agenda - imap - homeimap.vic.gov.au › uploads › meeting agendas › 2014... · 28 november 2014...

28 November 2014

1

Agenda

Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee

Meeting No 36

8.00 am – 10.00 am Friday 28 November 2014 City of Melbourne

Committee Meeting Room, Town Hall Administration Building

Committee

Members Cr Ken Ong, Chair Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee, City of Melbourne (Chair) Cr Phillip Vlahogiannis, Mayor, City of Yarra Cr Amanda Stevens, Mayor, City of Port Phillip Cr Nam Quach, Mayor, Maribyrnong City Council Cr Melina Sehr, Mayor, City of Stonnington Mr Warren Roberts, Chief Executive Officer, City of Stonnington Mr Geoff Lawler, Director City Planning & Infrastructure, City of Melbourne Ms Vijaya Vaidyanath, Chief Executive Officer, City of Yarra Ms Tracey Slatter, Chief Executive Officer, City of Port Phillip Mr Stephen Wall, Chief Executive Officer, Maribyrnong City Council

Associate Partner

Representatives

Mr Adrian Salmon, Assistant Director Statutory Approvals, State Planning Services, DTPLI Ms Rebecca Collins, Director Transport Strategies, Transport Integration Div, DTPLI Mr Jay Meek, Director Melbourne Central VGBO, DSDBI Mr Rod Anderson, Strategy and Partnerships Regional Manager- Port Phillip, DEPI Mr Adam Maguire, Regional Director, Metropolitan NW Region, VicRoads DTPLI Ms Jane Monk, Director Inner City, Metropolitan Planning Authority

IMAP Ms Elissa McElroy, IMAP Executive Officer

Guests Mr Cameron Brenton, Coordinator City Business, City of Port Phillip Mr Austin Ley, Manager City Research, City of Melbourne IMAP Champions Mr Bruce Phillips, Director City Development, City of Yarra Mr Richard Brice, Interim Manager for Urban Strategy and Design, City of Port Phillip Ms Melissa Rathje, Coordinator Corporate & Community Planning, City of Stonnington Mr Geoff Robinson, Manager Engineering Services, City of Melbourne Mr Morris Bellamy, Manager Strategic Marketing, Communications & Advocacy, Maribyrnong City Council

Note: Committee photos will be taken at the start of the meeting for the next IMAP Annual Report if there is a full attendance of elected members PRELIMINARIES

Item Time Alloc.

Agenda Topic Responsibility

1. 1 min Commence 8.00am

Appointment of Chair

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

IMAP Executive Officer

2. 5 mins Apologies and Introductions

Chair

28 November 2014

2

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. Agenda Topic Responsibility

4. 2 mins Commence 8.07am

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

the minutes of the IMAP Implementation Committee No. 35 held on 29 August 2014

Chair



the minutes of the IMAP Executive Forum No 15 held on 10 September 2014

Chair



the minutes of the IMAP Executive Forum No 16 held on 14 November 2014

Chair


Business Arising (Attachment 4) Recommendation 7.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the

actions undertaken in response to business arising from the previous minutes.

Correspondence: Inwards 4a U Meier, City Research, City of Melbourne - Knowledge City Strategy 4b K Coster, Moreland City Council - Review of Moreland’s Industrial land 4c D Burgess, Arborist - “Contract tree growing for Councils is a Win-Win” 4d C Hardy, DSDBI - Registering for dot Melbourne domain names 4e J Arena, CEO Procurement Australia - Member services 4f A Zaborszczyk, City of Melbourne – Renewable Energy Purchasing Group



Financial Report (Attachment 5) Recommendation 8.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to receive

the IMAP Financial Report for the 3 months ended 30 September 2014.



IMAP Communication and Governance (Attachment 6) Recommendation 9.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. Note the Communications and Governance Briefing Paper.

b. Approve the change of date for the IMAP Implementation Committee February 2015 meeting to the earlier date of Friday 13 February 2015.

Attachments: 6a AILA awards Victoria, Growing Green Guide for Melbourne Project 6b Media article – Rooftop gardens 6c Email – JFrancis – Enquiries and publications relating to green roofs

IMAP Executive

28 November 2014

3

6d Official Visitors Map Media release from DML


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

IMAP Progress Report for November 2014.



IMAP Plan Review (Attachment 8) Recommendation 11.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee:

a. note the current progress on the IMAP Review project; b. approve the amended timeline for the development of the

plan; c. note that the changes to undertake additional consultation

and review will incur additional costs to the contract.



Urban Manufacturing (Attachment 9 – to follow) Recommendation 12.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the

current progress on the IMAP urban manufacturing project.

Cameron Brenton CoPP Austin Ley, CoM


IMAP Three Year Implementation Plan (Attachment 10) Recommendation 13.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. Note this update on progress on the Inner Melbourne Action Plan, and

b. Approve the updated IMAP Three Year Implementation Plan, and changes to the current years budget

c. Approve the payment of $20,000 per IMAP Council in the 2014-15 financial year for the RMF projects.

d. Approve the request for each of the IMAP Partner Councils to make provision for funding in the 2015-16 budget as follows: • IMAP Annual Contribution $35,000 per Council - in line

with the current year • IMAP Annual Tourism Contribution $20,000 per Council

- in line with the current year • IMAP Share of Operational Costs $35,000 per Council

(Estimate – to be confirmed) • Total $90,000 per IMAP Council


OTHER BUSINESS Item Time

Allot. Agenda Topic Responsibility


Any other business Close Next Meeting Friday 28 February 2014 (8.00am) - or as amended City of Melbourne – Council Meeting Room

Chair

28 November 2014

4

ATTACHMENTS Item No

Attachment No Attachment Topic

4. Attachment 1 DRAFT Minutes of the IMAP Implementation Committee meeting No. 35 held on 29 August 2014 5. Attachment 2 DRAFT Minutes of the IMAP Executive Forum meeting No.15 held on 10 September 2014 6. Attachment 3 DRAFT Minutes of the IMAP Executive Forum meeting No.16 held on 14 November 2014 7. Attachment 4

Attachment 4a Attachment 4b Attachment 4c Attachment 4d Attachment 4e Attachment 4f

Business Arising Inwards Correspondence 4a U Meier, City Research, City of Melbourne - Knowledge City Strategy 4b K Coster, Moreland City Council - Review of Moreland’s Industrial land 4c D Burgess, Arborist - “Contract tree growing for Councils is a Win-Win” 4d C Hardy, DSDBI - Registering for dot Melbourne domain names 4e J Arena, CEO Procurement Australia - Member services 4f A Zaborszczyk, City of Melbourne – Renewable Energy Purchasing Group

8. Attachment 5 Attachment 5a Attachment 5b

IMAP Finance report IMAP Operating and Capital Works statement for the 3 months to 30 September 2014 IMAP – Project Expenditure Against Budget at 30 September 2014

9. Attachment 6 Attachment 6a Attachment 6b Attachment 6c Attachment 6d

IMAP Communications and Governance report Presentation for AILA awards Victoria, Growing Green Guide for Melbourne Project Media article – Rooftop gardens Email – Julie Francis – Update on enquiries and publications relating to green roofs Official Visitors Map Media release from DML

10 Attachment 7 IMAP Progress Report November 2014 11 Attachment 8 IMAP Plan Review – progress report 12 Attachment 9 Urban Manufacturing report – to follow 13 Attachment 10

Attachment 10a Attachment 10b

IMAP Three-year Implementation Plan – report Financial Model Update on IMAP Projects - Summary

28 November 2014 Attachment 1

1

DRAFT Minutes Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee

Meeting No 35 8.00 am – 10.00 am Friday 29 August 2014

City of Yarra Meeting Room 1, Richmond Town Hall

Attendance Committee

Members

Cr Jackie Fristacky, Mayor, City of Yarra (Chair) Cr Grant Miles, Mayor, Maribyrnong City Council Cr Adrian Stubbs, Mayor, City of Stonnington Cr Ken Ong, Chair Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee, City of Melbourne Mr Geoff Cockram, Acting Chief Executive Officer, City of Stonnington Ms Vijaya Vaidyanath, Chief Executive Officer, City of Yarra – left at 8.35am Ms Tracey Slatter, Chief Executive Officer, City of Port Phillip Mr Nigel Higgins, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Maribyrnong City Council

Associate Partner

Representatives

Mr Adrian Salmon, Assistant Director Statutory Approvals, State Planning Services, DTPLI Mr Rod Anderson, Strategy and Partnerships Regional Manager- Port Phillip, DEPI Ms Patricia Liew, Regional Director, Metropolitan NW Region, VicRoads DTPLI Ms Jane Monk, Director Inner City, Metropolitan Planning Authority Mr Sasha Yarwood, DPTLI – for Rebecca Collins

IMAP Elissa McElroy, IMAP Executive Officer

Guests Mr Steven McKellar, Sustainable Design Architect, City of Port Phillip Mr Euan Williamson, Environmental Sustainable Development Advisor, City of Yarra Mr Austin Ley, Manager City Research, City of Melbourne Ms Helen Hardwick, Program Manager Tourism Policy and Strategy, City of Melbourne Mr David Morison, Urban Designer, City of Yarra Mr Adam Zaborszczyk, Senior Sustainability Officer – Sustainable Energy, City of Melbourne Mr Barry McGuren, Manager Tourism Melbourne, City of Melbourne Ms Javiera Almeida Maturana, Senior Policy Officer - Regional Strategy Coordinator ,

Intergovernmental Relations Branch, Dept of Premier & Cabinet - for item 4 only IMAP Champions Mr Bruce Phillips, Director City Development, City of Yarra Mr Morris Bellamy, Manager Strategic Marketing, Communications & Advocacy, Maribyrnong City

Council PRELIMINARIES

1. Appointment of Chair

1.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to appoint Cr Jackie Fristacky as the Chair of the Meeting.

