help people responsible for wayfinding signs in councils and State agencies with:

• the process for developing and approving new signs

• coordinating and improving existing signs

• keeping sign information up-to-date, and

• reducing signage clutter by removing redundant signs.

They will also help councils and agencies provide consistent, coordinated responses to signing requests from attractions, precincts and major developments.

While these signing principles and guidelines will initially be implemented by the councils and agencies participating in the Melbourne Visitor Signage Coordinating Committee, the aspiration is that, over time, they will be adopted across the broader metropolitan area of Melbourne, and also within regional Victoria.

1.4 Elements of the Master Style Guide The process for designing and implementing a new signage scheme involves the following stages:

Signage suite

System application

Construction drawings

• Templates for location diagram • Checklist for placement/sign type • Coding of signs and maps • Asset management/maintenance

To be added to MSG when

developed

To be added to MSG when

completed

The Strategy (Sections 2 and 3 of

the MSG)

Guidelines and their application

(Section 4 of the MSG)

Principles for the signage system

• Messaging • Graphic standards, including

fonts, colour, symbols and arrows

Within the Master Style Guide (MSG)

7

Strategies need to be determined by the council or agency developing the new signage project. The strategies should specify the scope of the project and how the new signage will integrate with existing signage. For many projects, the scope will include removing or modifying some existing signs.

Principles and design are covered in section 3. Graphic standards and fonts for pedestrian signs will be covered in section 4.8.5 when they are finalised. The symbols and arrows to be used on pedestrian signs are covered in section 4.7.

The signage suite will be covered in section 4.8.5 when the designs of the types of pedestrian signs are finalised.

System application will be specific to the particular project. Guidance on placement of signs is given in section 4.6.

8

2 Context 2.1 Scope

This Guide’s principles are relevant to wayfinding signage for all four transport modes – walking, public transport, cycling and road travel. Some of the guidelines will relate to all modes and others will relate to specific modes only; for example, pedestrian and public transport signage. The Guide only applies to wayfinding signs in outdoor public areas – it does not apply to wayfinding signs within buildings or private premises.

2.2 Types of Signs

The Guide specifically covers the following types of wayfinding signs and recognises overlap between these categories:

• road signs

• pedestrian signs

• public transport signs, and

• cyclist signs

The responsibilities for different sign types and locations are summarised in Appendix B. The requirements for compliance with legislation and standards are explained in Appendix C.

The guidelines do not cover temporary signs for events or road closures, nor do they cover advertising signs (details relating to advertising signs can be found in Appendix E).

2.2.1 Road direction signs

Road signs that provide navigation or directional information to road users are called direction signs and contain arrows or chevrons or other navigational instructions to show the way.

Figure 1: Example of a sign with a chevron

9

Road direction signs can be sub-divided into the following categories:

• Large direction signs for freeways and arterial roads – generally on a green background – containing road names and city, suburb or town names. They also include route numbers, where appropriate. These signs are on a blue background if they relate to travel on a tollway, such as CityLink or EastLink.

• Small direction signs for municipal roads – generally on a white background – containing road names or locality names.

• Tourist signs – on a brown background – for tourist

attractions such as museums, galleries, theatres, historical buildings and gardens.

• Services signs – on a blue background – for

motorist services, accommodation, sporting venues, religious venues, education institutions, shopping centres, hospitals, parking, etc.

• Street name signs – blades mounted on a single

pole, to the standard design for the municipality. These serve motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

• Local community facility name signs – usually on a

blue background – which are blade signs mounted on a single pole, usually for schools, religious venues, sporting fields, community houses, etc. These may serve motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, depending on their location.

10

The responsibility for approving road signs is explained in section 4.11.2.

2.2.2 Pedestrian signs

Pedestrian signs are wayfinding and directional signs aimed at pedestrians rather than motorists or cyclists.

• Plinth signs – located in footpaths, and which may include map-based information.

• Signs on other infrastructure, where plinth signs are not practical – for example located in footpaths with directional information, or on walls.

• Pole-mounted blade signs – the same as local

community facility blade signs (see above: Road Direction Signs) but can serve only pedestrians if located away from roads. (For administrative purposes, they are classified as road signs if they are visible to motorists.)

The responsibility for the approval of pedestrian signs is explained in section 4.8.2.

11

2.2.3 Public transport signs

Signs installed by the public transport operators or Public Transport Victoria (PTV) at, or leading to, train stations, tram stops and bus stops.

2.2.4 Cyclist signs

Directional signs aimed at cyclists.

• On-road cyclist direction signs – blade signs mounted on a single pole. The standard design is blue and white even though some councils have adopted different colours.

• Off-road cyclist direction signs – various designs

used on bicycle paths and shared paths.

2.3 Existing Policy Documentation

The Melbourne Wayfinding Signing Master Style Guide relates to other existing documents which have been produced by Australian and Victorian State Government agencies and other Victorian councils, and include policies, standards, guides and manuals. This Guide was designed to inform specific policies, guidelines and manuals of each agency and council, as set out in the following diagram:

12

A common approach to wayfinding signage across Melbourne will be achieved if municipal and transport authorities formally adopt these guidelines over time. Once adopted, the intention is to align and/or supersede existing signing policies, guides and manuals.

Melbourne Wayfinding Signing Master Style Guide

(this Guide)

Public Transport Victoria

Master Style Guide

Municipal councils

Various signing policies, guides and

manuals

National Tourist Signing Eligibility

Guidelines

VicRoads

Traffic Engineering Manual

Australian Standard

AS 1742.6: Tourist and

services signs

Australian Standard

AS 1428.4.2: Wayfinding

http://touristsigns.org.au/images/uploads/documents/National_Tourist_Signing_Guidelines_07072012.pdf



http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/business-and-industry/design-and-management/design-standards-and-manuals/traffic-engineering-manual


13

3 Signing Principles The Melbourne Visitor Signage Project has adopted six principles for wayfinding signage, to build and implement an efficient, coordinated, user-oriented system.

3.1 PRINCIPLE 1: FOCUS ON THE USERS Users’ needs are paramount and they require wayfinding signage that is coherent and reliable.

A focus on users’ needs, rather than those of signage providers, is essential for an effective wayfinding signage system. Signage should not be intrusive, but should be there when required – easy to recognise and use – helping people to find their way.

3.2 PRINCIPLE 2: REDUCE CLUTTER The aim is to have fewer, but better positioned, signs in the streets. Transport for London’s Legible London approach is to have “as few signs as possible, as many as necessary”.

In Melbourne, there are many instances of councils and transport operators installing their own separate wayfinding signs at major nodes, attractions and intersections.

This complexity (or ‘visual noise’) is exacerbated by the many examples of redundant, out-of-date signs at these major wayfinding decision points.

This Guide encourages agencies and councils to share infrastructure where possible; for example, where signs carry both pedestrian and public transport information.

3.3 PRINCIPLE 3: DISCLOSE INFORMATION PROGRESSIVELY At each point, the user should be given enough information to achieve the next stage of their journey, but not so much detail that they become confused.

Providing the right information at the right point along a journey helps the visitor make simple, efficient decisions. The information should explain where the user is and their options. It should be current, accurate, intuitive, accessible and easily acted upon.

3.4 PRINCIPLE 4: CREATE CONNECTIVITY By linking one location to the next through signing, visitors can move freely and confidently from one place to another and from one transport mode to another.

Wayfinding signs should connect visitor entry points (air, sea, bus and rail terminals, and freeways) with Melbourne’s major centres, attractions, landmarks and developments.

Visible, well co-ordinated placement of signs will enable people to move easily to their destinations.

14

Helping people to ‘read’ the city means they will use the city’s landmarks to aid navigation and make it easier for them to move between walking, cycling, public transport and vehicles.

3.5 PRINCIPLE 5: BE CONSISTENT From a user’s point of view, the journey should be seamless. Wayfinding signs – whatever the mode, whatever the municipality – should carry consistent, predictable and reliable information.

Several agencies are responsible for wayfinding signing across Melbourne. The aim of this Guide is to ensure consistent information across pedestrian, cycling, public transport and road signage systems by adopting agreed naming conventions and language, such as an agreed approach to eligibility and selection criteria, symbols and arrows.

Ongoing collaboration between responsible agencies is vital to the success of improved wayfinding signage in Melbourne.

3.6 PRINCIPLE 6: USE RESOURCES EFFICIENTLY By working together, available infrastructure and funding can be used more efficiently and effectively.

This Guide seeks to encourage the responsible authorities to adopt a shared approach to design, fabrication and infrastructure procurement, and to agree to maintenance standards and regimes.

15

4 Guidelines 4.1 Hierarchy of Destinations

A hierarchy of destinations makes it easy for visitors to move throughout Melbourne: from entry points to major nodes to specific places.

The hierarchy relates to the spatial or geographic spread of destinations. It is associated with the principle of ‘progressive disclosure’ (refer Principle 3): providing the information sign users need, when they need it.

Under the hierarchy, large areas are signed from further away (e.g. sign to the city centre from Melbourne Airport), then to a cluster of destinations within an area (e.g. sign to Chinatown once the visitor is in the city centre). Then within the cluster, individual destinations are signed (e.g. sign to the Chinese Museum once in Chinatown).

The hierarchy of destinations can be applied to the content of any wayfinding directional signs – on road, pedestrian, public transport and cyclist signs.

Figure 2: An example of the hierarchy of destinations

The hierarchy of destinations can be divided into four levels, although these definitions might not apply in all situations. These levels progress from the larger to the smaller geographic areas.

4.1.1 Regional Regional destinations are major cities such as Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo and Traralgon, and groupings of suburbs such as ‘South East

16

Suburbs’ or ‘Northern Suburbs’ (although these designations are used infrequently).

Generally, the Regional category in the hierarchy will only be signed for road traffic along freeways and arterial roads.

Tourist areas such as ‘Yarra Valley’, ‘Dandenong Ranges’ and ‘Mornington Peninsula’ also qualify for this level of the hierarchy. These destinations are not used on pedestrian signs and rarely on cyclist directional signs.

4.1.2 Suburbs Suburbs are generally defined by postcodes. On road signs, the choice of suburbs to sign must align with VicRoads’ ‘standard through destinations’; for example, St Kilda (see Appendix A – Terminology). They will mainly be shown on road direction signs on freeways and arterial roads.

Signing to suburbs will be mostly related to road traffic but sometimes suburbs could be signed for cyclists and pedestrians if they are within cycling or walking distance from the sign. Suburbs may be shown on map-based signs for pedestrians.

In rural or semi-rural areas, townships and localities would replace suburbs, for example, Kinglake or Daylesford.

4.1.3 Clusters This level of the hierarchy could have many different names, such as villages, neighbourhoods, shopping streets or suburban shopping centres.

Signing at this level should be to a cluster of destinations, such as a designated village (Albert Park Village, for example) or a major shopping destination (such as Chadstone or Chapel Street). Then, once the visitor has reached the area, the signs can indicate the direction to particular individual attractions or venues within the area. This helps to keep signs simple and avoids overloading the visitor with too much information.

Signing to a cluster of destinations is only viable if there is a meaningful and well-recognised name that can be given to that cluster of destinations, for example, Bridge Road. (See Naming Conventions in section 4.4.)

There may be a few instances where one prominent destination within a cluster is still signed individually due to its importance to visitors. For example, there are several popular attractions within Federation Square, but the Melbourne Visitor Centre deserves to be signed alongside it, as it is an important destination in its own right within the cluster.

Signing to clusters of destinations is applicable to all modes of transport.

4.1.4 Individual destinations This level consists of the individual destinations that are eligible for signing. These may be buildings, landmarks, parks, venues or attractions.

Signing to individual destinations is applicable to all modes of transport.

Signing to individual destinations is common practice, subject to the distances and conditions in this Guide. If the number of destinations to be signed at a particular place can fit onto the signs without compromising legibility, then all

17

of them can be listed. However, no more than four destinations should be listed on a road sign.

Figure 3 shows the spatial journey and the progression of signs.

Spatial journey – the hierarchy of destinations and the progression of signs

Examples Regional Melbourne

Ballarat Geelong Yarra Valley SE Suburbs

Suburbs (defined by postcodes)

Docklands South Yarra St Kilda Fitzroy Footscray Werribee

Clusters Precincts Villages Neighbourhoods Shopping streets Suburban shopping centres

Arts Precinct Sports and Entertainment Precinct Federation Square Acland Street Brunswick Street Chapel Street Rathdowne Village

Individual destinations Buildings Landmarks Parks Venues Attractions

St Kilda Botanical Gardens Abbotsford Convent Werribee Zoo Footscray Arts Centre Myer Music Bowl Train Stations

Three examples of integrated wayfinding journeys can be found in Appendix F.

4.2 Wayfinding Signage Guidelines For the tourist without a fixed itinerary, wayfinding information should be provided without removing the sense of discovery and exploration. Many visitors want their journey to be an adventure rather than to feel manipulated. Wayfinding tools, such as map-based signs, meet this need well. The aim is for visitors to feel comfortable

Figure 3: Spatial hierarchy

18

about exploring unfamiliar areas of the city with the confidence that they can always find their way again if need be.

Wayfinding information should be provided at key arrival points such as Melbourne Airport, Station Pier and Southern Cross Station. Visitors driving into Melbourne suburbs from interstate or rural areas have less specific arrival points but the system of accredited Visitor Information Centres (VICs) on the approaches to the Melbourne metropolitan area would be the best places to provide wayfinding details. The information should consist of maps, lists of places of interest and how to use trains, trams, buses and taxis, and hire a bicycle. The information should make it easy for visitors to make their way into and around the city. ___________________________________________________________________

The main objective of wayfinding signs – direction signs and map-based signs – is to make it easy for visitors to find their way. A tourist may be looking for a tourist attraction; a business visitor may be looking for an office or public building; a visitor from regional Victoria may be looking for a theatre, sporting facility or hospital. Wayfinding signs, used together with maps or global positioning system (GPS) navigation devices, need to make it easy for the visitor to know where they are, to orientate themselves and then to find their way to the destination.