MOVED CR STUBBS / Cr Ong A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED


2

2. Apologies and Introductions

2.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the following apologies: - Cr Amanda Stevens, Mayor, City of Port Phillip - Mr Alistair Miller, Acting Director City Planning & Infrastructure, City of Melbourne - Mr Jay Meek, Director Melbourne Central VGBO, DSDBI - Ms Vijaya Vaidyanath, Chief Executive Officer, City of Yarra - for leaving early

MOVED CR STUBBS / 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.

- None declared

ITEMS

4. Additional Item: Regional Management Forum (RMF) projects The two RMF Draft Project Scoping papers for this item were tabled. Ms Javiera Almeida Maturana, DPC attended for this item. Ms Vaidyanath spoke to this item. She advised 2 regional priorities were being developed by the RMF requiring joint funding from the IMAP Councils and state government: 1. Integrated Delivery models; and 2. Measures of Liveability. There was some urgency in taking this matter for discussion as a late item because:

Dean Yates, RMF convenor, wants to report the joint RMF- IMAP projects to the upcoming Secretaries Board meeting on 25 September

Further discussion can occur with the state government prior to the election caretaker period

IMAP can discuss its support for funding the projects through IMAP prior to IMAP’s November budget meeting.

With reference to item 1, Ms Vaidyanath noted:

the need for the IMAP councils to bring together social infrastructure provision in the region;

that provision for a growing population would be unsustainable under the current rating approach, with state government funding already committed; and

that we needed IMAP’s practical commitment to develop an innovative service model which would identify opportunities and precinct based solutions, through working together.

to be successful, all arms of state government need to work together, and local government also needs to be on board.

the 4 deliverables for project 1 that are listed on the handout.

Ms Vaidyanath requested the Committee consider:

Approving the funding commitment in principle (on the basis of 50% State Government, 50% IMAP Councils)

Consider funds of $120,000 - $150,000 p.a. each year for 2 years from the IMAP Councils to cover both projects (Liveability and Integrated Delivery models)

Note some in-kind contributions from Councils could form part of their $25,000 - $30,000 annual contributions.

Ms Slatter noted some of the contribution towards these projects could be from the IMAP budget and that some funding may be available this year. The projects also need state government commitment before the election, and matching funds from state government should be a requirement of IMAP Council funds. Mr Cockram clarified that IMAP’s funding support was in principle only at this stage and would be reported back to the committee once the project was fully scoped and State Government support obtained. Ms Almeida Maturana noted Dean Yates will be submitting the 2 priorities for government funding commitment and it would be good to be able to say that the IMAP Councils were on board. Mr Austin Ley spoke to item 2 on Liveability. He noted:

There are lots of measures for Liveability – the project aims to focus on key measures for the Inner


3

region and considers how to achieve sustained or increased liveability factors, considering all the pressures the region is facing.

The project will review all aspects of liveability to identify measures pertinent to the region and ensure all agencies engaged in activities which contribute to liveability, are aligned to these measures.

Part of this will be looking at what KPI’s drive state government outputs and whether they align with indicators for liveability for the region; and how to get this alignment between agencies.

Ms Jane Monk arrived at 8.30am.

Comments/Questions Mr Higgins noted his support. Ms Vaidyanath noted the project aims to draw on existing pertinent data, not undertake further data collection, and that this provides a golden opportunity with the IMAP review, MPA and RMF to develop a synchronised approach. Ms Slatter pointed out Plan Melbourne’s central subregion and the IMAP region alignment allows for more leverage. Cr Ong supported this alignment and noted liveability impacts on all our investments in our region. Cr Stubbs asked if the surplus in the IMAP budget could cover this project. The Executive Officer noted the surplus was already committed to a number of projects but that these could be revisited by the Committee as part of the IMAP Review at the November meeting. 4.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to give:

in-principle support to 2 projects to be conducted jointly with the Regional Management Forum (RMF), being Integrated Delivery models and Measures of Liveability; and

commitment of up to $150,000 p.a. up to 2 years for IMAP funding; subject to this funding being matched by the Victorian State Government.

MOVED MS SLATTER / Cr Ong A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Ms Vaidyanath left the meeting at 8.35am. Action: RMF to be advised of the decision to support and fund the 2 projects over 2 years, subject to funding being matched by the state government

5. Confirmation of Minutes 5.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to confirm the minutes of the IMAP

Implementation Committee No. 34 held on 30 May 2014. MOVED CR ONG / Cr Stubbs A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

6. Business Arising The Executive Officer advised in relation to the correspondence:

- while Phase 2 of the Community Land Trust project can now proceed, some changes to the contract are still being worked through.

- that Dr Butterworth’s email offered to showcase the Liveability research work to IMAP members.

Members noted that a presentation would be more useful to the group working on the RMF project. 6.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the actions undertaken in response to

business arising from the previous minutes. MOVED CR MILES / Ms Slatter A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Correspondence: Inwards 2a: Dr Louise Crabtree, University of Western Sydney - Phase 2 CLT research project 2b: Dr Iain Butterworth, Dept of Health - Publication on Urban Liveability 2c: Mr Craig Kenny, Director Community Programs City of Yarra - Yarra’s Night Time Economy Strategy 2014


4

Action: Executive Officer to advise Dr Butterworth that the group working on the RMF project could be interested in a presentation

7. Financial Report The Executive Officer noted IMAP has been catching up this financial year, by completing projects budgeted in previous years. Annual revenue was overspent by $120,000, which has reduced the carry forward. The account remains in surplus. Other points to note were: - All payments were made to reimburse the City of Melbourne for the Growing Green Guide project.

About $3K remains in the budget for any ongoing activity undertaken for this project. - The final payment was made for the Through Traffic project. There was a saving of $40,000 against

the original estimate which can now be made available to other projects. - The CSIRO final payment for the Energy Mapping project shows in the accounts as the invoice has

been received – however payment remains outstanding awaiting completion of the project. - The tourism account was underspent by $34,000. This will be carried forward and will contribute to 2

payments to DML falling in one year for map printing under the IMAP/DML Agreement. 7.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to receive the IMAP Financial Report for the

year ending 30 June 2014. MOVED CR ONG / Cr Stubbs A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

8. IMAP Draft Annual Report and Summary 2013-14 8.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to approve the IMAP Annual Report and

Summary for 2013-14. MOVED CR ONG / Ms Slatter A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Action: Annual report to be finalised and distributed

9. IMAP Communication and Governance The Executive Officer drew attention to the meeting dates for 2015, the conference paper delivered by Gail Hall at the Liveable Cities conference, and noted the substantial work undertaken by Michelle Dawson on finalising the map Agreement with Destination Melbourne. She also advised that the University of Melbourne had held its first update meeting on the ARC Green Roof Linkage grant project. An update report has been requested for the IMAP Committee. 9.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. note the Communications and Governance Briefing Paper; and b. approve the IMAP meeting schedule for 2015.

MOVED CR STUBBS / Cr Ong A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Noted an amendment to the year for the 29

th May meeting.

Action: Meeting dates for 2015 to be confirmed with IMAP members after mayoral elections

10.. Progress Report 10.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the IMAP Progress Report for August

2014. MOVED CR MILES / Cr Ong A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

11. Action 9.4 Green Demonstration Projects – Distributed Energy A bound copy of the draft consultant report had been forwarded to Committee members by separate mail. Mr Adam Zaborszczyk, CoM attended for this item. He gave an overview of what the project set out to achieve and noted that 2 issues remained before we can complete the project:


5

1. Formatting updated data onto IMAP council data bases – resolvable subject to GIS staff availability

2. Editorial issues about the way the data has been presented. The report heavily features Melbourne with less emphasis on the other 3 municipalities. The reason is because of the way growth is represented in the other IMAP councils areas where it is harder to indicate change. It has been easier for Melbourne city as they had greater data available for locating change. CSIRO chose not to include that same level of data for other areas.