It is not feasible for direction signs to lead people from all possible origins to all possible destinations. When making a trip to an unfamiliar destination, a person cannot rely on signs to lead them along the route. By necessity, the visitor must have a mental map of where they are going, conceived from studying a map, hearing or seeing directions given by another person or from previous experience. The signs can reassure the visitor that they are on the right path and help them to orientate themselves, without necessarily directing them to their exact destination.

People use a variety of methods to find their way. Many navigate by landmarks rather than signs and some find it easier than others to use maps. Some prefer to ask for directions and others are reticent to do so.

Most international and domestic visitors to Melbourne’s CBD arrive by air, sea, train or regional bus and make their way around the city on foot and by public transport. Only five per cent of international visitors arriving in Melbourne who visit the CBD during their trip use a hire car. Most use a taxi, chauffeur-driven hire car or a bus service. Twenty-one per cent use a private or company car, which would often be driven by a local person who does the navigating (Tourism Research Australia, June 2012).

Providing a network of signs for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users across the most commonly visited areas is a critical part of the wayfinding system.

___________________________________________________________________

Guideline 1: Provide a network of pedestrian and public transport signs in areas with high visitor numbers

19

Wayfinding systems need to lead the visitor through progressive stages of their journey. When travelling by train, for example, the traveller is primarily interested in the station at which to alight. Only when leaving the station does the traveller look for the roads or paths to get to their next mode of transport or their ultimate destination. Even then, it is impractical to have direction signs to direct the arriving traveller to many different destinations. Wayfinding information may be presented in the form of a map, which can show many possible destinations, or in the form of direction signs at the exits from the train station showing the way to a limited number of key landmarks, localities or major venues around the station. The relative priority of destinations needs to be determined so that each type of wayfinding sign best meets the needs of the visitor.

Similarly, it is impractical to have road signs from a major arrival point, such as Melbourne or Avalon airports, to direct visitors to their many destinations. There are over 600 registered suburb names within the metropolitan area and there are hundreds of regional cities and towns in Victoria. Drivers can only read and comprehend a limited amount of information as they drive past a sign. Providing more information makes the sign less effective in communicating to the visitor. Overloading the driver with information merely runs the risk of them ignoring the information on the sign altogether. The more information a driver tries to read on a sign, the less time his or her eyes are watching the road ahead. Drivers need to be looking out for obstacles on the road, other traffic and important traffic safety signs. Concise design of road signs is an important road safety consideration. ___________________________________________________________________

Many visitors arriving at Melbourne Airport are destined for a hotel or a place close to the CBD. From an airport or major arrival point, many rely on a taxi or bus driver to take them to their first destination. If they are making their own way by car, e.g in a hire car, they would expect to use a GPS navigation system or pre-plan their route by finding information online or asking for directions at a hire car centre. Road direction signs provide assistance through clear labelling of road names, route numbers and key suburb destination names. Signs from Melbourne Airport clearly highlight the route to the ‘City’.

Visitors driving around the metropolitan area use a variety of wayfinding techniques. They may have a GPS navigation system in the vehicle or use maps or guidance from other people and the normal road signs to assist navigation. For medium-distance trips, visitors are more likely to use route numbers than local people, as they are not familiar with road names. However, for local wayfinding, street name signs are the most fundamental component of the wayfinding system.

The visitor journey may involve more than one mode of transport. While taxis provide the best door-to-door service, many journeys include the use of multiple modes by bus, tram, train, cycling and walking. Wayfinding systems need to recognise these different types of trips. Signing between train stations, bus stops and tram stops is important to ensure that visitors can find their way between these modes of transport.

___________________________________________________________________

Guideline 2: To be effective, and for road safety reasons, road signs must be concise

Guideline 3: Provide pedestrian signs to lead visitors between train stations, bus stops and tram stops

20

When driving to an attraction or venue in Greater Melbourne, visitors may be unable to find parking at their destination and will need to find a car park and walk or take public transport from the car park to their destination. Road signs should guide the visitor to available car parks and then, when the visitor comes out from the car park onto the footpath, pedestrian signs should help with orientation and directions to key attractions, venues or landmarks. If the carpark is near a train station or tram stop, then the pedestrian signs could help visitors find these services. ___________________________________________________________________

A visitor staying in an inner city hotel or a metropolitan serviced apartment might expect to find direction signs to major tourist attractions and public transport facilities within easy walking distance of their accommodation. However, they do not expect to find direction signs from such places back to their hotel.

As a rough guide, if there more than three or four places offering accommodation within a walkable distance, then none should be indicated on pedestrian directional signs. However, it may be appropriate to show major hotels on a map.

___________________________________________________________________

There is increasing use of personal navigation devices, such as smart phones with GPS technology. As this trend continues, there is a decreasing need for detailed direction signs, particularly for pedestrians and public transport users who can conveniently use their smart phone to check their journey at any time. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of visitors do not have smart phones or prefer not to use them for wayfinding purposes. The on-street wayfinding signs are complementary to any digital wayfinding devices and the two systems should be consistent.

Guideline 4: Only provide road signs to an attraction or venue if there is adequate parking

Guideline 6: Do not provide direction signs to accommodation in areas where there is a high concentration of accommodation

Guideline 7: Ensure on-street wayfinding signs and digital wayfinding systems are consistent and complementary

Guideline 5: Provide pedestrian signs to lead visitors from car parks to attractions or venues

21

4.3 Eligibility and Selection Criteria Guidelines As the number of destinations which can be effectively signposted at any one point is limited, the destinations shown on signs should be restricted to those most likely to be sought by a significant number of visitors. To ensure a consistent policy approach for selecting destinations to be signed, these eligibility criteria provide a guide for determining the types of destinations that are most important for visitors.

If, at a particular location, there are more eligible destinations than can fit on a sign, the selection criteria provide a second filter to determine which destinations are more useful for navigation to sign at that point.

The eligibility and selection criteria detailed in this section apply to pedestrian and public transport signs.

Destinations to be signed on cyclist signs need to be the major landmarks along bicycle trails and off-route destinations that are likely to be accessed by bicycle. See section 4.10.2.

The eligibility criteria set out in the Victorian Tourist Signing Guidelines within the VicRoads Traffic Engineering Manual must be used for destinations to be signed on road signs.

4.3.1 Eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria for destinations provide guidelines as to what can be signed, although not all eligible destinations must be included. To be eligible for destination signing on pedestrian signs (on paths or at public transport stops or stations), a destination must fall into one of the following categories:

• a Visitor Information Centre – accredited by the Australian Tourism Accreditation Program (ATAP)

• a tourist attraction

• a building, structure or public space of historical interest

• a park, garden, playground or public space of interest to visitors

• a public transport station, tram or bus stop or taxi rank

• a ferry or other public water transport

• a bicycle hire station

• a sporting venue attracting a large number of non-member spectators or users per year

• a theatre or performing arts centre attracting a large number of patrons per year

• a venue (not a hotel) that hosts conventions, functions, receptions, concerts or public events and which attracts a large number of visitors

• a major religious venue that is generally open to the public

• a cemetery or mausoleum

• a significant education institution

• a hospital

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/business-and-industry/design-and-management/design-standards-and-manuals/tourist-signing

22

• a police station

• a courthouse

• a library

• a government office providing direct services to a regional area or catchment, such as a Centrelink/Medicare office

• a non-profit community facility, such as a community centre or neighbourhood house

• a structured walk (which could also be a shared path or separated footpath) of interest to visitors.

In addition, a signed destination may be a suburb or an area, precinct or cluster of destinations.

Individual businesses, shops, retail outlets and restaurants are not eligible for directional signing. However, a group of shops or restaurants may be eligible if they have a distinctive character, such as Lygon or Chapel streets. That character would need to differentiate the group of shops or restaurants from others in the vicinity. Large or landmark department stores or retail precincts may be shown on wayfinding maps where this assists orientation.

Directional signing at the entrance to a group of shops or restaurants is not needed where the signs on the premises make the entrance obvious to visitors, e.g. Harbour Town. In marginal cases, justification for signing should be based on how difficult it is to find the entrance.

Sporting venues should only be signed if they attract a large number of visitors. These visitors may be spectators or sporting participants who are visiting for ‘away’ matches. The magnitude of a ‘large number’ is relative within a jurisdiction or municipality. For example, the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) is large in the central city context, and the Casey Recreation and Aquatic Centre in Cranbourne is large in an outer metropolitan context.

Sporting venues mostly open to members only, such as private golf or tennis clubs, should not be signed.

Commercial operations, not-for-profit operations and government-run operations are treated equally. The key criterion is the value to the visitor rather than who runs the enterprise.

Any destination that is indicated with a directional pointer on a signface should also be shown on the map – if there is one – on the same signface.

Some facilities that may be signed from close proximity, depending on the policies of the jurisdiction in which they are located, are:

• toilets

• permanent outdoor works of art, if they act as landmarks

• post offices, particularly those of historical significance

• free wi-fi in public places

• Myki retailers

• drinking water fountains.

23

Signing to these facilities will typically be achieved by the use of symbols on maps on those signs that carry them.

4.3.2 Selection criteria These criteria help determine which eligible destinations (assuming there are many) would have priority on a pedestrian wayfinding directional sign. By using the criteria to compare eligible destinations, the decision-maker can choose which will be shown and which will be omitted if space is limited on the pedestrian sign.

Selection should be based on the importance of a destination or landmark for helping visitors navigate.

Accredited Visitor Information Centres (VICs) are the highest priority for signing. Whenever appropriate, directions to the nearest VIC should be considered for inclusion in signage. Signage cannot be provided for every destination visitors might look for, but staff and volunteers at Melbourne’s network of VICs provide a valuable service in finding places, such as hotels, attractions, precincts, restaurants, street addresses and offices. Accredited VICs should be signed with ATAP’s italicised “i” symbol.

Other selection criteria are:

• Transport

Signs directing people to train stations and significant public transport hubs are a priority for inclusion. In cases where pedestrian signs are located at exits to major transport hubs, consideration should be given to prioritising nearby public transport services as well as precincts and attractions in the immediate area.

• Continuity

If a destination has been listed on the directional part of a sign, then it must be included as a destination on all subsequent signs along the preferred access route until the destination is reached.

• Relative number of visitors and familiarity (wide appeal/attraction)

When selecting between destinations that attract visitors, important criteria are the number of visitors who would arrive on foot and the proportion who are unfamiliar with the area.

• Proximity

Pedestrian signs should primarily include destinations that are within a walkable distance, and places/landmarks/transport hubs that are key to getting around an area, e.g. signing Swanston Street from Southern Cross Station. (See section 4.8.3, Guideline 6 for further explanation of a walkable distance.) If the destination is visible and the entrance is obvious from where the visitor is viewing the sign (e.g. a nearby tram stop), then it should be omitted from the directional destinations on the sign. For example, signing to Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre for people walking along South Wharf Promenade is not necessary, as the centre’s name is emblazoned across the buildings. Otherwise, subject to other criteria, the signs should show closer destinations rather than those that are further away.

24

• Navigational difficulty

Wayfinding signs should assist visitors find places that are more difficult to get to. A destination with a clear street address on a main road is a lower priority than a similar destination located along an alley or pathway, or inside a park.

• Prominent landmarks

A prominent place that can be used as a landmark for wayfinding and orientation, such as a river, a cathedral, a recognisable building or a bridge, may have higher priority than other destinations, even though it is not a highly visited destination in its own right.

Some facilities should be selected as a matter of course if they are in close proximity, depending on the policies of the jurisdiction. These will usually be signed using symbols rather than words. For example, a sign pointing to Batman Park also carries a disabled access toilet symbol.

Where there are more eligible destinations than spaces on the sign, it may be possible to combine destinations. If it is well known that a particular attraction or venue is within another destination, then it is unnecessary to sign to both. (For example, ACMI and The Ian Potter Centre: NGV Australia within Federation Square.)

A group of similar destinations may be combined into a cluster of destinations, provided there is a clear and well-known name for the cluster. (See section 4.1 for the guidelines on ‘hierarchy of destinations’ and 4.4.10 for ‘naming clusters of destinations’.)

4.4 Naming Conventions Guidelines

4.4.1 Naming guidelines

The name of a destination to be used on signs should be:

• unambiguous within its context

• recognisable by a visitor

• recognisable by a local person in the street

• as concise as possible

• a recognisable match with the name shown at the entrance to the building or premises

• a recognisable match with the name used on maps – both hard copy and online

• a recognisable match with the name used in promotional material.

The first two guidelines are the most important criteria. However, it is not always possible to meet all those listed above. Decisions on the signed destination name should be based on what is in the best interests of visitors who will use the signs.

The name should be recognisable by a local person in the street for two reasons. First, Melburnians visiting unfamiliar areas of their own city often may need assistance with navigation. Even if they are not going to a signed location, the sign may assist with orientation but this is only useful if the name is recognisable. Second,

25

if a local person has advised a visitor to go to a place using the locally-recognised name, the visitor needs to see this name on the directional signs. For particular cases, some user testing may be needed to verify the most recognisable name.

For new or small attractions, the average local person in the street may not have heard the name before and this is difficult to avoid.

4.4.2 Change of name

Changing an established name will always be problematic. Even if all signs and maps are changed, it may take several years before local people accept the common name for the destination. Operators and owners of visitor destinations need to be aware of this and prepared to promote the change of name.

If the name of an attraction or venue changes, the attraction/venue operator should fund the modifications necessary to effect the name change on all signs. If an attraction/venue ceases to operate, the operator should fund the removal of signs to that destination. The agency responsible for using the name on signs should ensure that this is an agreed condition prior to erecting the sign.

___________________________________________________________________

4.4.3 Concise names

The name shown on any sign should adequately describe the destination with a minimum of words. For pedestrian direction signs, the name should preferably fit on a single line or, at most, two lines. Names that cannot fit on two lines should be shortened or abbreviated. More concise names are easier for visitors to relate to and more easily remembered. For road signs, the name should be restricted to two or three words plus any relevant symbol. The length of blade signs must comply with AS 1742.5.