Growth data In response to questions Adam noted that councils had been asked to provide detailed data on growth. He was aware of some difficulties - such as Fishermans Bend growth information still being determined and modelled when CSIRO were modelling, but some assumptions were still made. Where growth information as not provided to CSIRO, they assumed the growth was the same overall. Cr Ong noted a review of structure plans indicated that the city was growing faster than was thought. He asked if other councils have done similar assessments? Ms Slatter noted Fishermans Bend strategic framework has just been finalised. Cr Stubbs noted Stonnington has been going through the zoning process – and now know where zones are going to be. The model may need an update. Adam noted that, following a request for high level coordination to get the data, the model has been based on the information available/supplied. The report does capture geographic growth, but evenly spreads it in the absence of better information. Opportunities to reduce energy consumption Adam gave a brief update by PowerPoint noting the source of data, the break down by economic sectors and how interrogation of data can yield information on what uses energy on each site e.g. cooling, hot water etc. This enables modelling of different interventions, e.g. hot water upgrades, lighting programs. GIS teams can do interactive mapping and interrogate the information in different ways. Refer detail pp 36 and 40. The report notes opportunities to reduce energy consumption using a range of scenarios. This aspect really is the value of the report (Pages 40/41). It identifies different scenarios. The project’s usefulness is not so much in the report as in the data. Next steps Adam noted there probably is not an opportunity to remodel the data based on growth. Team restructuring in CSIRO has created a lot of uncertainty hence urgency to complete the report. The Working Group plan to upload to CoM and IMAP open GIS platforms, and make the data available on national databases. A communication strategy will be developed and tailored to all Councils. Comments/Questions Cr Ong noted there are not a lot of conclusions – and that the improvement from interventions indicated is only around 2%. Adam clarified that Scenario A models an uptake rate without intervention or regulation – where the difference is not great in the early years. By 2026, Scenario B recognises more differences/benefits that later occur. The model assumes that current energy requirements in the planning schemes are adopted and that greater measures would be undertaken under Scenario B. Councillors noted that if we want to mandate changes to the planning schemes, we could bring on changes earlier. The Sustainable Buildings project in CoM has energy agreements but the uptake is slow. Should we make it law? We could also influence change through education. Ms Monk asked if the report considers energy consumption for street lighting – and was advised that the study includes buildings – mainly – as street lighting accounts for half of 1%. Cr Stubbs noted Chadstone shows up as a zero and asked for clarification later on – Adam is to get back to Cr Stubbs. Mr Phillips noted Pages 40-42 are the main thrust of this report – the data is relative, which is the key value out of this work. The Working Group could draw together an Action Plan about advocacy, what service providers can do etc. Adam noted that was where the Working Group want to focus their communications.


6

The Chair noted the IMAP councils could work together on interventions to get better outcomes. Ms Slatter asked if we are not 100% confident about the data, do we need to pause to get it? Prior to publication, maybe the Working Group could consider the implications? The Committee agreed to ask the Working Group to prepare an Action Plan, and to delete part b of the recommendation and reword it to reflect the discussion.

11.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. Note the completion of the project, pending the resolution of data formatting and editorial issues in the report; and

b. Request the Working Group prepare a recommendation to the next IMAP Implementation Committee meeting on the way forward, with an Action Plan based on the report’s findings.

MOVED CR ONG / Ms Slatter A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Action Mr Adam Zaborszczyk to provide clarification to Cr Stubbs regarding Chadstone results Project team to prepare Action Plan for the next meeting

12 Action 9.2 Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) – Commercial Buildings Mr Steven McKellar, Sustainable Design Architect, CoPP and Mr Euan Williamson, Environmental Sustainable Development Advisor, CoY attended for this item. Mr McKellar reviewed the project – 10 factsheets released in 2012 as information to planning applicants, & development of the IP licence to allow other councils to brand the Factsheets and alter best practice standards at the back of the Factsheets. Since then, 6 councils have proposed ESD planning policies and the Panel in April recommended the Factsheets be used as key reference documents for policy. This was reported back at the last meeting. The recommendation is that the Factsheets be developed as a consistent set. The Best Practice section needs to be locked down to achieve this. The report indicates a change in the structure from how we currently manage this – to adopting the process identified in the 2

nd diagram of the attached Governance

report. CASBE has 11 paying Councils and 20 Councils in total implementing Sustainable Design through the Planning Process (SDAPP). The new structure proposed in the report allows the recommendation of the Ministerial Advisory report to be implemented. CASBE is also developing a new assessment tool – and is seen as the best body to manage the process and govern the content of standards so they are consistent across Melbourne. Questions / Discussion In response to questions, Mr McKellar noted that CASBE can make decisions about best practice standards, but changes to the rest of the factsheet content comes back to IMAP. When asked why IMAP needs to continue its involvement, Mr McKellar said the legal advice was that IMAP should not transfer all its IP to CASBE. This protects IMAP. If it is transferred, IMAP has less control. Mr Williamson noted that by retaining IMAPs overseeing of content, it also retains IMAPs recognition of funding the Factsheet content. Ms Slatter commented that the proposal strikes the right balance, and she was satisfied IMAP’s interests are protected. She agreed with the proposed agreement arrangement subject to final ratification by legal counsel, and noted that IMAPs involvement can be reviewed at a later date. 12.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolve to:

a. Agree in principle the proposal outlined in the IMAP factsheets Governance report, subject to final approval from Corporate Counsel

b. Note the progress comments provided. MOVED MS SLATTER/ Cr Ong A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED


7

13. Action 2.2 Wayfinding Signage

Ms Helen Hardwick, Program Manager Tourism Policy and Strategy, CoM and Mr David Morison, Urban Designer, CoY attended for this item. Ms Hardwick noted the following key points: - Need to concentrate signage on the visitor entry points - Clarity in signage is required - Case studies from Legible London , Toronto 360 and I walk New York are helping inform the project for

best practice - Style Guide covers 2 points: Strategy (Vision and Role) and Implementation (Content, Siting/

frequency, Infrastructural design) - Expect agreement on content by December 2014 - Other elements will be completed by the end of 2015 The Executive Officer noted that each of the IMAP Councils will be asked to adopt the final policy once completed.

11 13.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the report of the Visitor Signage Coordinating Committee.

MOVED MS SLATTER / Cr Ong A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

14. Urban Manufacturing Mr Austin Ley, Manager City Research, CoM attended for this item. He noted the project aims to: - determine the value add from this sector, - develop an evidence base, - determine how effective strategies would be over time, - bring together work already done by the state government, and - work in partnership with Carlton Connect for funding. It is proposed that the project will be further scoped through the Investment Logic mapping process. Discussion/Questions Cr Ong noted some manufacturing developed nuisances, and zoning aspects needed to come into it when locating these in the urban area. Ms Slatter noted “urban manufacturing” may not be the right term. The old industry types are reducing, and the new industries are more neighbourly – low noise, low impact on the environment. The project will look at the planning implications. All discussions have been incredibly encouraging. The case is strong to proceed and University of Melbourne appear keen to participate. Cr Ong asked if IMAP could discuss with planning and complaints departments about urban manufacturing in areas of food production, regarding noise, smells and deliveries. Ms Slatter noted the problem is in defining Urban Manufacturing – but that she didn’t think it would include food producers. It would include more bespoke industries – arts, craft, fashion etc. Maybe we need to give it a new name?. Clearly defining what it includes is the first point under 7a of the report. Mr Salmon advised he had discussed this report with the Secretaries office – he recommended the report refer to a department nominee rather than the Secretary, and advised that the group still needs to formally ask Government for the funding to be considered (and included in the recommendation). Ms Slatter noted the steering group is asking IMAP to delegate to them so they can progress the project and the funding arrangements before government lock down. The Committee: - asked if final approval for funds would come back to the Committee. - noted the study would be over 18 months or so, so it may be possible to split funding contributions. - noted the state government would want to know more about the project first. - asked if the project would go ahead anyway if the $60K from state government was not forthcoming. Cr Stubbs advised he was not comfortable with delegation to the Steering Group as IMAP should acknowledge expenditure and preferred IMAP approve the project scope and expenditure, out-of-committee if required. Ms Slatter accepted the point of principle, but noted, in order to start negotiations in good faith with the University of Melbourne, the group needed to know there was support for the project,


8

and when talking with the state government needed to know the funding requirements there.

14.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to approve that the project steering group:

(1) progress the final project scope, aligned to the preliminary scope attached to this report, identifying key stages;

(2) progress the final funding arrangements comprising up to $150,000, with a contribution of up to $60,000 from State Government agencies (subject to a formal request for funding) and $18,000 from each IMAP member Council; and

(3) progress a partnership and matching funds from the University of Melbourne’s Carlton Connect initiative;

subject to final ratification from the IMAP Implementation Committee.

MOVED MS SLATTER / Cr Stubbs A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Action: Urban Manufacturing steering group to report back on scope and funding of the project.

15. Strategy 11 Regional Tourism Mr Barry McGuren, CoM attended for this item. There were no questions and the Committee thanked Mr McGuren for his attendance. 15.1 The IMAP Implementation Committee resolved to note the continuing work of the IMAP Tourism

Working Group MOVED CR STUBBS / Ms Slatter A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

16. Ratification of Out –of-Committee Decision: Action 11: IMAP Map Agreement with Destination Melbourne Ltd (DML) 16.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to ratify the decision to:

a. Approve the MELBOURNE OFFICIAL VISITOR MAP – PRODUCTION & DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT between the IMAP Councils and Destination Melbourne Ltd for a period of two (2) years, and a further one (1) year subject to approval of the parties, from the date the Agreement is executed.

b. Authorise the CEO's to sign the Production and Distribution Agreement on behalf of the IMAP

Councils.

MOVED CR ONG / Ms Slatter A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED

17 IMAP Plan Review The Executive Officer noted a summary of the workshop discussions would be circulated to Councillors and Executives at the 5 IMAP Councils. She noted a meeting of the Executive Forum was being arranged to discuss the format of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan. 17.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the current progress on the IMAP review

project. MOVED CR STUBBS / Cr Ong A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Action IMAP Executive Officer to circulate findings from the IMAP Review workshops


9

OTHER BUSINESS

Refer to item 4.

CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

The public and Associate Members were excluded for this item.

Procedural Motion: 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) (d) (Contractual Matters) and 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: 10.03am)

MOVED CR ONG / Cr Stubbs A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Confirmation of Minutes 18.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to confirm the Confidential minutes of the IMAP

Implementation Committee meeting No. 34 held on 30 May 2014.

MOVED CR ONG / Cr Stubbs A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED Procedural Motion: That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves that the meeting be re-opened to the public. (Time: 10.05am). MOVED Mr COCKRAM / Cr Stubbs A vote was taken and the MOTION was CARRIED The meeting closed at 10.05am. Next Meeting Friday 28 November 2014 (8.00am) City of Melbourne

IMAP Implementation Committee Meeting 29 August 2014 – Endorsement of Minutes

Chairperson: Cr Jackie Fristacky _____________________________ Date __________________


10

RESOLUTIONS 1.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to appoint Cr Jackie Fristacky as the Chair of

the Meeting.

2.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the following apologies: - Cr Amanda Stevens, Mayor, City of Port Phillip - Mr Alistair Miller, Acting Director City Planning & Infrastructure, City of Melbourne - Mr Jay Meek, Director Melbourne Central VGBO, DSDBI - Ms Vijaya Vaidyanath, Chief Executive Officer, City of Yarra - for leaving early

4.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to give:

in-principle support to 2 projects to be conducted jointly with the Regional Management Forum (RMF), being Integrated Delivery models and Measures of Liveability; and

commitment of up to $150,000 p.a. up to 2 years for IMAP funding; subject to this funding being matched by the Victorian State Government.

5.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to confirm the minutes of the IMAP Implementation Committee No. 34 held on 30 May 2014.

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 year ending 30 June 2014.

8.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to approve the IMAP Annual Report and Summary for 2013-14.

9.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to: a.note the Communications and Governance Briefing Paper; and b.approve the IMAP meeting schedule for 2015.

10.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the IMAP Progress Report for August 2014.

11.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. Note the completion of the project, pending the resolution of data formatting and editorial issues in the report; and

b. Request the Working Group prepare a recommendation to the next IMAP Implementation Committee meeting on the way forward, with an Action Plan based on the report’s findings.

12.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolve to: a. Agree in principle the proposal outlined in the IMAP factsheets Governance report, subject to

final approval from Corporate Counsel b. Note the progress comments provided.

13.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the report of the Visitor Signage Coordinating Committee.

14.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to approve that the project steering group:

(1) progress the final project scope, aligned to the preliminary scope attached to this report, identifying key stages;

(2) progress the final funding arrangements comprising up to $150,000, with a contribution of up to $60,000 from State Government agencies (subject to a formal request for funding) and $18,000 from each IMAP member Council; and

(3) progress a partnership and matching funds from the University of Melbourne’s Carlton Connect initiative;

subject to final ratification from the IMAP Implementation Committee.

15.1 The IMAP Implementation Committee resolved to note the continuing work of the IMAP Tourism Working Group

16.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to ratify the decision to: a. Approve the MELBOURNE OFFICIAL VISITOR MAP – PRODUCTION & DISTRIBUTION

AGREEMENT between the IMAP Councils and Destination Melbourne Ltd for a period of two (2) years, and a further one (1) year subject to approval of the parties, from the date the Agreement is executed.

b. Authorise the CEO's to sign the Production and Distribution Agreement on behalf of the IMAP


11

Councils.

17.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to note the current progress on the IMAP review project.

Procedural Motion: 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) (d) (Contractual Matters) and 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: 10.03am)

18.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to confirm the Confidential minutes of the IMAP

Implementation Committee meeting No. 34 held on 30 May 2014.

Procedural Motion: That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves that the meeting be re-opened to the public. (Time: 10.05am) ACTIONS PUBLIC RECORD Item Responsibility Action

Due

4 RMF projects

Executive officer RMF to be advised of the decision to support and fund the 2 projects over 2 years, subject to funding being matched by the state government

Sept 2014

6. Bus Arising

Executive officer/RMF officer

Executive Officer to advise Dr Butterworth that the group working on the RMF project could be interested in a presentation

Sept 2014

8. AR

Executive officer Annual report to be finalised and distributed ASAP

9 Comms & Gov

Executive officer Meeting dates for 2015 to be confirmed with IMAP members after mayoral elections

Nov 2014

11 Dist Energy map

Mr Adam Zaborszczyk, CoM

Mr Adam Zaborszczyk to provide clarification to Cr Stubbs regarding Chadstone results Project team to prepare Action Plan for the next meeting

Nov 2014

14 Urban Manuf’g

Austin Ley, CoM Urban Manufacturing steering group to report back on scope and funding of the project.

Nov 2014

17. IMAP rev

Executive officer IMAP Executive Officer to circulate findings from the IMAP Review workshops

Sept 2014


Inner Melbourne Action Plan Executive Forum 1

Minutes

Inner Melbourne Action Plan Executive Forum

Meeting No 15

9.00 – 10.00am Wednesday 10 September 2014

Karstens Conference Centre, 123 Queen Street, Melbourne Board Room, Room 1204, 12th level

Attendance:

IMAP Executive Forum

Warren Roberts – Chief Executive Officer, City of Stonington Geoff Lawler – Director City Planning and Infrastructure, City of Melbourne Vijaya Vaidyanath – Chief Executive Officer, City of Yarra Tracey Slatter – Chief Executive Officer, City of Port Phillip Nigel Higgins – Acting Chief Executive Officer, Maribyrnong City Council

IMAP

Elissa McElroy – IMAP Executive Officer

Consultants

IMAP Review Working Party

Mark Woodland, Echelon Planning consultants Cameron Martyn, Martyn Group consultants Melissa Rathje, Coordinator Corporate & Community Planning, CoS Leanne Hodyl, Team Leader Urban Planning, CoM Adam Mills, Senior Strategic Planner, CoM Katrina Terjung, Coordinator Strategic Planning, CoPP Morris Bellamy, Manager Strategic Marketing, Communications and Advocacy, CoMar

PRELIMINARIES

Item Agenda Topic

1 Appointment of Chair

1.1 That the IMAP Executive Forum resolves to appoint Mr Nigel Higgins as the Chair of the Meeting.

ITEMS

2 The IMAP Review – Format for the Draft Plan

MW reviewed his paper on outcomes of the Councillor /Executive and staff Forums.

Section 3: Priority Challenges

Sustainability had not been identified as a key outcome. It has important regional consequences. It was agreed that it was important to include Sustainability on its own as a priority Outcome.

Section 4: IMAP Functions

MW noted there had been real discussion at the workshop around Advocacy and further clarification was required from the Executive Forum:

Comments included

In the past IMAP had steered clear of advocacy, but it has come out strongly as part of this review as a future change. It was not about political lobbying. It is about having one voice in the central subregion, not fragmented, working together when talking with state government. This has been demonstrated on our agreement over Liveability, Urban Manufacturing etc. common platforms where the IMAP councils can come together in agreement.



There has to be consensus on projects like trams, urban forest etc.

It helps if the plan identifies what’s important and then advocates for what’s important to IMAP. IMAP shouldn't be a mouthpiece for “issues of the day”. If it was a strong single voice for the IMAP plan, no problem.

Councils are the elected body; IMAP doesn't overcome the legitimate role of elected councillors

The plan could become limiting if of long duration. It would need to be broader. This wording gives the opportunity to take forward anything we all agree on.

NH halted the discussion on advocacy for later.

MW noted the workshop had:

discussion around innovation and IMAP’s leadership role. a lot of discussion around shared services – although it identified the need for a cautionary

approach, to firstly investigate/ identify opportunities for sharing resources. Identified the need to spend some time on the governance framework. Need an Advocacy

framework which requires further discussion and scope.

Section 5 IMAP Vision

The existing one is all encompassing and long. Noted the need to review the Vision and emphasise liveability, sustainability etc.

Section 6 Priority Outcomes

MW acknowledged these Outcomes need a bit of rewording, still a bit generic. Technical groups will work on the wording.

Comment:

The outcomes need to help clarify the significant priorities, before we can develop the actions further.

Section 7 Project Criteria

MW noted there had been a lot of feedback but general agreement on criteria for projects. One issue for clarification is whether the 5 councils need consensus or not to select projects?

Comments:

Consensus is a strength of IMAP; cooperation between the Councils is important. Collective understanding has been the failsafe in the past, but that it was then up to individual councils whether they implement the recommendations from a project

When one council has a different view, but still agrees to the project, that is OK.

There have been issues when council has not agreed with a project, but they will continue with it anyway. A council could walk away if not they were not happy with the majority view.

Majority not a good way to go. It doesn't need to be of equal benefit to all councils, but it’s important not to be against it. It might be harder to get consensus further down the track if majority is the start point.

Section 8 Integrating IMAP with other planning forums

MW noted a typo on the IMAP council’s circle in the diagram. Note to bring the 2 MPA circles together, as one organisation.

Section 9 Proposed structure of the IMAP document

MW described the matrix proposal. If trying to achieve a particular outcome, there are multiples of advocacy, research and projects etc. that would go into it.

The strategies would go into the white space It’s possible with this approach to select projects for the year annually, which gives flexibility.

Comments:

IMAP is a plan of things to do. The outcome side could articulate short, medium and long term strategies.

Further comments on Advocacy:

What advocacy is about in relation to IMAP:

Advocacy is about “representation” – and likely to be short term, unless the plan talks about advocacy as a separate form of work that IMAP undertakes.

Advocacy is about ways of persuading, one voice.

We can only be persuasive once we create a basis on which people will listen to you. If we create IMAP



as a source of knowledge and information on the region, doing the work creates a power that then becomes a point of reference in its own right.

We need to unpack our reputation/brand etc. and understand how IMAP councils are perceived and act; the way we are seen. It is reasonable that the IMAP councils should have one voice, as depicted in the diagram. We are one area. When we go to speak with these groups (MPS, RMF etc.) the IMAP councils should have a view. Without that view, that's what makes us anxious. We then have to work it all out, all over again, each time.

IMAP is a work plan. Having one voice for the plan and what it stands for, is almost another thing outside of the Actions we do. There are some functions that help to create a brand, and developing collateral for certain things which will attract others to come to find out and learn from our example, is powerful advocacy, developed through doing.

Fully support the concept of advocacy, the outcomes of the region are supported in principle; it’s an important shift.

What we would advocate on

How would you use this framework to give a position on advocacy? – maybe not put it as a “to do” necessarily

Keep the Advocacy column there and collect examples of what could be considered.

Advocacy is not necessarily an activity in its own right – is at the end point of a project. Advocacy is a tool. MAV and others advocate on behalf of local government. If IMAP have credibility and focus as a unified group delivering a series of actions in the plan, advocacy from work done on the plan is an end point.

IMAP is a subcommittee of 5 councils to deliver the plan. It’s about one voice, commonalities, what we value as a region. IMAP’s advocacy should not be any wider than this. IMAP Councils want to achieve common projects/outcomes through IMAP, and will advocate for those to deliver the outcome.

How IMAP can create a stronger group

IMAP at the moment is a number of parts – and this review is seen as a great opportunity to have a stronger group form.

The IMAP councils should be more articulate about their priorities given their long association

We need to think more about this. Get the CEOs for one more bite at this before it goes anywhere else. CEOs are the ones championing at the RMF and MPA and we need to be clear on this.

If the IMAP councils haven’t one voice, it indicates the current IMAP doesn't work in their minds. There is a cohesive view in the current plan – but it is clearly out of date if it’s not generally known. To ensure longevity in this thing, we need to note this need to review earlier.

It's now a changed environment – with Plan Melbourne and MPA’s delivery. Outcomes are to some extent predetermined. CEOs are to “challenge the paradigm” in the inner city. Other metro areas have more contemporary projects as they are more recently established. Ours needs the update.

Reviewing the vision and outcomes to reflect discussion

To progress this, MW noted he will try to reframe the Vision with the PCG and come back to the next meeting to review.

The existing Vision gives a strong sense of diversity in the region – this is not coming through strongly enough in the priorities. Villages/places/heritage are important in describing the city.

Agreed outcome statements need work. Outcomes which could differentiate us e.g. global significance of our economy is strongly relevant, diverse vibrant inclusive communities – how do we show our point of difference.

Victoria is more highly dependent on Inner Melbourne for its economy now. We have a collective responsibility in the inner city for the rest of the state. This comes through strongly in the recent Grattan Institute work.

It was agreed that further work is required as discussed which will be reviewed by the Executive Forum at a later date. The IMAP Executive Officer noted the next item discusses the process for further review.

Actions: 1. Include Sustainability on its own as a priority Outcome. 2. Need an Advocacy framework which requires further discussion and scope. 3. Need to review the Vision and emphasise liveability, sustainability etc. 4. Need to reword the Outcomes, still a bit generic. Outcomes which could differentiate us e.g. global significance of

our economy is strongly relevant, diverse vibrant inclusive communities 5. Need to amend the organisation diagram - bring the 2 MPA circles together, as one organisation.

6. Reframe the Vision with the PCG and come back to the next meeting to review.



3 The IMAP Review – Consultation and Approval process

The Executive Officer noted the need to book dates for the next Councillor workshop and determine the process for getting the draft plan before the IMAP Councils. After some discussion it was agreed:

The draft IMAP would go to the November meeting of the IMAP Implementation Committee to consider the budget implications and approve the draft plan for council consultation.

The draft plan would then go to the IMAP council briefings and council meetings for adoption during December/January – thus avoiding the October/November period around election of Mayors.

The plan would then be referred to the next IMAP Implementation Committee meeting at the end of February for approval. (A further round of council briefings may be required if considerable changes have been made during this process.)

The Executive Officer was asked to resubmit dates and process for delivery and send an amended recommendation around the members for final approval.

There was some discussion on Public Consultation. It was noted that this was undertaken last time, with limited public engagement. It was suggested the plan be on exhibition while the councils view it via an online based process.

Actions: 1. Report back to the IMAP Executive Forum on reviewed process and dates for the IMAP Review 2. Include on-line public consultation in the IMAP Review timeline during the Council consultation phase

4 RMF Projects

The Executive Officer advised funding for the RMF projects had been requested by state government so a Project Manager position could be approved by the state government by November. She noted that she had been advised that there was some flexibility in the timeline for this. However, if payment was to occur prior to the November IMAP meeting, the process for this was unclear as there was no provision in the current year’s budget and an amendment would be required.

The members noted implementation of the RMF projects required their further discussion with the RMF and chairman Dean Yates.

Action:

1. IMAP Council CEOs to have further discussions with the RMF on the implementation and funding of the 2 projects.

OTHER BUSINESS

There was no other business. The meeting closed at 10.00am

ACTIONS

2. IMAP Review Include Sustainability on its own as a priority Outcome.

Need an Advocacy framework which requires further discussion and scope.

Need to review the Vision and emphasise liveability, sustainability etc.

Need to reword the Outcomes, still a bit generic. Outcomes which could differentiate us e.g. global significance of our economy is strongly relevant, diverse vibrant inclusive communities

Need to amend the organisation diagram - bring the 2 MPA circles together, as one organisation.

Reframe the Vision with the PCG and come back to the next meeting to review.

3. IMAP Review – Consultation and Approval process

Exec officer to report back to the IMAP Exec Forum on reviewed process and dates for the IMAP Review

Include on-line public consultation in the IMAP Review timeline during the Council consultation phase.

4. RMF Projects

IMAP Council CEOs to have further discussions with the RMF on the implementation and funding of the 2 projects



Minutes

Inner Melbourne Action Plan Executive Forum

Meeting No 16

2.45pm – 4.00pm Friday 14 November 2014

City of Stonnington Council Chamber, Malvern Town Hall

Attendance:

IMAP Executive Forum

Warren Roberts – Chief Executive Officer, City of Stonnington Geoff Lawler – Director City Planning and Infrastructure, City of Melbourne Vijaya Vaidyanath – Chief Executive Officer, City of Yarra Tracey Slatter – Chief Executive Officer, City of Port Phillip Stephen Wall – Chief Executive Officer, Maribyrnong City Council

IMAP

Elissa McElroy – IMAP Executive Officer

Consultants

IMAP Project Control Group

Mark Woodland, Echelon Planning consultants Cameron Martyn, Martyn Group consultants Leanne Hodyl, Team Leader Urban Planning, City of Melbourne Adam Mills, Senior Strategic Planner, City of Melbourne Katrina Terjung, Coordinator Strategic Planning, City of Port Phillip Karen Watson, General Manager Sustainable Future, City of Stonnington Ross Goeman, Manager Community Planning & Advocacy, City of Yarra Bruce Phillips, Director City Development, City of Yarra Brooke Colbert, Community Advocacy Coordinator, City of Yarra Morris Bellamy, Manager Strategic Marketing,Comms & Advocacy, Maribyrnong City Council Alana MacWhirter, Senior Precinct Structure Planner, Metropolitan Planning Authority Jane Monk, Director Inner City, Metropolitan Planning Authority

PRELIMINARIES

Item Agenda Topic

1 Appointment of Chair

1.1 That the IMAP Executive Forum resolves to appoint Mr Warren Roberts as the Chair of the Meeting.

MOVED/SECONDED T SLATTER/ V Vaidyanath

2 Apologies

Maribyrnong City Council - Mary Ciliak, Matt Slavin, Adrian Havryluk, Katy McMahon City of Port Phillip - Richard Brice, George Borg, Sally Moxham City of Yarra - Sherry Hopkins, David Walmsley, Craig Kenny City of Stonnington - Melissa Rathje, Susan Price, Rick Kwasek City of Melbourne - Robert Moore, David Mayes Metropolitan Planning Authority - Emily Mottram The Chair extended a welcome to Stephen Wall who was attending his first IMAP meeting.



ITEMS 2 Business Arising

The Executive Officer reviewed the work that had been undertaken to address the points raised on the IMAP Review at the last meeting of the Executive Forum in September.

3 The IMAP Review – Discussion on content of the first draft

Mark Woodland, Echelon Planning reviewed the PowerPoint that had been circulated. He noted:

Outcomes and vision had been revised

60-70 staff had participated in the reference group workshops

Potential projects had been identified which helped develop discussion on the strategies IMAP needs to take on

Draft included 26 strategies and 70 or so potential actions – which were there to illustrate what the strategies might achieve

Possible structure of IMAP noted the Vision (fine-tuned with input from the PCG, reflecting liveability), Mission (what the purpose of IMAP might be), Strategies (built around the 5 parts of the Vision plus a governance section in IMAP) and Actions (- it is expected the decision making process will scope these out using the project criteria).