___________________________________________________________________

4.4.4 Acronyms

Acronyms should be avoided unless they are at least as well known as the full name. RMIT is a good example of a name that has greater recognition as an acronym than the full name. Other cases may need some user testing to verify which is the more recognisable name. Spelling out the full name and adding the acronym as well should be avoided. If in doubt, spell it out. However, the amount of space on the signs (particularly road signs) could sway the decision.

Guideline 1: If a destination ceases to operate or changes its name, the operator of the destination should fund the removal of or change to the signs

Guideline 3: Avoid acronyms unless they are well known to visitors

Guideline 2: The name should consist of the minimum number of words that distinguishes the destination

26

4.4.5 Omit unnecessary words

The name used on direction signs does not need to fully match the official name. In the interests of brevity, it may be a shortened version of the name if this still makes sense to the visitor.

Where the official name of a destination includes ‘Melbourne’ or ‘Victoria’, these words can be omitted from the signed name, unless that omission causes ambiguity. For example, State Library of Victoria can be signed simply as ‘State Library’ as there is only one State library in the vicinity. On the other hand, ‘Melbourne’ should be retained in the name for the ‘Melbourne Museum’ as there are several museums in the central Melbourne area.

Adjectives and other words that describe the attraction, but are not part of the attraction name, should not be used as part of the signed name. Sometimes the operator of a venue or attraction will want to include descriptive words as part of a marketing plan. For example, the word ‘heritage’ should be omitted from the signed name, unless it is specifically part of the name of the place.

Sometimes symbols can be used to replace words to make a more concise name to fit on the sign. New symbols need to be properly tested for comprehension and legibility before being adopted.

___________________________________________________________________

4.4.6 Abbreviations

Abbreviations of words should be avoided where possible. There may be rare occasions when abbreviation is unavoidable due to restricted sign space and the inability to omit words from the name. Also, it is worth considering where an abbreviation may confuse visitors who speak languages other than English, as the full name of the attraction or venue may assist when using translation tools on mobile devices.

___________________________________________________________________

Guideline 4: The signed name may omit unnecessary words from the official name

Guideline 5: Avoid abbreviations if possible

27

4.4.7 Commercial names

A commercial name (or brand name) should be avoided where possible, but may be used where it is part of the official name of the attraction or venue and it is a necessary part of the name that a visitor would look for.

Operators are required to ensure that the commercial name is officially recorded in the Register of Geographic Names (VICNAMES). The Office of Geographic Names has a system of recording ‘base names’ and ‘commercial names’ for buildings and venues that have limited tenure naming rights.

The signed name must only include a commercial name if:

• the commercial name is part of the official name of the attraction;

• the name is registered with VICNAMES;

• the name of the place does not make sense or is ambiguous without the commercial name;

• there is a written agreement in place requiring the operator to fund changes to all signs if the name is changed in the future; and

• the name for the attraction does not include more than one commercial name.

The following are examples of where retention of the commercial name in the destination name is more meaningful to the visitor:

• Etihad Stadium

• Deakin Edge

• AAMI Park

• Hisense Arena

• Westpac Centre.

On the other hand, an attraction such as the Observation Wheel makes sense in its own right and therefore the associated commercial name should be omitted from the signed name.

On some occasions there may be a choice between a name that includes a commercial name and a more generic name. The decision between these two choices should be made after considering:

• the most likely name that a visitor would look for; and

• the long-term implications of a future name change.

___________________________________________________________________

Guideline 6: Commercial names should generally be avoided but may be used, under certain conditions, to match what the visitor expects the name to be

Guideline 7: Where a commercial name is used, the operator of the destination must agree to fund sign updates if the name changes in the future

http://maps.land.vic.gov.au/lassi/VicnamesUI.jsp

28

4.4.8 Nicknames

Nicknames should not be used on signs or maps. For example, the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre should not be signed as ‘Jeff’s Shed’.

___________________________________________________________________

4.4.9 Consistent names

As far as practicable, the name used on all types of wayfinding signs (road, pedestrian, cyclist and public transport) and on maps should be the same.

There will be occasional exceptions to this rule as the number of words on road signs is more constrained than on pedestrian direction signs and maps. Nevertheless, the names should be as closely related as possible.

___________________________________________________________________

4.4.10 Naming clusters of destinations

A group of destinations at the ‘cluster’ level of the hierarchy must have a concise, well-recognised name. The best examples are names of localities that are well established and would be shown on maps, such as Chinatown, Lygon Street and Toorak Village. A name can also be generic covering the types of attractions or venues within the area, such as ‘Arts Precinct’.

It is not advisable to invent new names for the purpose of simplifying signage, as it will take some time for the new name to be recognised and accepted by local people and to be included on maps. Marketing-led names do not align with how people know an area. The names must make sense to the visitor over a reasonable life span.

The word ‘precinct’ should be used sparingly. Often used by urban planners, it is not common in the general lexicon and not well understood by people with limited English language skills. ‘Precinct’ should not be added to a name that makes sense by itself. When signing to a popular shopping or restaurant strip, the name of the street or area is sufficient. For example, ‘Lygon Street’, ‘Chinatown’, ‘Chapel Street’ and ‘Bridge Road’ do not need the word ‘precinct’.

Any new names need to comply with the Guidelines for Geographic Names and there needs to be an integrated approach to including the names on all forms of mapping, brochures and online information. In addition, there should be some form of marketing campaign to ensure the names gain recognition.

___________________________________________________________________

Guideline 8: Do not use nicknames

Guideline 9: All types of visitor signs and maps should use the same name for the same destination

Guideline 10: Names of clusters of destinations may be used where agreed by all agencies

http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/217691/FEB2013-Guidelines-Version-2.pdf

29

4.4.11 Naming tram and bus stops

Most tram stops are named with reference to the nearest cross street. However, the more important stops, particularly platform stops in the central city area, are often given a primary name of an adjacent landmark, feature, building or place. The secondary name would then normally be the street name. This also applies to a limited number of bus stops.

The chosen primary name should relate to a significant landmark, feature, building or place with a frontage and entry adjacent to the stop. Generally, names should only be chosen from destinations considered to be ‘high’ or ‘very high’ priority.

For consistency, the names used on signs at tram and bus stops should match the names used on other types of visitor signs.

The chosen name is shown on the tram or bus stop flag, on any direction signs at the stop and on the passenger shelter, if one exists.

The final decision on naming of tram stops and bus stops rests with PTV. Naming decisions are made after consultation with the relevant municipal council and other stakeholders. Good examples of tram stop naming are:

• Swanston Street tram stop near Flinders Street – ‘Federation Square’

• Swanston Street tram stop near Faraday Street – ‘University of Melbourne’

• Nicholson Street tram stop near Gertrude Street – ‘Melbourne Museum’

4.5 Advertising on Wayfinding Signs Guidelines The infrastructure for wayfinding signs should be prioritised for user information rather than for raising revenue. People do not expect to find reliable orientation or directional information on a sign that carries advertising and they do not expect a wayfinding sign to be cluttered with advertising or promotional messages.

In relation to road signs, regulation 23 of the Road Safety (Traffic Management) Regulations 2009 prohibits commercial advertisements on traffic control devices.

Although advertising can be a good source of revenue, the functionality of a wayfinding sign is diminished if it carries any advertising or promotional message. The only exceptions are that pedestrian signs and street name blade signs may carry the logo of the agency responsible for the sign.

Guideline 11: Names on signs at tram and bus stops should match those used on other types of visitor signs

Guideline 1: Outdoor wayfinding signs must not carry advertising or promotional messages

30

If the operator of an attraction or venue wishes to advertise, they may apply for separate advertising signs as indicated in Appendix E.

4.6 Placement Guidelines

Wayfinding signs should be placed at arrival points and key decision points, where the user must make a wayfinding decision, such as whether to continue along the current route or change direction. The information on the wayfinding sign should be relevant to the choices offered to the user at that point, as well as the overall navigational task. It is impractical to place a wayfinding sign at every possible decision point for all routes that a person could be taking and the location strategy needs to consider the major routes that lead to the more important destinations.

Should a sign be placed here? If the cost of making a wrong choice is high for the user, or insufficient information is available from the view at the decision point for the user to make the correct choice, a sign should be provided. Where the destination is obvious, a sign is not required.

By design, signs must be in a location to attract the user's attention, yet space for signage is a scarce resource. The benefits of signage must be weighed against other potential uses for the proposed space it will occupy and the cost of installation.

___________________________________________________________________

People may have a reasonable picture of the road or path network in their minds from studying maps or from previous experience. Nevertheless, when emerging from a train station, a building or a car park, they may have difficulty orientating themselves to that mental picture. So, for those people at that point, the primary role of the wayfinding sign may be orientation and the directional information would serve a secondary role.

___________________________________________________________________

If there are signs providing directions to a destination, they must be placed at every turn in the route, from where the destination is first mentioned until the destination is reached. If there is no sign at an intersection, the user will assume that they continue straight ahead. Continuity of signing is essential as users expect that once they start to follow the direction on a sign, the signage system will provide a clearly marked path leading to the destination.

___________________________________________________________________

Guideline 1: Provide signs at key decision points on major routes to help wayfinding decisions

Guideline 2: Give preference to locations where a significant number of users need orientation

Guideline 3: Provide continuity of signs until a destination is reached

31

Guideline 5: Develop a strategic location scheme

Signs may also be placed along routes as reassurance. Such signs may be advantageous after complex decision points so that the user is reassured they are on the correct route. It may also be worthwhile along extended stretches of continuous route, again to reassure people that they are still on the right track.

___________________________________________________________________

Pedestrian wayfinding signs in an area should be deployed in accordance with a strategic location scheme developed after considering the following elements:

• What are the key pedestrian routes in the area?

o pedestrian volumes.

• What are the key destinations in the area likely to be accessed by unfamiliar pedestrians?

• Sign locations

o decision points, significant arrival points, intersections, complex spaces

o outside train stations and major public transport interchanges

o in view of passengers alighting at bus and tram stops which service key destinations (these could be within a tram or bus shelter)

o outside civic spaces and public buildings

o reassurance locations to give continuity along routes.

• What sign type is appropriate for each location?

___________________________________________________________________

Once the general location is chosen, the specific placement should consider:

• user safety in terms of street lighting and preferred routes for pedestrians

• that plinth signs must always face the users so they can be recognised from a distance

• at intersections, plinth signs should be oriented to face the majority of pedestrian traffic

• visibility of signs and viewing angles

Guideline 6: Place signs where they will have greatest visibility and navigational relevance

Guideline 4: Provide reassurance signs after complex decision points and along extended routes

32

• proximity to decision points such as turns, stairs, etc.

• orientation so that arrow directions will be unambiguous from the preferred route

• space available for signs

• sign location consistent with other signs along the journey

• separation from nearby street furniture, such as poles, rubbish bins and other signs

• sufficient ambient light for the signs to be read at night.

Signs should never impede pedestrian, vehicle or signal view lines, nor should they block existing signs (particularly regulatory or safety signs).

Sufficient set back/clear zone is essential. Plinth-style pedestrian signs must be placed so that there is a convenient place for people to stand to view the sign, particularly if it contains a map or any content using smaller lettering. The space should also be convenient for people in wheelchairs to get close to the sign and manoeuvre safely around the sign.

The location of road signs should comply with the relevant national and State standards and guidelines.

Placement Guideline sources – adapted from:

• Mark A. Foltz, Designing Navigable Information Spaces, Washington University in St. Louis • Paul Street, Legible London Workshop, May 2015 • Legible Sydney Wayfinding Strategy report, November 2012

4.7 Symbols and Arrows Guidelines

4.7.1 Symbols Symbols can be used to add information on wayfinding signs and maps. They are often called ‘pictograms’ in other signing and wayfinding documents.

The Melbourne Visitor Signage Coordinating Committee has developed a set of standard symbols for pedestrian signs. The symbols have been chosen and developed from a number of sources, including:

• AIGA (American Institute of Graphic Arts) online

• ISO 7001, Graphical symbols – Public information symbols, 2007

• Australian Standard AS 1428, Design for access and mobility, Part 1: General requirements for access – New building work, 2009

• Australian Standard AS 1742, Manual of uniform traffic control devices, Part 6: Service and tourist signs for motorists, 2014

• Public Transport Victoria (PTV) suite of symbols (under development).

Standard symbols for road signs are covered in the national standards and State guidelines. See the Bibliography in Appendix D.

See over page for the suite of standard symbols developed for pedestrian, cyclist and public transport signs.

33

4.7.2 Symbols for pedestrian, cyclist and public transport signs

These symbols are for use, as appropriate, on pedestrian, cyclist and public transport wayfinding signs.

Ref Meaning Symbol Source Direction Map Usage

1 Walking person

The Noun Project CC Beacon Yes

To be used on the beacon at the top of plinth-style and wall-mounted pedestrian wayfinding signs and at the pole end of pedestrian blade signs.

To indicate a walking path on maps.

To indicate the five-minute walking radius on maps.

2 Access

AS 1428.1 Yes Yes

To indicate direction to the nearest disabled toilet – generally together with the toilet symbol.

May also be used to direct people to access routes suitable for people in wheelchairs or with other ambulatory disabilities.

[Pantone 2935 C]

3 Ramp access

AS 1428.1 (modified) Yes Yes

To indicate direction to an access ramp suitable for people in wheelchairs or with other ambulatory disabilities.

[Pantone 2935 C]

34


4 Toilets Separated

AIGA (modified) Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of the nearest public toilet facility – with separate toilets for male and female. A signed toilet should be within five minutes walking distance and easily accessible to the general public from a footpath or outdoor public area. To warrant signing, the toilets should preferably be open at all times of day and accessible to people with a disability.

The symbol is not used:

• with destinations where visitors would reasonably expect to find toilets, such as a public building, indoor tourist attraction, theatre or sporting venue

• where the toilets are accessed from an area where a ticket is required, such as within the ticketed area of a railway station, theatre or sporting venue.

If there are no public toilet facilities within a five-minute walk, then no toilet symbol should appear on the sign.

The ‘disabled access’ symbol should be used together with the ‘toilets’ symbol where the toilets meet the Australian Standards for accessibility by people with a disability. (Refer AS 1428.)

5 Toilets Unisex

AIGA Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of the nearest public toilet facility with unisex toilets.

Other guidelines as above.

6 Toilets Female

AIGA Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of the nearest public toilet facility for females.


35


7 Toilets Male

AIGA Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of the nearest public toilet facility for males.


8 Parking

AIGA (modified) No Yes

To indicate location of a public car park on a map.

Should not be used on directional pedestrian signs.

[Pantone 2935 C]

9 Shop

MVSCC Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of a group of shops. The symbol must not be used merely because there are shops at the destination. For the symbol to be used, the primary purpose for visiting the destination must be shopping.

It should not be used on directional signs to indicate individual shops.

It may be used on maps to indicate individual shops of significance, such as department stores.

It may be used alongside the destination name for a shopping centre.

10 Supermarket

MVSCC No Yes

To indicate location of a supermarket on a map.

36


11 Restaurant

AIGA Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of a group of restaurants with a distinctive character.

It should not be used on pedestrian signs or maps to indicate individual restaurants.

It should not be used to supplement a destination where it is normally expected that food and drinks are available, at places such as tourist attractions, major train stations and sports venues.

12 Train

PTV Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of a train station for metro trains.

[c90, m30, y, k0]

13 Regional train

PTV Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of a train station for regional trains.

[c60, m90, y0, k0]

14 Tram

PTV Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of a tram stop.

[c60, m0, y100, k0]

37


15 Bus

PTV Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of a bus station or bus stop.

[c0, m60, y100, k0]

16 Regional coach

PTV Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of a bus station for regional buses.

[Pantone 521 C]

17 Night Network

PTV Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of a train station, tram stop, bus stop or coach stop which is part of PTV’s Night Network service.

(Note: The Night Network trial is being conducted for 12 months from January 2016.)

18 Airport bus

PTV (modified) Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of the airport bus station that takes passengers to the airport. Not to be used within the airport.

19 Ferry


To indicate direction to or location of ferry services. Will normally be associated with words.

38


20 Cruise ship

MVSCC PTV

(modified) Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of a pier or wharf from which cruise ships operate.

21 Bike share

MVSCC No Yes

To indicate location of a Melbourne Bike Share station.

[c96, m78, y2, k0]

22 Taxi

AIGA Yes Yes

Used to indicate direction to the nearest taxi rank if it is not obvious.

If the taxi rank is within a destination, then only the symbol should be added. If the taxi rank is a separate destination, then the destination name should be ‘Taxi’ and the symbol should be used as well.

To indicate the location of taxi ranks on a map.

23 Airport

AIGA (modified) Rare Yes

To indicate direction to an airport. The most common application will be to show the direction to the airport as an off-pointer at the edge of a map.

24 Bicycle path – directional

The Noun Project PD Yes Yes

To indicate direction to a major bicycle route, path or trail.

To indicate a bicycle path on a map.

This symbol must not be used to designate a Bicycle Lane, Bicycle Path, Shared Path or Separated Footpath. Regulatory signs must be used instead.

39


25 Shared path

As for items 1 and 24 above

No Yes

To indicate a shared path or segregated footpath on a map.

26 Stairs

AIGA

AIGA (modified)

AIGA (modified)

Yes Possibly

To indicate the route involves stairs.

The appropriate stairs symbol may be placed next to a destination name to indicate that the route to the destination involves up or down stairs.

It also may be placed adjacent to a directional arrow where all the destinations associated with that direction are accessed via stairs.

The stairs symbol with an up or down arrow indicates that the destination is reached by going up or down the stairs, respectively. The symbol with no arrows may be used to indicate where the stairs are located, if the stairs lead to both higher and lower levels.

40


27 Hospital

AS 1742.6 (S1) & AIGA

Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of a hospital or emergency medical facility.

[Pantone 2935 C]

28 Police

AS 1742.6 (S24

modified) Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of a Police Station open to the public.

[Pantone Reflex Blue C]

29 Telephone

AS 1742.6 (S2) No Yes

To indicate location of a public telephone.

Use should be limited as few people are looking for a public phone.

30 Wi-fi

MVSCC No Yes

To indicate free wi-fi is available at a public place.

Free wi-fi spots should not be signed specifically on direction signs. May be used on maps. Take care not to overuse.

31 Post office


To indicate location of a post office.

41


32 Playground

MVSCC Yes Yes

To indicate direction to or location of a playground.

33

Accredited Visitor

Information Centre

TV Yes Yes

This symbol should always be used for formally accredited visitor information centres. It is a registered trade mark of Tourism Victoria and must not be used for any other purpose. Other sources of visitor information should be indicated by the ‘information’ symbol.

[Pantone 293C (blue) and Pantone 109 C (yellow)]

34 Information

ISO 7001 (PI PF 001 modified)

Yes Yes

While this symbol may be commonly used within buildings, its use on generic pedestrian wayfinding signs should be limited to places that provide extensive information services and are open during business hours and at weekends.

It should not be used for an accredited Visitor Information Centre.

[Pantone 2935 C]

35 Lift


To indicate directions to or location of a lift.

36 Myki

PTV No Yes

To indicate location of a MYKI retailer.

[c28, m0, y92, k0 and c48, m36, y24, k66]

42


37 Drinking/water

fountain


To indicate the location of a drinking/water fountain.

Legend to sources: AIGA – American Institute of Graphic Art; Public Domain AS 1742.6 – Australian Standard AS 1742.6 ISO 7001 – International Standard ISO 7001 MVSCC – developed by the Melbourne Visitor Signing Coordinating Committee for use in the public domain PTV – developed by Public Transport Victoria, used with permission The Noun Project CC – Creative Commons, Attribution (CC BY 3.0 US) The Noun Project PD – Public Domain TV – Tourism Victoria, registered trademarked symbol, used with permission

43

4.7.3 General guidelines for the use of symbols

Symbols must be able to convey their meaning without ambiguity. They will sometimes be more effective than words for people who do not read English, although those familiar with other languages that use a Latin alphabet will recognise destination names in English. Symbols are a more concise means of communication and will take up less space on a sign. However, it is often difficult to develop a clear symbol for some facilities and types of destination and the choice between words and symbols is not always simple.

The level of understanding of a symbol will increase with consistent use for the same meaning.

Road signs should only include symbols that have been endorsed by national or state standards and guidelines.

Pedestrian signs should only include symbols shown in section 4.7.2 of this Guide.

Public transport signs in Victoria should only include symbols as agreed by PTV, which will generally match the symbols in section 4.7.2 of this Guide.

There is no clear guidance on which suite of symbols should be used on cyclist signs. However, they should be chosen from those in the Australian Standards and the symbols in section 4.7.2 of this Guide.

In exceptional circumstances, new symbols may be developed and used as long as they have been tested for legibility and comprehension.

___________________________________________________________________

Unique symbols or logos for individual destinations should not be used. This is important to keep direction signs and maps simple, uncluttered and readable. Although a symbol or logo for a particular attraction may match the publicity material for that place, it will not gain broad recognition if it is only used for one place. It is also advisable to avoid wayfinding signs being classified as promotional or advertising signs.

___________________________________________________________________

Symbols can be used to supplement information conveyed by words or they can be used instead of words. In the interests of conciseness, it is generally better to avoid using both words and a symbol to communicate the same information. ___________________________________________________________________

Guideline 1: Consistently use endorsed symbols for the relevant mode of transport

Guideline 3: Unique logos for individual destinations should not be used

Guideline 4: Avoid using symbols and words to mean the same thing

Guideline 2: In exceptional circumstances, other symbols may be used as long as they have been tested for legibility and comprehension

44

Symbols should be used sparingly. Although an effective symbol can communicate concisely, it still adds information and clutter to a sign. Just because there is a relevant symbol in the recommended suite of symbols, it does not mean it has to be used. For example, there will often be several toilets, public telephones, free wi-fi spots, restaurants and shops within a reasonable distance of any pedestrian wayfinding sign, but these symbols should only be added to the directional part of the sign if they are considered to be important destinations.

4.7.4 Arrows The arrows shown in this section are for use, as appropriate, on pedestrian and public transport wayfinding signs. Different arrow shapes are used on road signs.

Cyclist signs generally only use chevrons rather than arrows but if arrows are used, the guidance in this section should be applied.

The standard arrow shape is as shown here.

Dimensions are:

• angle between the two wings is 90 degrees

• the stroke width is 0.15 times the length of the shaft

• the length of the shaft is 1.1 times the width of the arrow (i.e. the wingspan).

The different orientations of the directional arrow are shown below:

Most frequently used arrows:

The Ahead, Left and Right arrows should mainly be used on directional signage as they are the easiest to understand and are unambiguous.

Guideline 5: Use symbols sparingly

45

The Ahead arrow generally means straight ahead. However, it may also be used to indicate that the destination is on a higher level, in which case it should be used together with (or replaced by) the relevant symbol for stairs, lift, ramp or escalator.

Less frequently used arrows:

Only use Ahead left and Ahead right arrows when Ahead, Left or Right arrows do not accurately explain the direction of the end destination.

Hooked arrows:

The four hooked arrow shapes are very useful when trying to unambiguously convey the direction of a destination where there is a turn in the path. These arrow shapes are less confusing in some applications, although their use should be infrequent. Ideally, there should be a second directional sign at the turn, but this is not always practical.

A hooked arrow should be used if one of the main arrow types could be misleading or encourages crossing a road mid-block.

The hooked arrow should be used if the distance to be travelled before making the turn is between approximately 10 metres and 100 metres, even if there is another directional sign at the turning point. This is because the hooked arrow provides advance information that a turn is required within a reasonably short distance, helping the user to be alert for the next turn.

45° Ahead left 45° Ahead right

46

• If the distance is less than 10 metres, then a normal arrow should not be misleading, or the sign should be placed in a better position to avoid any confusion.

• If the distance is more than 100 metres, it is not going to be easy for a visitor to determine where the turning point is located. A straight arrow is usually more intuitive, with a second directional sign provided at the turning point.

(Note: These distances may be different in indoor environments.)

Down arrows:

The Down left, Down right and Down arrows may only be used to indicate destinations reached via stairs, lifts, ramps or escalators. These arrows can be easily misinterpreted and should only be used in very specific cases. They are never to be used to indicate destinations behind the user.

Placement of arrows The point of the arrow should be at the edge of the sign. Thus, ahead arrows should be at the top of the sign, left-pointing arrows should be on the left side of the sign, and right-pointing arrows should be on the right-hand side, etc.

Arrows should be placed in the following order, from top to bottom:

• Ahead arrow

• Ahead then left or right hooked arrow

• 45° ahead arrow (left or right)

• Left or right then ahead hooked arrow

• Horizontal arrows (left or right)

• 45° down arrow (left or right) but only when indicating a lower level

• Down arrow but only when indicating a lower level. This is demonstrated with the most common arrows in Figure 4.

45° Down left 45° Down right

Down

47

Figure 4: Arrangement of arrows

4.8 Pedestrian Signs Guidelines

4.8.1 Purpose Directional pedestrian signs assist people unfamiliar with an area to reach their destination safely and efficiently. They assist with the walking aspect of a journey, even if most of a trip is by car or public transport. Pedestrian signs and wayfinding maps also help people to find their way to and from public transport stations or stops.

4.8.2 Responsibility and ownership The responsibility for pedestrian wayfinding and direction signs on public land rests with the relevant municipal council which generally owns and funds these signs. However, where a commercial attraction is signed, there is an opportunity for the attraction owner to meet the costs of manufacture, installation and ongoing maintenance, at the discretion of the council.

If the municipality proposes to locate any wayfinding signs on private land, then an agreement with the landowner may be necessary, with a view to the ownership and responsibility for the sign being vested in the municipal council. If a developer or landowner proposes to locate any wayfinding signs on their private land, they should contact the municipal council’s statutory planning department (or equivalent) to check if a planning permit is required.

If the municipality proposes to locate any wayfinding signs on land owned by a State government department or agency, such as VicTrack or Melbourne Water, then an agreement with the landowner may be necessary.

4.8.3 Guidelines for pedestrian signing

The eligibility and selection criteria for destinations on pedestrian signs is covered in section 4.3.

Signing is provided to assist people to find their way. Although there are pressures to sign to destinations based on perceived commercial advantage, attracting tourist

Guideline 1: Design signs to aid users, not promote providers

48

numbers or keeping vested interest groups happy, these are not good reasons for determining what will be signed. The prime objective is to help people to navigate when they are unfamiliar with the area. The main target groups are visitors to the city but the signs should also be useful for local people who are not sure of their way.

___________________________________________________________________

Simplicity is vital. Even though pedestrians (unlike drivers) have time to study a sign, people generally will not spend much time searching for the information they want from a sign or a fixed map. For information to be useful, it should be clear, concise and unambiguous.

___________________________________________________________________

Provide information on directional signs and maps that helps visitors to move between major attractions, transport nodes, precincts and landmarks. Some places may be indicated to assist users with orientation.

___________________________________________________________________

Signing to a destination should be via key access routes. These routes should use the footpaths along preferred paths, major walkways, outdoor malls and bridges. Generally, the key access routes will lead users from public transport nodes, large car parks or other major attractions. Signing should not be provided along circuitous routes or routes that are unlikely to be attractive to many visitors.

___________________________________________________________________

Choose destinations on pedestrian signs that encourage visitors to explore the city. Use map-based signs at key locations to let the visitor know what lies within a particular area and what lies beyond the current location.

___________________________________________________________________

Pedestrian signs should generally only sign to individual attractions within a walkable distance. This is taken to be 15 minutes walking time or one (1) kilometre. In areas

Guideline 2: Keep it simple

Guideline 3: Provide users with a hierarchy of destinations

Guideline 4: Sign via key access routes

Guideline 5: Help visitors explore

Guideline 6: Only sign within a walkable distance

49

where there is greater competition for destinations to be signed, this may be reduced to 400-500 metres.

Some landmark destinations may be signed from further away to assist with orientation or because they are regarded as the highest priority for visitors. For example, pedestrian signing to Federation Square (which includes the Melbourne Visitor Information Centre) may be placed up to two (2) kilometres away. In outer metropolitan areas, a key landmark destination, such as a town centre, major shopping centre or major sports facility, could be signed up to three (3) kilometres away. On maps, such landmarks might be shown using off-pointers at the edge of the map coverage.