Comments/Questions VISION There was some discussion about whether this Vision was sufficiently “forward-looking”. It is not recognising that there is quite a lot of change ahead. Suggestions included:

Melbourne “will continue to be” internationally recognised…

Melbourne “maintains its” international recognition…”in light of the growth challenges”.

The vision is about improving liveability – noting that it needs to get better.

Need to enhance our city

Resilience could be considered.

MW summarised the need to address that the IMAP area: (1) continues to be recognised and maintains its liveability (2) enhances liveability in the light of growth challenges MW noted that the document will also talk about what is going on in the City, so that the Vision will not sit on its own. Action: Email to CEOs any changes to the Vision for comment MISSION Comments queried “One Region One Voice” - each council has issues which are not dealt with through IMAP. Suggestions included:

One voice for the region

Opportunities for collaboration

Advocating for the region “One voice in respect to shared projects and priorities” received general agreement. STRATEGIES 1. Comments queried what we are now meaning by “strategies”? They are almost “topics for

collaboration”.

A strategy generally means you go from here to there.

Generally uninspiring – don’t make a lurch forward from the Vision.

As currently structured they are not strategies. They could be reworded so in themselves they note a shift; or else change what they are called. E.g. the whole thing is a “collaborative strategy” and these become “themes” or “key topics”.

Identify what is the difference we are going to see in Inner Melbourne in 10 years time once we are



finished. Therefore, what shift will we see? E.g. a significant shift in transport mode – if this is the case, what would be the key interventions to put this in place? If you come back the other way to identify the strategy, you get a better outcome.

How much more global and more connected do we need to be to support our vision?

Use the criteria established to deduct the strategies as well as the projects. This could help to do the strategic filtering.

The potential of IMAP is probably greater in its next iteration. It is worth doing the work, and getting excited by it.

Agreed it would be worth putting the effort in now to articulate what is the change we want to make.

MW noted that what “end state we are aiming for” has not yet been articulated. May need to reconvene groups, which would affect the timetable. More time to think and develop ideas would help. He agreed that there would be measures of success in the document.

2. Identifying what we can do collaboratively to build social and service aspects of our region needs more

work. It was suggested that EM and MW meet with the IMAP Directors of Community Services to identify the opportunities for collaboration that they have been exploring. May fit under “Community Building – schools, homelessness etc.

Actions:

Incorporate or identify whether there are synergies in community planning and add in work being done on social services and community building into this Review.

Refocus the strategic statements so they take us somewhere. TIMETABLE

Is it critical if we extend this? It would be better to spend the time to get it right. What’s done already has enabled the questions to be asked now. Good work has been done but it is not in a form to really improve our region.

We must be able to articulate the outcomes we want to see. Turn a shopping list of ideas into things that will really make a difference. Explain what we do through the Plan that is compelling and will pass the regional filter. Have to describe to the reader what we really want.

Next steps

Suggest MW take the current content and put the “magic” into it. The box of projects is a great resource to build on.

Not practical to write an aspirational project by committee.

We have now assembled all the ideas and all the detail. The work that has gone into this has been excellent. Now we need to interrogate this and value add. Fit into reworded strategies which are empowered and forward looking.

Important to refine rather than expand. Smaller in number but greater in impact.

Whatever goes in the box, has to be within the Councils capacity to do.

MPA happy to be involved as a filter, once others have crafted this. MW suggested using a small group as a sounding board. The executive will identify 1 officer from each Council to be the litmus test. Karen Watson and Leanne Hodyl were nominated for Stonnington and Melbourne. The Task: For each of the 5 vision dot points, in 10 years time, what will be the differences (in measurable steps) that we will see in Melbourne compared with now, and what are the key catalyst actions to drive us in this direction/ bring this about. Suggestion made to add in Community GMs and Planning GMs to help with this task. Action: MW plus 5 representatives (and Community Services GM input into one of the existing strategies) will work together on the draft, to broaden the capacity of IMAP; to infiltrate organisations and be relevant – and to report back for feedback from the wider group.



TRAFFIC LIGHT ANALYSIS MW noted this is a useful way to sort out priorities. We need to think about strategies achieving multiple outcomes Strategies are also important to help select future IMAP projects. He suggested that, going forward:

1. IMAP establish ongoing working groups , that provide peer review, support actions and incubate ideas.

2. Develop a more formal footing around scoping projects 3. Integrate the IMAP cycle and Council dates. Take time to develop a business case that passes the

Executive Forum then the Committee to settle the budget. This then goes into Council plans for implementation.

4. The Business case is to take its cue from the strategy. 5. If the document elevates certain things, this will make us settle on the large items and not the

peripheries.

There was general agreement that this was a good governance approach. The timetable was right for the Council budget cycle – could be earlier. The Plan will look like an SRP going forward so Councils will have a steer on what’s coming up. JM noted there is opportunity for a regional planning process for councils to partner with government. A line that recognises how that linkage will be made would assist. IMAP projects could be delivered through/in conjunction with MPA projects – a state response and a council response together – complementarity. MONITORING

The Monitoring part of the process would utilise the liveability indicators to be developed through the RMF project.

We need to ensure we frame the indicators around our 5 areas.

Good quality indicators are required, and not too many different ones.

Important to interact with that group. Next steps/Actions:

Need to rework the work plan going forward.

The timeframe needs to be set and the next Executive Forum meeting identified.

The Forum on the 19 November is to be cancelled due to the reworking of the plan.

All dates will change.

Update Councillors on the time frame for delivery so they are aware of what is happening. The Chair thanked everyone on the PCG for their contribution and ongoing work. Members of the PCG left the meeting.

4 IMAP Three Year Implementation Plan/RMF funding

The Executive Officer tabled a copy of the current budget and identified the RMF and Urban manufacturing projects below the line. She sought clarification on how the IMAP councils wanted to fund these projects so that this could be presented at the IMAP Committee on the 28 November.

Comments/Questions

The Chair noted the RMF projects are outside IMAP and should be separately funded from the IMAP budget. This ensures we don’t complicate the IMAP projects and budgets with other matters. He suggested the Councils pay the $20K contribution separately.

It was noted that it was logical for these projects to be IMAP projects but funded separately. The funds can be invoiced by IMAP and paid to the state government.

There is a resolution by a committee of Council to spend money to support these projects. Since the State Government has supported the conditions of the project and met the requirement to match the funds, IMAP only needs a resolution now at the IMAP Implementation Committee to amend this years budget.

Austin Ley and Nigel Higgins are on the recruitment panel for appointment of the Project Manager.



GL noted a recent London decision on liveability indicators. Melbourne currently used 70% of them. The project needs to work out how relevant they are to local circumstances. They will build on Melbourne’s indicators and align internationally.

It was agreed to include the following in the report on the Three year Implementation Plan:

the RMF will be paid for out of additional funding this year by the 5 IMAP Councils. Note recruitment is occurring and the state government has met funding requirements

The Urban Manufacturing project will remain below the line while it remains only a proposal; it remains supported in principle (can be a note to the budget as a contingent liability).

No change to the IMAP contribution is proposed. While maintaining the level of funding, we can still review the current projects in the plan to allow for the UM project once approved. Lower proirity projects can be moved out.

All funding priorities can be reviewed again following adoption of the new plan.

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 4.15pm.

ACTIONS

3. IMAP Review

Email to CEOs any changes to the Vision for comment

Incorporate or identify whether there are synergies in community planning and add in work being done on social services and community building into this Review.

Refocus the strategic statements so they take us somewhere.

MW plus 5 representatives (and Community Services GM input into one of the existing strategies) will work together on the draft, to broaden the capacity of IMAP; to infiltrate organisations and be relevant – and to report back for feedback from the wider group.

Need to rework the work plan going forward.

The timeframe needs to be set and the next Executive Forum meeting identified.

The Forum on the 19 November is to be cancelled due to the reworking of the plan.

All dates will change.

Update Councillors on the time frame for delivery so they are aware of what is happening.

4.Three Yr Imp plan

Include the following in the report on the Three year Implementation Plan:

the RMF will be paid for out of additional funding this year by the 5 IMAP Councils. Note recruitment is occurring and the state government has met funding requirements

The Urban Manufacturing project will remain below the line while it remains only a proposal; it remains supported in principle (can be a note to the budget as a contingent liability).

No change to the IMAP contribution is proposed. While maintaining the level of funding, we can still review the current projects in the plan to allow for the UM project once approved. Lower proirity projects can be moved out.

All funding priorities can be reviewed again following adoption of the new plan.


Report prepared by Elissa McElroy IMAP Executive Officer

IMAP Implementation Committee Business Arising

28 November 2014

A IMAP Implementation Committee (18 November 2011) Responsibility Action Due Progress 16 Action 5.2 Housing

IMAP Executive Officer and Action 5.2 project team

Action 5.2 Project team to: Brief City of Maribyrnong representatives on

Housing overlay and CLT research

TBA

On Hold: To be undertaken as part of Stage 2 CLT project

B 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 In Progress: met with VCGLR 3 May & 18 October 2012

C IMAP Implementation Committee (1 March 2013) Responsibility Action Due Progress 5 Bus Arising

IMAP Committee IMAP members to consider the proposal to undertake a Capacity Audit of inner Melbourne’s social and built infrastructure.