Destinations along walking trails may be signed over greater distances than indicated above.

Signing to a destination may be further than a walkable distance if there is a direct tram or bus service to that destination and the sign indicates that mode of transport. However, these cases will usually be a lower priority compared to other destinations within a walkable distance. If signed in this way, the time shown on the sign should be the time by that mode of transport (including any walking and waiting times) or, if this is too variable, the time should be omitted altogether.

___________________________________________________________________

Once a destination is introduced on a pedestrian directional sign along a route, it should appear with the same name on all subsequent pedestrian directional signs along the route until the destination is reached.

This guideline equally applies when signing to precincts, up to the point where the pedestrian has entered the precinct and the signs start to indicate the individual destinations within the precinct.

___________________________________________________________________

It is unnecessary to sign a destination once the pedestrian is in, at, or directly next to the destination. Judgement is needed to apply this guideline. Whether the destination is obvious to a person depends on whether the name of the destination is clearly displayed and whether the architecture of the building or structure makes it easily recognisable.

For example, a town hall or a church should be easily recognisable even if there is no name prominently displayed. On the other hand, a pedestrian sign outside a park may carry the name of the park if there is no name plate provided for the park at that location.

Guideline 7: Continue signing to destination

Guideline 8: Don’t sign the obvious

50

Never sign to destinations directly behind the reader. This can only be indicated by a downwards-pointing arrow which is not an accepted signing convention. Some users would perceive that there should be stairs leading downwards!

A horizontal left or right arrow generally means that the destination is reached by turning at the next street, footway or crossing ahead of the reader. It is acceptable for it to mean turn down the street immediately behind the reader but only if:

• the intersection is very close, say within 10 metres of the projection of the building line, as shown in Figure 5; and

• there is no other side street or lane ahead of the reader for 100 metres.

___________________________________________________________________

When deciding priorities for signing, those attractions or venues that are closer to the sign should generally be given priority. However, some places further away may be given preference if they are key attractions, public transport nodes or landmarks to assist with orientation. (See Guideline 3.)

10 m building line

kerb

Guideline 9: Don’t sign to destinations behind the reader

Guideline 10: Sign to closer destinations ahead of those further away

Figure 5: Location of pedestrian sign to allow signing behind the reader

51

When deciding priorities for signing attractions or venues at a similar distance from the sign, higher priority should be given to those with a higher patronage of visitors on foot.

___________________________________________________________________

The use of suburbs and precincts can assist with rationalising the number of destinations signed on one pedestrian sign. Examples are Docklands, Southbank, Arts Precinct, Sports Precinct, Albert Park and Emerald Hill.

The names of precincts or clusters of destinations need to be well understood and be recorded on maps.

To avoid confusion between signing a street name and signing to a street precinct on a blade sign, a precinct should be signed, for example, as ‘To Chapel Street’, ‘To Bridge Road’ or ‘To Fitzroy Street’.

___________________________________________________________________

Signing should not be provided for a destination that is within another destination on the same sign, where it is well known that one is within the other. This supports the principle of progressive disclosure and ensures signs are as simple and concise as possible. For example, any visitor looking for ACMI is likely to know (or discover reasonably quickly) that ACMI is within Federation Square. Similarly, it is unnecessary to sign to the National Gallery or to Hamer Hall on a sign that indicates the direction to the Arts Precinct. It is fairly obvious that Albert Park Lake, the Albert Park Boatsheds and the Albert Park Golf Course are all within Albert Park.

___________________________________________________________________

Signing diagonally across a road grid is not helpful for pedestrians.

• An arrow pointing diagonally, as the crow flies, may be regarded as useful for orientation purposes but it does not help a pedestrian trying to reach that destination if the arrow points through a block of buildings.

• Arrows pointing both ways around the block are confusing.

• Directing pedestrians by one path avoids the two problems above but does not convey the information that the user must make a turn at one of the next streets.

Guideline 11: Sign to high priority destinations ahead of low priority destinations

Guideline 12: Sign to suburbs and precincts where this is more concise

Guideline 13: Avoid signing to destinations within another signed destination

Guideline 14: Avoid signing diagonally across a road grid

52

Where the destination is a high priority, it may be signed by one route, provided that there is another sign on the relevant side of the road where the walker needs to turn. Otherwise, the best approach is to omit the destination from the sign until the walker gets to a street that leads directly to the destination.

___________________________________________________________________

Signing diagonally across an intersection is acceptable where the destination is not visible or obvious to the walker from the diagonally opposite corner of the intersection.

___________________________________________________________________

Signed routes should be safe routes. A signed route should not involve crossing a major road without the aid of traffic signals or a zebra pedestrian crossing. A route should not direct walkers though parks that are considered to be a security risk at the times-of-day that most walkers would be using the route.

4.8.4 Design of pedestrian signs Ensure directional information is meaningful: Arrows should point in the correct direction.

Indicate where the user needs to use stairs, lift, ramp or escalator by using appropriate symbols or words, where relevant.

Don’t sign to destinations behind the reader. (See Guideline 9 in section 4.8.3 above.)

Include walking time: The walking time (or travel time) may be included next to each signed destination but is usually omitted if the sign contains a map. Distance is not shown on these signs.

When signing to clusters or precinct destinations, such as Docklands or Emerald Hill, there may be no clear point of arrival. However, in such cases, the walking time to the perimeter of the cluster/precinct may be used where this makes sense to the user.

Walking times should be calculated on the basis of an average walking speed of 67 metres per minute or 15 minutes per kilometre.

Signing via indirect routes: There are many cases where the route to the destination is not direct. This can cause difficulties determining where the arrows should point. Ideally, the arrows should direct the user along the desired route, making use of formal pedestrian crossings, with subsequent signs at each turning point. However, it is often impractical to provide pedestrian signs at every turning point for every route to every destination,

Guideline 15: Sign across intersections where needed

Guideline 16: Direct visitors via safe/preferred routes

53

and often the pedestrian signs are located a short distance away from an intersection.

These issues need to be resolved for each case on its merits, after careful consideration of the users’ likely interpretation of the sign in relation to the local layout of roads and paths. Hooked arrows may be useful to indicate the route in some circumstances (refer to Hooked Arrow signs).

Ensure pedestrian signs are not a distraction for motorists: The design and placement of pedestrian signs should be arranged so that it is clear that the signs are not intended for motorists because the access route to a destination by car and by foot may be quite different. Furthermore, a driver has only a fraction of a second to absorb information from a sign, whereas pedestrians can stop and examine the sign at their leisure. Generally, signs mounted at a height suitable for pedestrian viewing are not convenient for driver viewing, and vice versa.

Pedestrian signs within view of passing motorists must not use retro-reflective materials. In addition, apart from signs with maps, pedestrian direction signs must not be internally illuminated.

Signs orientated within 45 degrees to a line directly facing traffic from any direction must have a letter height not exceeding the maximum values given in Table 1.

Table 1: Maximum letter heights for signs facing traffic Separation between sign and

nearest trafficable lane Maximum letter height

< 1 m 40 mm

1 m to 3 m 50 mm

3 m to 6 m 60 mm

> 6 m 70 mm

Order of destinations: Destinations on a pedestrian plinth or wall-mounted direction sign must be grouped according to direction. All straight-ahead destinations must be placed at the top of the sign. All destinations to the right should generally be placed next, then destinations to the left. The order of the arrows of left and right is not critical, but allows for the arrows to be staggered which makes for a more balanced and intuitive direction sign.

Any destinations signed using 45° ahead arrows are placed between the straight-ahead destinations and the left or right destinations.

For a group of destinations in the same direction, they are listed in order of distance with the nearest at the top. This applies even if some destinations are on a direct path and some are indirect. This is demonstrated by an example in Figure

54

Figure 6: Order of destinations

Place name: Plinth and wall-mounted pedestrian signs may include the name of the place where the sign is located. This is less important on pedestrian signs that include a map, as these maps will include a ‘you are here’ indication

A place name should only be included under the following conditions:

• the place name is an eligible destination in its own right and is shown on pedestrian direction signs leading to the destination

• the sign is within, or immediately adjacent to, the place

• the name of the place is not shown as a destination on the sign.

Only one place name should be used on a sign.

The place name should not consist of road or street names, unless the road or street is an eligible destination in its own right.

Place names should not be included on blade signs.

Figure 7: Example of a place name

55

Accessibility for people with a disability: The design of pedestrian signs should comply with the requirements of Australian Standard AS 1428, Design for access and mobility, Part 2: Enhanced and additional requirements – Buildings and facilities to ensure the signs are as accessible as practical for people with a visual or mobility disability.

In particular, consideration should be given to the following elements of the sign design:

• font style

• letter height

• luminance contrast between the sign legend and the background

• height of the legend above the ground

• map height and scale

• placement of the sign in relation to other furniture on the footpath.

It is not necessary to provide braille on pedestrian direction signs in outdoor locations. Those who are blind or vision-impaired have varied preferences for mobility aids: some use guide dogs; others prefer canes, perhaps combined at times with guidance from a personal assistant or friend. Some have enough functional vision to allow successful mobility in most situations. Only a very small proportion of partially-sighted people can read braille and many independent people who are blind or vision-impaired use adaptive technology. People with a vision impairment will increasingly use technical aids rather than braille to assist with wayfinding. It is usually impractical to provide tactile paving on footpaths to help lead a person with a visual disability to the pedestrian sign, so it is unlikely that a braille reader would find the sign to be able to read the braille.

For these reasons, braille is not required on pedestrian signs unless the sign is in a position where there is a reasonable expectation that it will be useful to regular users with a visual impairment.

Councils can assist people with a mobility impairment by providing online or hard copy maps with information about access, such as steps and footpath gradients. Geo-coded information on street and path layouts, and street numbers, can also be provided to third parties who supply mobile applications to assist wayfinding for people with a disability. These proposals require some development but would offer the best wayfinding opportunities to assist people with a disability.

4.8.5 Pedestrian sign design specification In October 2015, the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee agreed to a design concept for a plinth-style wayfinding sign. Prototypes of the concept were developed by the City of Melbourne for Swanston Street/Bourke Street and Wyndham City for Werribee Train Station. A third test was undertaken in the City of Port Philip at Station Pier using an amended prototype. Prototype signs were installed at the test locatons in November 2015, with intercept surveys conducted with passers-by at each location. Eighty-one per cent of respondents said they would sometimes or always use the signs (75 per cent at Werribee; 75 per cent in the central city; and 92 per cent at Station Pier).

56

This feedback provided strong endorsement for the signs’ height (2400 millimetres) and information placement. The next stage will see the development of graphic standards, including sign colour palette and contrast, font type size and kerning. [Further detail to be included when the design has been completed.]

4.8.6 Relationship between types of pedestrian signs A pedestrian relying on signs to find their way will expect to find signs of a similar type along the journey. Once a person has encountered one helpful sign, they will be looking for similar types of signs to assist with the rest of the journey. Consequently, good signing practice is to use similar types of signs within an area.

If different types of pedestrian signs are used, such as a mixture of plinth signs, wall-mounted signs and blade signs, then they should be of similar design to create a ‘family’ of signs with common elements, colours and consistent symbols.

Blade signs mounted on a single pole need to be mounted at least 2.5 metres above a footpath and are often higher in order to avoid other street furniture. This height is outside the recommended viewing height in Australian Standard AS 1428 but may still be legible to pedestrians due to the larger letter height. Blade signs erected near a road will usually be visible to passing motorists and must therefore be designed to meet the standards for road signs, unless they are clearly directed to pedestrians only.

In inner suburbs, where there are many destinations within a walkable distance, the preferred approach is to use larger road signs for motorists and plinth or wall-mounted signs on footpaths for pedestrians.

In middle and outer suburbs, where there are fewer destinations within a walkable distance, often road signs will be sufficient to direct all road users, including pedestrians, to destinations. This relies on the road sign being visible from the relevant footpath. For example, if there is a blue blade sign for a community facility at an intersection, there is little benefit in placing an additional sign directing pedestrians to the same facility.

57

4.9 Public Transport Signs Guidelines

4.9.1 Purpose Public transport signs are those signs installed by the public transport operators or Public Transport Victoria (PTV) at, or leading to, train stations, tram stops and bus stops.

4.9.2 Responsibility and ownership Pedestrian signs specifically related to train stations, bus stops and tram stops are the responsibility of PTV. However, PTV should consult with the relevant council during the process of deciding what will be signed and before actual installation of such signs.

4.9.3 Guidelines for public transport signing The design and content of public transport signs should comply with the guidelines given for pedestrian signs in section 4.8. In addition, PTV has its own style guide for the detailed design of public transport signs.

4.10 Cyclist Signs Guidelines Directional cyclist signs serve the same purpose as road signs and pedestrian signs. They are specifically directed a particular group of people, in this case – cyclists.

Cyclist signs may be aimed at cyclists using off-road paths, on-road bicycle lanes or the road network in general. An off-road path may be an exclusive bicycle path, a shared path or a separated footpath.

4.10.1 Responsibility and ownership Ownership and the responsibility for providing directional cyclist signs rests with the municipal council.

Directional cyclist signs on off-road paths and municipal roads need to be approved by the municipal council. Cyclist signs on freeway reserves and on arterial roads need to be approved by VicRoads.

However, signs located on off-road bicycle paths through parks controlled by Parks Victoria are the responsibility of, and owned by, Parks Victoria. These are generally on the Metropolitan Trail Network.

4.10.2 Cyclist signs for off-road paths

Direction signs for off-road paths should:

• direct cyclists along the path

• provide cyclists with the name of the path they are on

• provide cyclists with the names of any intersecting roads or streets

• direct cyclists to the path by providing signs at the ends of the path and at any road crossings or connections along the path

• give cyclists information on the direction and distances to significant destinations that can be reached along the path.

58

The most important signs for off-road bicycle paths are those trailblazing the route. It is essential to provide signs at any point where continuity of the route is not clear to the cyclist. For this purpose, each major trail should have a unique name and may have a specific logo. For example, the Main Yarra Trail/Capital City Trail should have one unique name.