TBA

Referred to IMAP Review process

D IMAP Implementation Committee (30 August 2013) Responsibility Action Due Progress 5. Comms & Governance

Executive Officer

Investigate amendments to the Operational Protocol (i.e. Section 11.1a. Unanimous votes and b. Majority votes) and Procurement Strategy (legislative changes) and arrange for final approval

Sept 2013

In Progress – being finalised

9. Progress Report

Executive Officer

Approach VicRoads to see if their network operating plans could be brought together for the IMAP Councils

Nov 2013

10. Action 11 Map

Executive Officer Follow up changes to the IMAP map MoU to include Maribyrnong City Council

Oct 2013 In Progress – seeking legal comment on changes

E IMAP Implementation Committee (28 February 2014) Responsibility Action Due Progress 9. Comms & Governance

Executive Officer Executive Officer to forward information regarding the WSUD planning amendment to the Maribyrnong City Council for consideration

March 2014

11. Action 3.5 Thru traffic

Ms Liew, VicRoads

Ms Liew to look at what extension/wider insights could be achieved from the freight Origin & Destination study and report back.

TBA

11. Action 3.5 Thru traffic

Mr Haining/Ms Dallas MaribyrnongCC

Mr Haining/Ms Dallas MaribyrnongCC to convene technical experts from across the IMAP Councils to investigate extensions to current freight studies and report back.

TBA

F IMAP Implementation Committee (30 May 2014) Responsibility Action Due Progress 9 Action 3.5 Thru traffic

Action 3.5 Project team

Action 3.5 project team to: a. arrange amendments to the Final Report

with JACOBS Consultants (formerly Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd);

b. refer actions to the relevant authority and to the IMAP Review process as indicated by the IMAP Committee;

c. arrange for a Word version of the Final Report for IMAP records;

d. arrange for all data modelling to be supplied by the consultants in the required digital formats to the IMAP Councils and the IMAP Executive Officer for inclusion on the IMAP GIS and website.

July 2014 In progress

13 Other Bus

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

ASAP



G IMAP Implementation Committee (29 August 2014) Responsibility Action Due Progress 4 RMF projects

Executive officer

RMF to be advised of the decision to support and fund the 2 projects over 2 years, subject to funding being matched by the state government

Sept 2014

Completed

6. Bus Arising

Executive officer/RMF officer

Executive Officer to advise Dr Butterworth that the group working on the RMF project could be interested in a presentation

Sept 2014

Completed

8. AR

Executive officer Annual report to be finalised and distributed ASAP In progress

9 Comms & Gov

Executive officer Meeting dates for 2015 to be confirmed with IMAP members after mayoral elections

Nov 2014 Completed

11 Dist Energy map

Adam Zaborszczyk, CoM

Mr Adam Zaborszczyk to provide clarification to Cr Stubbs regarding Chadstone results. Project team to prepare Action Plan for the next meeting

Nov 2014 Deferred until Feb meeting

14 Urban Manuf’g

Austin Ley, CoM Urban Manufacturing steering group to report back on scope and funding of the project.

Nov 2014 Refer Item 12 Attachment 9

17. IMAP rev

Executive officer IMAP Executive Officer to circulate findings from the IMAP Review workshops

Sept 2014 Completed

H IMAP Executive Forum # 15 (10 September 2014) Responsibility Action Due Progress 2. IMAP Review Executive Officer • Include Sustainability on its own as a priority

Outcome. • Need an Advocacy framework which

requires further discussion and scope. • Need to review the Vision and emphasise

liveability, sustainability etc. • Need to reword the Outcomes, still a bit

generic. Outcomes which could differentiate us e.g. global significance of our economy is strongly relevant, diverse vibrant inclusive communities

• Need to amend the organisation diagram - bring the 2 MPA circles together, as one organisation.

• Reframe the Vision with the PCG and come back to the next meeting to review.

TBA Completed In progress Redrafted Redrafted Referred to consultant for noting Redrafted.

3. IMAP Review – Consultation and Approval process

Executive Officer • Executive officer to report back to the IMAP Exec Forum on reviewed process and dates for the IMAP Review

• Include on-line public consultation in the IMAP Review timeline during the Council consultation phase.

TBA Completed. Refer Item 11 Attachment 8 Completed. Noted for timeline

4. RMF Projects

IMAP CEOs IMAP Council CEOs to have further discussions with the RMF on the implementation and funding of the 2 projects

TBA Completed Refer item 13 Attachment 10

I IMAP Executive Forum # 16 (14 November 2014) Responsibility Action Due Progress 3. IMAP Review Executive Officer • Email to CEOs any changes to the Vision for

comment • Incorporate or identify whether there are

synergies in community planning and add in work being done on social services and community building into this Review.

• Refocus the strategic statements so they take us somewhere.

• MW plus 5 representatives (and Community Services GM input into one of the existing strategies) will work together on the draft, to broaden the capacity of IMAP; to infiltrate organisations and be relevant – and to report back for feedback from the wider group.

• Need to rework the work plan going forward. • The timeframe needs to be set and the next

Executive Forum meeting identified.

Refer item 11, Attachment 8



• The Forum on the 19 November is to be cancelled due to the reworking of the plan.

• All dates will change. • Update Councillors on the time frame for

delivery so they are aware of what is happening.

Completed Refer item 11 Att 8

Correspondence

From

Regarding

4a Email U Meier, City Research, City of Melbourne Knowledge City Strategy 4b Email K Coster, Moreland City Council Review of Moreland’s Industrial land 4c Emails (2) D Burgess, Arborist Article “Contract tree growing for Councils is a Win-Win” 4d Emails (2) Cheryl Hardy, DSDBI Registering for dot Melbourne domain names 4e Letter J Arena, CEO Procurement Australia Member services 4f Email A Zaborszczyk, City of Melbourne Renewable Energy Purchasing Group

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: Urs Meier [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2014 11:48 AMTo: Elissa McElroySubject: RELEASE OF THE CITY OF MELBOURNE KNOWLEDGE CITY STRATEGY

Dear Elissa,

RELEASE OF THE CITY OF MELBOURNE KNOWLEDGE CITY STRATEGY

In July, the City of Melbourne invited you to provide input into the development of its Knowledge City strategy. A high response rate to the survey of knowledge sector individuals and organisations has allowed us to develop a well-informed strategy, available now for your review here.

The strategy is an articulation of the City of Melbourne’s role in supporting and promoting the knowledge sector. It identifies 18 action areas we will complete over the four years of the strategy. Its subtitle, “Strengthening Melbourne’s knowledge sector through collaboration” is a reflection of our strong interest in working with our partners to further these actions.

We look forward to the opportunity of working together and I welcome your contact at any time to discuss this possibility.

Kind regards,

Urs

Urs Meier | Partnerships and Collaborations Officer | City Research

City of Melbourne | Council House 1, 200 Little Collins Street Melbourne 3000 | GPO Box 1603 Melbourne 3001 T: 03 9658 9445 | M: 0400 741 153 | W: www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/knowledge

We value: Integrity | Courage | Accountability | Respect | Excellence

Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this email.

This email is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated please delete it immediately.

Attachment 4a

Moreland City Counci

Elissa McElroyExecutive OfficerInner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP)PO Box 21PRAHRAN VIC 3181

Dear Ms McElroy

REVIEW OF MORELAND'S INDUSTRIAL LAND

Moreland City CouncilMunicipal Offices9 0 Bell StreetCoburgVictoria 3058

Postal AddressLocked Bag 10MorelandVictoria 3058Telephone: 9 2 4 0 1111Facsimile: 9 2 9 0 1212

CRS No. N/AKral: 014/291723Doc. No. 014/294886Eng: Kate ShearerTel: 9240 1260

I am writing to advise you that the Moreland Industrial Land Use Strategy (MILUS) is beingreviewed, and to invite your organisations participation in the review. Both themanufacturing sector and aspects of the supporting land use planning framework haveundergone significant change over the last ten years, and it is appropriate to review andupdate MILUS in light of this.

What is the Moreland Industrial Land Use Strategy (MILUS)

The MILUS is a planning strategy that guides the future use and development of industrialland in Moreland.

The MILUS is being reviewed to ensure it continues to support industry and employmentopportunities in Moreland.

Review of the MILUS

Council is currently undertaking research, and consulting with landowners, businessoperators and stakeholders to understand:

• the needs of Moreland's industries and related businesses and plans for the future,• the advantages and disadvantages of doing business in Moreland,• what Council can do to improve the situation for existing businesses, and• the future intentions of property owners who lease their property to business.

Submissions

Council invites you to provide a written submission that outlines the issues you considerthe MILUS review should cover. I encourage you to contribute your views as it is importantCouncil hears from the range of stakeholders likely to be affected.Please email or post a submission to:

Email submissions: industrialreviewamoreland vic ciov.au

Moreland Language LinkCI(M 92801910 fitt 92801918Milano 9290 1911 92800750ainviKa 9280 1912 ItRnEft 92800751wrofr 92801913Thrice 9280 1914 A8 other languages"Deng V101 92801915 9280 1919

Attachment 4b

Post submissions' MILUS ReviewStrategic Planning UnitMoreland City CouncilLocked Bag 10MORELAND VIC 3058

The closing date for submission is 17 October 2014. If you require further time pleasecontact Council.