So cyclists can orientate themselves along the path and navigate off the path, signs should be provided at every bicycle path junction with another bicycle path. Road or street name signs should also be provided at each intersection of the path with a road (but not necessarily every local street). Where a path goes under or over a major road, the name of the road should be signed to assist with orientation.

Signs should be provided where cyclists join the path, at the ends of the path and at any significant intersection with another path or road where cyclists are likely to enter the path.

Signs should also be provided along a route to reassure riders what trail they are on, what destinations the route leads to and the distance to those destinations. Following consultation with the relevant councils and stakeholders, a list of ‘standard through destinations’ should be developed for each trail. These destinations should be signed consistently along the trail regardless of municipal boundaries. Standard destinations used along bicycle paths should consist of well-recognised suburb, locality or landmark names. In some cases, other bicycle trails and other features may be used as destinations. For example, along a beachside route, piers and marinas may be regarded as key landmarks. Standard destinations should be spaced between 5 and 15 kilometres apart along a trail.

Supplementary signs may be placed on off-road bicycle paths to direct cyclists to tourist attractions, venues, train stations or city centres that are off the path. This should only be done if:

• the destination is one which visitors are likely to access by bicycle

• as a rough rule of thumb, the destination is within 500 metres of the bicycle path

• the on-road route from the path to the destination is reasonably safe for cyclists

• the on-road route from the path to the destination is signed

• no more than three destinations are signed off the path at any one intersection.

The names used for this purpose should be consistent with the destination names used on other wayfinding signs and maps. Where provided, signs on off-road bicycle paths to tourist attractions or venues should be provided at the turn-off from the bicycle path. Signing along the bicycle path leading to the turn-off should only be provided if the attraction or venue is an agreed ‘standard through destination’ for that path.

Signing may also be provided to other facilities for cyclists, such as:

• toilets

• secure bicycle parking or storage facilities.

Wayfinding maps may be provided along bicycle paths. This may minimise the need for directional signs. Maps must be carefully placed at key locations or decision-making points where cyclists can pull off the path to inspect the map. The scale of

59

these maps should also be expanded from that used for pedestrian maps, and they should be aimed at recreational riders rather than commuters.

4.10.3 Signs on shared paths Shared paths (and separated footpaths) are designed to be used by both cyclists and pedestrians. Wayfinding signs along shared paths should be integrated to address the needs of both user groups. To avoid clutter and repetition of information, it is best to avoid a separate suite of signs for each user group. The graphic design of the signs could be based on the conventions for cyclist signs or pedestrian signs – whichever seems to be the primary user of that shared path.

Walking time should not be used on these signs, as the travel time by bicycle will be a lot quicker. Distance should be used instead.

4.10.4 On-road cyclist signs Cyclists riding on roads will generally be able to use road signs as navigational aids. Cyclists’ trips are, on average, shorter than car trips, and many cyclists will have a good understanding of the geography of their local area and the location of key destinations. Cyclists’ trips are also very diverse, with many origins and destinations. Visitors from outside Melbourne are unlikely to use a bicycle, apart from occasional use of the bike hire scheme. In order to avoid the clutter caused by another layer of signage, separate wayfinding signs for cyclists should be implemented only where needed.

Directional cyclist signs should be provided to ‘trail blaze’ a bicycle route where the route has a specific name or a key destination. They may also be provided:

• where a bicycle route proceeds but motorists are not permitted

• where it is not obvious to a rider where an on-road bicycle route continues

• where the on-road segment connects parts of an off-road route

• at the point where a bicycle route (on-road or off-road) intersects with a road

Where it is desired to direct cyclists to a destination (such as a library, shops, station or swimming pool) via an on-road route, the preference is to use a road sign that satisfies the wayfinding needs of all road users.

4.10.5 Design of cyclist signs Off-road paths Currently, there is a wide variety of cyclist signs used for off-road paths across Melbourne. These range from low-mounted horizontal plank signs to pole-mounted blade signs of various designs.

The design of directional cyclist signs along off-road bicycle paths should be consistent along each route or path, regardless of municipal boundaries. This will require coordination between councils. In many cases, the overall route will comprise some sections which are on-road and some that are off-road.

On-road The design of directional cyclist signs on the road network should comply with Australian Standard AS 1742.9 – Bicycle facilities and VicRoads Supplement, Traffic Engineering Manual, Volume 2, Part 2.9. These signs should be a standard design so that:

60

• cyclists can easily recognise them as directional signs aimed specifically at cyclists

• motorists and pedestrians do not mistake them as signs for their use

• there is continuity of signing style across municipal boundaries.

Figure 8: Standard design for on-road cyclist signs (sign number G5-V101)

If the distance is less than one (1) kilometre, then the distance should be expressed to the nearest 0.1 of a kilometre, such as ‘0.9 km’.

To ensure legibility, each blade must only feature one destination. This should preferably be on one line of text but sometimes it will be necessary to have the name of the destination in two lines of text as shown for ‘Swinburne University’ in the example above.

4.11 Road Signs Guidelines

4.11.1 Purpose Directional road signs assist road users to reach their destination safely and efficiently. They are for the use of drivers, riders and vehicle occupants and they may also be of assistance to pedestrians. Tourist and services road signs are intended to help visitors who are already en route to a destination to undertake the final stages of their journey efficiently.

Street name signs are a key element of the wayfinding system as most people navigating using a map will be looking for the relevant street names at each turn along their route.

4.11.2 Responsibility and ownership The responsibility for approving road signs rests with the coordinating road authority for the road. Section 66 of the Road Management Act 2004 makes it illegal for a person to erect a road sign without the written consent of the relevant coordinating road authority. This written consent is issued in the form of a permit or letter.

The coordinating road authority in relation to freeways and arterial roads is VicRoads, and it is the municipal council in relation to municipal roads. CityLink and EastLink are the coordinating road authorities for their respective toll roads. For private roads, the road authority is the landowner.

Arterial roads can be distinguished from municipal roads through the Register of Public Roads. As a guide, arterial roads are shown as black or red in the Melway street directory.

The responsibility for approving road signs (including cyclist signs) on municipal roads rests with the council’s traffic engineer (or equivalent).

On arterial roads and freeways, road signs for particular attractions or venues are funded by the operator, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. This includes

61

the design, manufacture, installation, ongoing maintenance, replacement and removal of the signs. Where there are multiple destinations listed on the one sign, the financial responsibility is shared between the operators.

On municipal roads, the ownership of road signs for particular attractions or venues depends on the relevant municipal council’s policies. In accordance with the conditions of the written consent, the operator should fund the removal or replacement of a sign, if the municipal council deems it necessary.

4.11.3 Eligibility

In order to qualify for tourist attraction signing, an attraction must satisfy all of the eligibility criteria set out in the VicRoads Traffic Engineering Manual.

Community facilities, such as schools, religious venues, sporting fields, community centres and neighbourhood houses, are eligible for local community facility blade signs. The eligibility criteria are set out in Australian Standard AS 1742.5 – Street name and community facility name signs.

Within the inner municipalities of metropolitan Melbourne, the following additional conditions apply. These conditions are supplementary to the State guidelines.

• Road signs are not provided for tourist attractions or venues, unless there is adequate public parking provided within the site itself. Where parking provision is inadequate, pedestrian signing from public transport and suitable car parks is the preferred approach.

• Road signs are not provided for accommodation facilities, such as hotels, motels and serviced apartments. However, signs may be provided to direct motorists from an adjoining road into a major hotel forecourt if the entrance is not visible to drivers.

• Road signs are not provided for restaurants.

• Road signs are not provided for tourist attractions or venues within the city grid – i.e. the area bounded by La Trobe, Spring, Flinders and Spencer streets. Within this area, primary access would be by foot or public transport. The only exception is signing to the Federation Square car park.

These additional conditions reflect the difficulty to access destinations in the inner suburbs of the metropolitan area by car. The intention is that drivers should be led to car parks and then complete their trip by walking, cycling or public transport.

The final decision on whether road signs will be provided for a destination rests with the coordinating road authority – the municipal council or VicRoads. ___________________________________________________________________

Guideline 1: Road signs should only be provided for an attraction or venue if it meets the eligibility criteria


62

4.11.4 Extent of signing

If a destination is eligible for signing on road signs in accordance with section 4.11.3, the extent of signing to the attraction or venue is determined by the VicRoads Traffic Engineering Manual.

Local community facility blade signs are limited to two per venue. These are generally located at the nearest arterial road or collector road intersections.

___________________________________________________________________

Generally, an attraction or venue may be signed from no further than the nearest declared arterial road. If the entrance is on an arterial road, signs may be provided for the left and right turns into the entrance but only if signs within the property would not make the entrance obvious to drivers. If the attraction or venue is on a side road, signs may be provided for the turns from the arterial roads into a side road and any subsequent turns on the local road network by the most desirable route until the entrance is reached.

Destinations considered to be major venues or attractions of State or national significance may be signed from further away along arterial road access routes, at the discretion of VicRoads and Tourism Events & Visitor Economy Branch.

___________________________________________________________________

4.11.5 Limit to sign numbers at intersections

The VicRoads Traffic Engineering Manual sets out the limit to the number of destinations signed at intersections. No more than three destinations (apart from road names and suburb or town names) should be listed on signs facing a motorist approaching an intersection from one direction.

___________________________________________________________________

4.11.6 Design of road signs The design of tourist (white-on-brown) and services (white-on-blue) road signs must comply with Australian Standard AS 1742.6 – Tourist and services signs and VicRoads Supplement to that Standard in Traffic Engineering Manual, Volume 2, Part 2.6 and Traffic Engineering Manual, Volume 3, Part 2.12.

Guideline 2: Road signs should be provided only as far away as the nearest arterial road, unless the attraction is of State significance

Guideline 4: No more than three attractions or venues should be signed on the approach to an intersection

Guideline 3: For destinations of State significance, the extent of road signing is determined by VicRoads and the Tourism Events & Visitor Economy Branch

http://www.vicroads.gov.au/business-and-industry/design-and-management/design-standards-and-manuals/traffic-engineering-manual

http://www.vicroads.gov.au/business-and-industry/design-and-management/design-standards-and-manuals/traffic-engineering-manual

63

The design of community facility name signs (blade signs) must comply with Australian Standard AS 1742.5, section 3.

Table 2 indicates whether a sign to an attraction or venue should be a white-on-brown tourist sign or a white-on-blue services sign.

Table 2: Distinction between tourist and services signs

Tourist signs (brown) Services signs (blue)

Wineries Accommodation

Industry-based attractions, e.g. factories, manufacturing plants, agricultural operations, with guided

tours

Sporting facilities, including golf clubs, swimming pools, bowling

clubs, sports fields, stadia, racecourses

Museums Religious venues

Art galleries and craft centres Educational institutions –

kindergartens, schools, universities, colleges, TAFEs

Antique galleries Shopping centres and markets

Theatres and concert halls Post offices

Zoos Town halls, civic centres, municipal offices

Places with guided tours Police stations, court houses

Historic properties and buildings Airports/aerodromes

Geographic features Libraries

Scenic lookouts Cemeteries

Parks and gardens Restaurants and refreshments

Nurseries and garden centres with tourist facilities Train and bus stations

Parking, including rest areas

Convention centres

Hospitals and medical facilities

Toilets

Municipal depots and tips

4.11.7 Mounting of road signs Road signs should be mounted in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742 and VicRoads Supplement, Traffic Engineering Manual, Volume 2.

Minimising the clutter of posts, particularly on busy footpaths, is a key objective. However, placing signs where they are most effective in communicating their message is paramount. The best strategy to achieve both these objectives is to remove unnecessary signs and avoid adding more signs unless they meet these guidelines.

64

4.11.8 Standard through destinations Primary white-on-green direction signs direct motorists to ‘standard through destinations’. These are a set of city, town and suburb names that are used consistently on direction signs. In some jurisdictions, they are known as ‘focal points’.

The general criteria for selecting ‘standard through destinations’ are:

• places that are prominently marked on maps • places that are well known • places with particular geographic significance • places that are key decision points when navigating the freeway and primary

arterial network.

The set of ‘standard through destinations’ has been developed by VicRoads over several decades. Any changes need to be approved by VicRoads. This should be done in consultation with the relevant municipal council. Additions should be made as new suburbs are developed and become well known. However, other changes are not made readily as drivers are familiar with the current names used on signs.

4.12 Maintenance and Updates All direction signs and visitor signs need to be well maintained and kept up-to-date with any changes. This is important to ensure that visitors are not confused and the signs retain credibility.

Maintaining the effectiveness of signs works at two levels:

• Hardware maintenance involves making sure the sign is still in place, facing the right direction and is clean, legible, not faded and without graffiti.

• Updating of content involves ensuring that the sign message is still relevant. The destination must still be operating. The sign needs to reflect any change in name. The route that the sign directs visitors to take must still be viable.

It is important that the responsible authorities keep an accurate asset register of wayfinding signs and allocate resources to a maintenance and updating regime.

Each municipal council and responsible agency should work toward implementing a procedure whereby the text on pedestrian signs is recorded in a database so that all signs bearing that name can be identified through a database search. This will make it easier to change or remove the name of an attraction or venue as the need arises.

65

Appendix A – Terminology Attraction A destination which is of interest to, and commonly visited by,

visitors or tourists

Chevron A shape on a sign that is not an arrow but which points the way to something. For example:

Destination The end point of a trip, the name of which is indicated on

direction signs and maps

Direction sign A sign with arrows, chevrons or other navigational instructions indicating the way to one or more destinations

Greater Melbourne Greater Melbourne is comprised of 31 local government areas (LGAs) in Victoria, and includes: Melbourne, Banyule, Darebin, Hume, Moreland, Nillumbik, Whittlesea, Bayside, Cardinia, Casey, Frankston, Glen Eira, Greater Dandenong, Kingston, Boroondara, Knox, Manningham, Maroondah, Monash, Whitehorse, Brimbank, Hobsons Bay, Maribrynong, Melton, Moonee Valley, Wyndham, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Yarra, Yarra Ranges and Mornington Peninsula

Inner Melbourne The five LGAs that collaborate under the Inner Melbourne region Action Plan (IMAP) banner: the cities of Maribyrnong, Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Yarra

LGA Local government area

Melbourne The LGA for which Melbourne City Council is responsible. Municipality It spans 37.6-square-kilometre and shares its borders with seven other LGAs.

Precinct A geographic area that has a distinct character and a recognisable name, and which contains several attractions or venues

Signage Signs collectively

Signing The provision of signs

Standard through Standard through destinations permit staged information about destinations destinations to be provided, to reassure a driver that the right route, and the right direction along that route, is being taken.

They also permit the amount of information on advance and intersection direction signs to be kept to a minimum, to ensure that motorists can comprehend the signs quickly. Demand for additional destination information is met by use of reassurance direction signs. Standard through destinations are, above all, places prominently marked on maps

66

Venue A destination which is commonly visited by the public, such as a sporting venue, educational institution, religious establishment or community facility

Visitors ‘Visitors’ include visitors from international, interstate and intrastate, as well as Melburnians from other LGAs

Wayfinding The process of finding one’s way or navigating to a destination. It is about knowing where you are, where you want to go and how to get there from where you are

Wayfinding sign A sign used to assist finding one’s way – including direction signs and signs with maps

67

Appendix B – Responsibilities for Different Sign Types

Type of Sign Contact Responsible Authority Referral

Road Signs Road direction signs on a freeway or arterial road

Council or VicRoads1

VicRoads

Road direction signs on CityLink CityLink CityLink VicRoads Road direction signs on EastLink EastLink EastLink VicRoads Road direction signs on a municipal road or an off-road public footpath

Council Council

Street name blade signs Council Council Road direction signs on private land, such as Melbourne Airport or Port of Melbourne

Land owner Land owner VicRoads

Cyclist Signs On-road cyclist direction signs on arterial roads

Council VicRoads

On-road cyclist direction signs on municipal roads

Council Council

Off-road cyclist direction signs Council Council Pedestrian Signs

Pedestrian direction signs on an arterial road

Council Council VicRoads2

Pedestrian direction signs on a municipal road or an off-road public footpath

Council Council

Pedestrian direction signs on state-owned or private land

Council Land owner, leasee or committee of management

Public Transport Signs Public transport signs relating to tram stops

Yarra Trams Yarra Trams PTV and Council

Public transport signs relating to train stations

Metro Trains Metro Trains PTV and Council

Public transport signs at bus stops PTV PTV Council 1. By convention, applications for tourist or services road signs on any type of road are

submitted to the municipal council in the first instance. The council then refers the application to VicRoads in relation to any signs on an arterial road or freeway, if relevant.

2. Pedestrian signs on arterial roads should be referred to VicRoads for approval if they are large signs, signs that involve supporting structures or signs that may pose a safety risk to road users. For further guidance, contact VicRoads on 13 11 71 and ask for the road signing officer of the relevant VicRoads Region.

3. Agreement should be obtained from the asset owner if a sign of any type is to be mounted on an asset owned by another party. For example signs attached to electricity poles need to be approved by the Electricity Distribution Business, usually through a ‘facilities access agreement’.

68

Appendix C – Relevant Legislation and Standards All types of visitor signs should comply with the relevant legislation and standards.

Road signs Consent and authorisations for road signs must comply with the Road Management Act 2004 and the Road Safety (Traffic Management) Regulations 2009.

The design and placement of road signs must comply with:

• Australian Standards –

o AS 1742 Manual of uniform traffic control devices

o AS 1743 Road signs-Specifications

o AS 1744 Forms of letters and numerals for road signs

• VicRoads Traffic Engineering Manual.

Public transport signs Public transport signs must comply with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport made under subsection 31 (1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. These standards require signs in public transport premises and infrastructure to comply with clause 17 of AS 1428 Design for access and mobility, Part 2, Enhanced and additional requirements—Buildings and facilities.

These requirements relate to:

• letter height

• sign illumination

• luminance contrast between the sign legend and the background

• location of signs

• height of the legend above the ground.

Pedestrian signs Although not mandatory, the design of all types of pedestrian direction signs should also comply with the above requirements to ensure the signs are as accessible as practical for people with a visual or mobility disability.

69

Appendix D – Bibliography Australian Government, Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/F2005B01059 Australian Standard AS 1428, Design for access and mobility

• Part 1: General requirements for access – New building work, 2009 • Part 2: Enhanced and additional requirements – Buildings and facilities, 1992 • Part 4.2 Wayfinding (Draft)

Australian Standard AS 1742, Manual of uniform traffic control devices

• Part 5: Street name and community facility name signs, 1997 • Part 6: Tourist and services signs, 2014 • Part 9: Bicycle facilities, 2000 • Part 15: Direction signs, 2007

Australian Standard AS 1743, Road signs-Specifications, 2001 Australian Standard AS 1744, Forms of letters and numerals for road signs, 2015 Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation – Wayfinding design guidelines, http://eprints.qut.edu.au/27556/1/27556.pdf Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation – Wayfinding in the built environment, http://eprints.qut.edu.au/27087/1/27087.pdf Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation – Wayfinding system audit http://www.constructioninnovation.info/images/pdfs/Publications/Industry_publications/CRC0001_CRC_Wayfinding_Audit.pdf ISO 7001, Graphical symbols – Public information symbols, 2007

Legible London, An exercise in simplexity, applied_ UK, 2005 Lynch, Kevin A. The Image of the City, MIT Press, 1960 National Tourism Signing Reference Group, Tourist signing – Eligibility guidelines, 2012 Public Transport Victoria, Master Style Guide SGS Economics & Planning, Wayfinding in Melbourne, Business case scoping report, for City of Melbourne, November 2015 Tourism Research Australia, for year ending June 2012 Transport for London, Yellow Book: A prototype wayfinding system for London, November, 2007 VICNAMES Register of geographical names, Victoria, http://services.land.vic.gov.au/vicnames/

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/F2005B01059

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/27556/1/27556.pdf

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/27087/1/27087.pdf

http://www.constructioninnovation.info/images/pdfs/Publications/Industry_publications/CRC0001_CRC_Wayfinding_Audit.pdf

http://www.constructioninnovation.info/images/pdfs/Publications/Industry_publications/CRC0001_CRC_Wayfinding_Audit.pdf

http://services.land.vic.gov.au/vicnames/

70

VicRoads, Traffic Engineering Manual, Volume 1, VicRoads Supplements to Austroads Guide to Traffic Management, https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/business-and-industry/technical-documents/traffic-engineering-manual-volume-1 VicRoads, Traffic Engineering Manual, Volume 2, VicRoads Supplements to Australian Standards (relating to traffic management), https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/business-and-industry/technical-documents/traffic-engineering-manual-volume-2

• Part 2.5 AS 1742.5: Street name and community facility signs • Part 2.6 AS 1742.6: Tourist and services signs • Part 2.9 AS 1742.9: Bicycle facilities • Part 2.15 AS 1742.15: Direction signs, information signs and route numbering • Part 2.17 AS 1743: Road Signs-Specifications

VicRoads, Traffic Engineering Manual, Volume 3, Additional Network Standards and Guidelines, https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/business-and-industry/technical-documents/traffic-engineering-manual-volume-3

• Part 2.9 Sign Rationalisation Guidelines • Part 2.12 Tourist and Services Signs • Part 2.13 Wine Tourism Guidelines • Part 2.14 Community Information Signs

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/business-and-industry/technical-documents/traffic-engineering-manual-volume-1






71

Appendix E – Advertising Signs Advertising signs are those that advertise products, goods or services, promote an event or publicise a policy. They range from large billboards to small ‘A-frame’ signs on footpaths.

The operators of attractions or venues may wish to achieve greater prominence through wayfinding signs – by having more of them, or making them more conspicuous, or by adding advertising or promotional messages. This is not the purpose of wayfinding signs. Operators may apply for separate advertising signs in the same way as any other commercial product.

Advertising signs are subject to the Victorian Planning Provisions and generally require a planning permit from the relevant planning authority (usually the municipal council). Applications for a planning permit are submitted to the Statutory Planning Department (or equivalent) in the relevant municipal council.

In addition, advertising signs on the road reserve must have the written consent of the relevant coordinating road authority under Section 66 of the Road Management Act 2004. The coordinating road authority is VicRoads in relation to freeways and arterial roads, and it is the municipal council in relation to municipal roads. CityLink and EastLink are the coordinating road authority for their respective toll roads. For private roads, the road authority is the landowner.

As the approval process for advertising signs is very different to the authorisation process for wayfinding signs, it is important to maintain a clear distinction between these types of signs.

72

Appendix F – Examples of Integrated Wayfinding Three examples follow to show how various signs involving different authorities can assist visitors undertaking journeys around Melbourne.

These examples demonstrate the principle of the progressive revelation of information as visitors need it.

These examples also show the importance of coordination between the many private and public parties responsible for signage, so that the journey is made easy – with seemingly seamless information – at key points along the journey.

Example Journey 1 A journey from Melbourne Airport using Skybus to Southern Cross Station, walking to a city hotel, then taking public transport to an attraction in Southbank. The wayfinding system assists the visitor to find their way by the following means:

o The visitor has booked accommodation online and knows that the hotel is in the central city area. The visitor arrives at the airport expecting to find some form of public transport from the airport to the city.

o Information within Melbourne Airport assists the visitor to choose to travel by Skybus to get directly to Southern Cross Station.

o Arriving at Southern Cross Station by bus, information signs within the station direct the visitor to information hubs and exits. (Responsible authority: PTV.)

o Map-based pedestrian wayfinding signs outside Southern Cross Station help the visitor find the way to the street in which their hotel is located. The visitor may remember the number of blocks, street names or relevant landmarks to assist this part of the journey. (Responsible authority: CoM.)

o Street name blade signs at the corner of each intersection assist with orientation and finding the appropriate street. (Responsible authority: CoM.)

o Departing the hotel, the visitor is looking for an attraction in Southbank. A brochure provided by the attraction owner shows the tram routes that lead to the stop adjacent to the attraction. (Responsibility: attraction owner.)

o Customer information, signs and maps at the origin tram stop assist the choice of tram route and direction. (Responsible authority: PTV.)

o At the destination tram stop, the name of the attraction is prominently displayed. Direction signs on the tram stop point the way to the attraction. (Responsible authority: PTV.)

o Signing on the attraction building welcomes the visitor and provides a sense of arrival at the destination. (Responsibility: attraction owner.)

The operator of the attraction may wish to advertise to visitors. Most of the advertising media are within the control of the operator. More specific promotional opportunities could be employed to complement the journey from the airport to the city, such as:

o Promotional material or advertising within Melbourne Airport. (Responsible authority: Melbourne Airport.)

73

o New advertising skin on an existing billboard on a bridge over the Tullamarine Freeway. (Responsible authority: VicRoads.)

o New banners on banner poles on the Tullamarine Freeway. (Responsible authority: Tourism Events & Visitor Economy Branch.)

Example Journey 2 A journey driving from Melbourne Airport to an attraction in Docklands.

The wayfinding system assists the visitor to find their way by the following means:

o The visitor collects a hire car at the airport. In planning the trip, the visitor knows that the attraction is in a place called ‘Docklands’ which is adjacent to the city centre.

o Direction signs at Melbourne Airport show the way to ‘City’. (Responsible authority: Melbourne Airport.)

o Along the Tullamarine Freeway there are pictorial signs welcoming the visitor to Melbourne and Victoria. (Responsible authority: Tourism Events & Visitor Economy Branch.)

o At each interchange, signs reassure the visitor that ‘City’ is straight ahead. This takes the visitor along Tullamarine Freeway and CityLink, although the visitor does not need to know the road names. The route number is 43 (in future, M2). There are a few reassurance signs between interchanges which also confirm the route and distance to the city. (Responsible authorities: VicRoads and CityLink.)

o Direction signs from CityLink to the Footscray Road exit show the way to ‘Docklands’. (Responsible authority: CityLink.)

o Along Footscray Road, brown tourist signs have the name of the attraction and show where to turn from Footscray Road into a municipal road. (Responsible authority: VicRoads.)

o Along the municipal roads, brown tourist signs show the same attraction name and indicate any turns on the municipal road network and then the turn into the car park which is associated with the attraction. (Responsible authority: CoM.)

o Once parked, the path to the attraction may be obvious, but if not, pedestrian signs would show the way from the car park to the attraction entrance. (Responsibility if on private land: attraction owner; responsibility if on public land: CoM at the attraction owner’s cost.)

o Signing at the entrance welcomes the visitor and provides a sense of arrival at the destination. (Responsibility: attraction owner.)

Example Journey 3 A journey by tram from Station Pier to an attraction in Carlton.

The wayfinding system assists the visitor to find their way by the following means:

o The visitor arrives by ferry or cruise ship at Station Pier and, after looking at promotional material, decides to experience an attraction in Carlton. A tourist information brochure gives a sketch map of the location. (Responsibility: attraction owner.)

74

o Information signs within Station Pier direct the visitor to the nearest tram stop at the end of the pier. (Responsible authority: Port of Melbourne, Station Pier.)

o Customer information, signs and maps at the tram stop indicate that tram route 109 goes through the city towards Carlton. (Responsible authority: PTV.)

o From the maps, the visitor decides to alight at St Vincent’s Plaza and walk to Carlton. The tram stop at St Vincent’s Plaza has the name clearly displayed. (Responsible authority: PTV.)

o At St Vincent’s Plaza, signs on the platform and street name blades assist the visitor with orientation. (Responsible authorities: PTV and CoM.)

o Pedestrian hubs and plinth signs along the footpaths show the way to the attraction in Carlton. (Responsible authority: CoM.)

o Signing on the attraction building welcomes the visitor and provides a sense of arrival at the destination. (Responsibility: attraction owner.)


1 Project Team: Fran Kerlin CoM; Kim Swinson CoS, Michelle Cobb CoS, Susie Wickes CoMar, Sheri Peters CoPP (Chair) Report prepared by: Sheri Peters


Briefing Paper

Action 11 Regional Tourism ____________________________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND

1. At the IMAP Implementation Committee meeting of 27 May 2016, the Committee resolved to:

support the development of a pilot Inner Melbourne Cultural Guide and the proposed distribution strategy for a budgeted cost of $41,000 from the existing IMAP Tourism funds.

support the Chair of the IMAP Tourism Working Group (TWG) leading discussions with Destination Melbourne Limited (DML) on establishing an IMAP Partnership proposition, to replace individual Council partnerships, with the input and support of the IMAP TWG.

2. The IMAP Implementation Committee also previously resolved to support Destination Melbourne, if set criteria were met, with the development of a Destination Management Plan for Greater Melbourne.

DISCUSSION

3. All initiatives have progressed with success:

Cultural Guide; The IMAP TWG choose to partner with the established organisation, Cultural Tourism Victoria (CTV), to supplement their established Cultural Guide of Victoria, now in its 20

th

year of production, with substantial content from Inner Melbourne. Each of the five Councils submitted 14 unique and diverse cultural experiences, 70 in total within inner Melbourne, showcasing the depth of product within their municipality. This partnership will now produce Victoria’s most comprehensive Cultural Guide available to visitors. The guide is in the final stages of production and print and will be launched in mid-September 2016, for distribution at key visitor entry and information points, at select accommodation providers and at all participating cultural experiences. The partnership is in line with the initial proposed budget, but has allowed substantially increased copies to be printed (50,000 over 20,000), provided a wider and established distribution for the guide and production and project management experience, in relation to this type of visitor collateral.

Joint partnership: The Chair of the IMAP TWG, with strong support from the IMAP Executive Officer, lead discussions with Destination Melbourne to negotiate the formation of a partnership between the five IMAP Councils and Destination Melbourne replacing the individually held contracts.

The new partnership, negotiated for a similar collective contribution from the participating

Councils, provides greater service provision for Council contributions, spread evenly across the Councils to provide increased and greater representation of each Council, and of the inner Melbourne region as a whole.

This joint agreement is ensuring destination marketing of inner Melbourne to visitors through all of

Destination Melbourne’s visitor collateral and digital marketing channels.

Destination Management Plan: Destination Melbourne has appointed and convened the first meeting of the Destination Management Plan (DMP) Project Steering Committee. 24 Councils


2 Project Team: Fran Kerlin CoM; Kim Swinson CoS, Michelle Cobb CoS, Susie Wickes CoMar, Sheri Peters CoPP (Chair) Report prepared by: Sheri Peters

have contributed to the development of the strategic DMP which will provide clear recommendations on how the city can improve its competitive visitor position in order to increase the visitor economy capacity in the next 5 to 10 years. The DMP will be underpinned by several sub-regional plans including one for Inner Melbourne. The CoM and the IMAP TWG each hold a position on the Steering Committee together with 11 skill-based individuals from participating Councils and State Government funding partners.

RECOMMENDATION

4. That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to: (a) Recognise the progress made by the IMAP TWG on initiatives supported by the IMAP

Implementation Committee.

1

Elissa McElroy

From: Elissa McElroySent: Thursday, 28 July 2016 11:14 AMTo: Elissa McElroy; Claude Ullin; CoM - Cr Ken Ong; CoM - Linda Weatherson

([email protected]); CoMar - Stephen Wall ([email protected]); CoPP - Cr Bernadene Voss ([email protected]); CoPP - Mayor ([email protected]); CoPP - Tracey Slatter ([email protected]); CoY - Cr Roberto Colanzi ([email protected]); CoY - Mayor ([email protected]); CoY - Vijaya Vaidyanath ([email protected]); Cr Cameron McDonald ([email protected]); Rhonda Deigan; Warren Roberts

Cc: 'Sheri Peters'Subject: RE: Request for IMAP Out of committee decision making - Agreements with Cultural

Tourism Victoria

Hello All,

Thank you for responding to this request for approval.

This is to confirm that this matter has now been approved out of Committee and the following recommendation has

been adopted:

That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

IMAP Inner Melbourne Map Licence :

a. Approve the licensing of the IMAP Inner Melbourn e Map to Cultural Tourism Victoria for the approved purposes as detailed in S chedule 1 of the licence for a period of one year at no fee, from the date the a greement is executed; and

b. Authorise the CEO's to sign the license agreemen t on behalf of the IMAP

Councils. Experience Culture Guide Agreement

a. Approve the Experience Culture Guide Agreement between the IMAP

Councils and Cultural Tourism Victoria for a period of one ye ar from the date the Agreement is executed.

b. Authorise the CEO's to sign the Experience Cultu re Guide Agreement on

behalf of the IMAP Councils.

Confirmation of this resolution was received from the following:

Cr Voss CoPP approved via email 28/7/2016 (Email received from L Bare on behalf of the Mayor)

Cr McDonald CoMar approved via email 27/7/2016

Cr Colanzi CoPP approved via email 25/7/2016

Cr Ullin CoS approved via email 25/7/2016

Cr Ong CoM approved via email 25/7/2016

Warren Roberts CoS approved via email 25/7/2016

Stephen Wall CoMar approved via email 25/7/2016

Linda Weatherson CoM approved via email 25/7/2016

Tracey Slatter CoPP approved via email 22/7/2016.

Thanks for your assistance with this matter. I will now arrange for the agreements to be signed.

Kind regards,

2

Elissa

Elissa McElroy

IMAP Executive Officer | Inner Melbourne Action Plan

T: 8290 1110 | M: 0404 248 450 | F: 8290 1105 | [email protected] __________________________________________________________________________________

Officer Location: CITY OF STONNINGTON

PO Box 21 Prahran, Victoria 3181

www.imap.vic.gov.au

__________________________________________________________________________________

Please consider the environment before printing this email

From: Elissa McElroy

Sent: Thursday, 21 July 2016 6:42 PM To: Claude Ullin; CoM - Cr Ken Ong; CoM - Linda Weatherson ([email protected]); CoMar -

Stephen Wall ([email protected]); CoPP - Cr Bernadene Voss ([email protected]); CoPP - Mayor ([email protected]); CoPP - Tracey Slatter ([email protected]); CoY - Cr Roberto Colanzi ([email protected]); CoY - Mayor ([email protected]); CoY - Vijaya Vaidyanath ([email protected]); Cr Cameron McDonald ([email protected]);

Rhonda Deigan; Warren Roberts Cc: 'Sheri Peters' Subject: Request for IMAP Out of committee decision making - Agreements with Cultural Tourism Victoria

Importance: High

Dear Members of the IMAP Implementation Committee, COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

The IMAP Operational Protocol makes provision for out of committee decision making as follows:

3.4 ‘Out of Committee’ decision making

a. Agenda items may be electronically distributed and responses received between Committee meetings.

b. Where consensus is not reached regarding an item distributed electronically, the

agenda item will be formally listed for discussion and the issue addressed at the next meeting.

c. Any decision made on these agenda items must be ratified at the next meeting via

the normal voting processes. Items for approval – Cultural Guide At the last IMAP Implementation Committee meeting, the IMAP committee gave approval for the Tourism Working Group to develop a Cultural Guide for Inner Melbourne. Discussions with Cultural Tourism Victoria (CTV) have been underway since then, and we have reached agreement for their next edition to include a substantial Inner Melbourne section, with 70 half-page entries provided by the IMAP councils (14 per Council) in addition to those inner Melbourne entries that are independently subscribed. The IMAP Councils are providing the photography, content and the IMAP map indicating location of the entries, for inclusion in the Cultural Guide.

3

Distribution will be 50,000 copies - instead of the proposed 20,000 were IMAP to produce a publication on its own. This is a really effective collaboration which gives us a better result within the approved budget, reduces duplication of products in the market and potentially gives us an extra digital presence on CTV’s developing website. Approval is required out of Committee due to publishing deadlines. Approval is sought from the Committee for:

(1) the CEOs of the IMAP Councils to sign the Agreement with CTV on behalf of the IMAP councils; and

(2) for CTV to be licensed to publish the IMAP map in their publication on a no fee basis. The agreements have been reviewed by legal counsel. Could you, therefore, please advise your approval, by return email, to the following recommendation: Recommendation That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

IMAP Inner Melbourne Map Licence :

c. Approve the licensing of the IMAP Inner Melbourn e Map to Cultural Tourism Victoria for the approved purposes as detailed in S chedule 1 of the licence for a period of one year at no fee, from the date the a greement is executed; and

d. Authorise the CEO's to sign the license agreemen t on behalf of the IMAP

Councils. Experience Culture Guide Agreement

c. Approve the Experience Culture Guide Agreement between the IMAP

Councils and Cultural Tourism Victoria for a period of one year from the date the Agreement is executed.

d. Authorise the CEO's to sign the Experience Cultu re Guide Agreement on

behalf of the IMAP Councils. Following majority approval by Committee members, I will circulate copies of the agreements to the CEOs for signature. With thanks. Kind regards, Elissa

Elissa McElroy

IMAP Executive Officer | Inner Melbourne Action Plan

T: 8290 1110 | M: 0404 248 450 | F: 8290 1105 | [email protected] __________________________________________________________________________________

Officer Location: CITY OF STONNINGTON

PO Box 21 Prahran, Victoria 3181

www.imap.vic.gov.au

__________________________________________________________________________________

Please consider the environment before printing this email


1 Project Team: D Stewart, CoM (Team Leader); J.Hanrahan / S Grant CoY, T.Oulton/ G Smehurst CoS, A.Jackson CoMar, A.Traill

CoPP, A Mousavi CoM/IMAP, E McElroy IMAP, K Alder /L Thomas MPA, L O’Donnell SRV Report prepared by: Dale Stewart CoM


Briefing Paper

Action 5.5 Infrastructure Development IMAP Regional Active Sport and Recreation Facilities Planning Study project.

____________________________________________________________________________________

PURPOSE

1. To brief the IMAP Implementation Committee on the progress of the IMAP Regional Active Sport and Recreation Facilities Planning Study project.

BACKGROUND

2. Following a deal of lead up work by the IMAP Councils, in January 2016 the IMAP Executive Forum:

a. Resolved to proceed with the IMAP Regional Active Sport and Recreation Facilities Planning Study.

b. Approved the revised project plan and funding proposal subject to Sport and Recreation Victoria (SRV) funding and the appointment of a project officer based at City of Melbourne.

c. Approved and authorized the involvement of key staff from the IMAP Councils, the timely provision of data for the project, and access and use of council system for data collation and sharing.

3. The aim of the project is to assess the future provision of sport and recreation facilities, with the focus on active outdoor sport and recreation facilities and aquatic centres for the IMAP area. The project will be completed in two stages:

a. Stage 1 - Information Coordination and Analysis.

b. Stage 2 - Future Planning.

4. The City of Melbourne was advised in April that the project was successful in receiving $50,000 funding from the State Government Community Sport Infrastructure Fund, which ensures that both stages of the project can be achieved under the approved funding proposal.

5. The study formally commenced on 16 May 2015 with the commencement of the study Project Officer, Ms Azadeh Mousavi (6 month position). The first Project Working Group meeting was held on Wednesday 25 May 2016.

DISCUSSION

6. Project Working Group activities:

a. The Project Working Group currently comprises representatives for the IMAP Councils, along with representatives from SRV and Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA).

b. To date five Project Working Group (PWG) meetings have been held. These meetings are scheduled fortnightly to determine the project activities and priorities, discuss tasks and resolve issues, and facilitate access to organisations, data and information.




c. A Workshop is planned for 22 August 2016 to familiarise recreation staff, GIS officers and others with the aims of the project. The workshop aims to enlist their support for ensuring the consistent updating of Councils’ GIS systems and help with inputting the data.

7. Key actions completed to date include:

a. Identification of project needs, actions, and data requirements by reviewing background documents and reviewing similar projects.

b. Data preparation, collection and integration - This process required identification of the data and information to be gathered and the particular data and information attributes of importance to the project. Collating and synthesizing the data from different sources across IMAP Councils and other stakeholders has been a key focus and is subject to continual review and refinement. This phase includes identifying and analysing the various repositories across the key stakeholders, pinpointing the precise location of sport facilities, defining the types of sports facilities and their components, and the search for information about participation data for sports and facilities. All of these actions are subject to ongoing review by the Project Officer and the PWG. Numerous meetings have been held with various representatives from the IMAP Councils, SRV and MPA. Further meetings have been held with other stakeholders, e.g. State Government (DELWP), State Sport Associations, and Parks Victoria in order to introduce the project, establish connections and gather further information and data.

8. Data Organization:

a. The list of active sports across the IMAP region has been extracted.

b. The list of data requirements for sports facilities has been prepared and is being reviewed by the Project Officer and PWG.

c. The conceptual model and physical structure of an “IMAP Sport and Recreation Geo-database” have been designed and documented. The conceptual model and Geo-database schema are still updating based on IMAP Councils and other key stakeholder feedback.

d. Mapping: Existing sport and recreation facilities (sourced from IMAP partners and other key stakeholders) have been mapped and are subject to ongoing review and refinement by the Project Officer and study stakeholders.

9. Key actions still to be completed:

a. Further Data Gathering: The project requires two types of data

i. Sport facilities data: This data is mainly provided by councils. As well as the location of sport facilities within the IMAP region, attributes relating to the facility need to be identified and collated e.g. does the facility have sports lighting, and to what level does it operate. This information is currently being collated by the Project Officer and relevant staff within the IMAP partners.

ii. Participation data: The participation data is provided by a number of sources, e.g. State Sporting Associations (SSA’s - currently some SSA’s i.e. Football Federation Victoria, Badminton, Rugby and Gymnastics have shared data). Data from other SSA’s is still required. Another key source of data will come from the IMAP Councils and the format to collect this data is to be confirmed.

b. Data organization:




i. Updating existing maps

ii. Editing existing database tables

iii. Data entry in Geo-database

iv. Assigning collected attribute tables to spatial features on maps

c. Basic Analysis:

i. Analysis on existing distribution of sports and recreation assets to find out how balanced they are across the IMAP region

ii. Analysis on current provision of sport facilities to explore adequacy to meet the present needs.

RECOMMENDATION

10. That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the progress on Stage 1 of the IMAP Regional Active Sport and Recreation Facilities Planning Study project.