Please be aware that Council or Council's Consultant may contact you directly to discussspecific issues as the project progresses. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Further Information

Visit Council's website athttp://www.moreland.vic.uov.au/buildinq−and−planninq/planninq−policy/industrial−land−use−stratectv.htmlfor further information on the MILUS review project,

including stages and timing, and to register your interest in the review to receive regularupdates.

If you have any queries in relation to the review of Moreland's industrial land, please don'thesitate to contact Council's Strategic Planning Unit on 9240 1111 or via email onindustrialreviewmoreland.vic qov.au

Yours sincerely

Ktrsten CosterDIRECTOR PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

01 / 10 / 2014

1

Elissa McElroy

Subject: FW: tree planting contractsAttachments: Contract Tree Growing for Councils is a 'Win Win'.pdf

From: Damien Burgess [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, 3 October 2014 1:36 PM To: Elissa McElroy; 'Procurement - Joe Arena'

Subject: tree planting contracts

Hi Elissa & Joe,

As discussed (with Elissa) please find attached a copy of an article I’ve written which will be published in an

upcoming issue of Groundswell, the Nursery Industry’s magazine. Copy to you guys as a courtesy as your

organisations get a mention.

I did send you an email a while back Joe but haven’t heard anything.

Cheers

Damien.

phone: 0422 999 754

email: [email protected]

web: www.dbhorticulture.com

Disclaimer: This message along with attachments is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email you must not use, distribute, copy or rely on any information contained in this email. If you have received this transmission in error, please delete it immediately from your system and inform the sender.

Attachment 4c

1

Elissa McElroy

From: Damien Burgess [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, 15 September 2014 9:51 PMTo: Elissa McElroySubject: tree planting

Hi Elissa,

My name is Damien Burgess. I’m a consulting Arborist/horticulturist and am conducting some independent research

around street tree planting across greater Melbourne Councils. I have had some involvement in IMAP issues in my

previous roles with the City of Port Phillip as Manager Parks & Open Space and Manager Infrastructure Services a

few years back.

Are you able to tell me if there is anything happening under the IMAP banner in relation to street tree planting. Eg:

Are there any joint initiatives to plant more trees between the member Councils, any collaborating on areas which

border member councils like St Kilda Road or Victoria Parade, Punt Rd etc..? Any targets for the member councils in

their totality?

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Damien.

phone: 0422 999 754

email: [email protected]

web: www.dbhorticulture.com

This email (including attachments) may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender

immediately. Unauthorised copying, delivery or use of this email is strictly prohibited.

Attachment 4c

Contract Tree Growing for Councils is a ‘Win-Win’

By Damien Burgess

The development of Capital works programs for Councils is an annual event and although many

projects require staged planning over several years before they can be implemented, the funding

required for each stage is never guaranteed. As each year’s capital works wish-list gets refined,

projects inevitably get culled or scaled down to meet budget allocations. Thankfully, one area that

seems to always get a healthy funding allocation is street tree planting. Whenever communities are

surveyed, you can bet that ‘more trees’ will be somewhere near the top of their wish list. This is

particularly so for inner-urban Councils, which are also often the ones with the healthiest budgets

and the most advanced in their vision and planning for the urban forest.

Most metropolitan Councils have precinct-based plans and a palette of preferred tree species,

closely linked to Neighbourhood character studies. Combined with a well maintained data-base to

tell them what trees should be replaced; and when, almost everything is in place for Councils to

deliver a strategic, long-term succession plan for their trees.

Why then are there so few long-term tree growing contracts in place between Councils and

commercial tree nurseries?

Each year Councils provide their contractors with a stock list of trees for the coming planting season.

This could occur in January or as late as April and may still be getting refined right up to June. In the

meantime the contractor is making lots of phone calls to nurseries, travelling around the countryside

to look at stock and scrambling to meet the quality, quantities and contractually agreed price of their

client(s). If they compromise on quality and the stock fails, they carry the responsibility of replacing

it at their own cost and to the potential detriment of their reputation. They are often working

against the clock to get trees planted before the onset of summer, knowing that the later they plant,

the higher the resource required to establish new trees and the higher the risk of failure.

Elsewhere, nurserymen are fielding a flurry of calls from contractors and plant brokers, attempting

to predict the future needs of Councils and trying to deliver a quality product which is established

enough to leave the nursery, ready for the rigours of our harsh urban environments.

This is not an ideal scenario for any of the stakeholders involved. There has to be a better way.

This year the City of Melbourne awarded a new 5-year contract for Tree Planting. The contract

specification is very comprehensive in regard to the quality of the tree stock to be supplied, planting

technique and maintenance requirements for the first two years. One of the key changes to this

contract from the previous specification is that the trees must now conform to NATSPEC

requirements. NATSPEC is based on ‘Specifying Trees, A Guide to Assessment of Tree Quality’ by

Ross Clark (2003). Whilst this is clearly a comprehensive guide to growing high quality trees, it is

seen by many experienced and reputable nurserymen in Victoria as overly prescriptive and not

taking into consideration the variable habit and form of some species, which can be quite different

when grown in different parts of Australia. The nursery industry does however support a national

standard as the way of the future and Standards Australia is close to finalising a national standard for

tree stock for landscape use. NATSPEC is more established in New South Wales and Queensland and

Attachment 4c

although Victorian Nurseries are considered by many to produce the best quality trees in Australia,

none are actually able to tick all of the boxes required by NATSPEC.

Based on this, there is a fair chance that the City of Melbourne will either have to be prepared to

plant less trees than it would like, over the next few years or it will have to be prepared to plant

trees that, whilst of high quality, will not necessarily comply with NATSPEC.

The City of Melbourne has invested heavily in its ‘Urban Forest Strategy 2012 – 2032’. This document

provides an excellent vision and framework for the future and includes an ‘Implementation

Framework’ and ‘Priority Implementation Actions’ however neither of these sections mention long-

term planting plans or the establishment of growing contracts to ensure availability of the stock it

needs. The absence of a long-term supply and planting plan could hamper the City’s efforts towards

its desired outcome which is to ‘increase the tree canopy coverage in the municipality from 22 per

cent to 40 per cent by 2040.’

In 2005, Melbourne City, along with the Cities of Stonnington, Yarra and Port Phillip formed the

Inner-Melbourne Action Plan, known as IMAP. In 2013, the City of Maribyrnong also joined IMAP.

The agenda of IMAP is to make inner-Melbourne more livable with a focus on things like open space,

transport, public environment and urban infrastructure. To this point IMAP as a group has never

entered into the area of tree planting. This is a shame, as the urban forest of inner-Melbourne is

essentially the collective tree population of all of these municipalities. In IMAP, these Councils have a

framework already in place to take a regional approach to tree planting and could achieve significant

economies of scale by working in a coordinated way. Most Councils plant and maintain their trees to

a very similar, almost identical contract specification and plant many of the same, popular species. In

fact many of the IMAP Councils share the same service providers too.

If long-term tree growing contracts were established by the IMAP member Councils, either

individually or as an entity, the other big winners would be the commercial tree nurseries and the

service providers. Win, Win!

The IMAP member Councils have been discussed in some detail here, but this is an opportunity for

all Councils, not just the inner-city ones. Councils, tree growers and tree planting contractors would

achieve much better outcomes for their communities in the long-term and a national standard will

go a long way to getting a shared understanding by all stakeholders of what makes a quality tree.

Growing contracts would provide a big boost to nursery operations, in regard to long-term certainty,

resource needs and supply requirements. Contracts would also encourage investment into research

and development, improved nursery techniques and trialing of new species. Improved efficiency,

potentially better prices and ultimately better quality trees would benefit everyone.

Like most worthwhile ventures, this is not an easy, straight forward task. There are issues to

overcome, but none of these are insurmountable. To get this up and running requires some

initiative, some coordinated communication and a bit of hard work up-front to get started.

Procurement Australia could also play a major role in establishing contracts that all Councils could

tap into. Contract tree growing makes a lot of sense, but it has been assigned to the ‘too-hard’

basket for too long. It’s time for local government to take the first step and make this happen.

As the old Chinese proverb says: ’The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best

time is now’.

Damien Burgess is a Director and Consulting Arborist of DB Horticulture Pty Ltd, providing consultancy

services to Councils, commercial and domestic clients. Prior to establishing his business, Damien worked for

the City of Port Phillip for 13 years, in several roles, including Street Tree Coordinator, Manager of

Infrastructure Services and Manager of Parks & Open Space. Before that he spent 12 years at the City of

Melbourne, where he held the role of City Arboriculturist and managed several commercial contracts for the

growing of Elm Trees. Damien does not represent any of the stakeholder groups referred to in this article,

he’s just passionate about seeing good quality trees planted in the public realm, and lots of them!

Contact: [email protected] www.dbhorticulture.com

1

Elissa McElroy

From: Domain Account [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, 1 October 2014 3:23 PMTo: Elissa McElroySubject: .melbourne government Expression of Interest – process now complete

Dear Elissa

The .melbourne government Expression of Interest process is complete. This also covers any uncompleted .melbourne domain EOI registrations.

During the EOI process, government departments and entities requested more than 300 .melbourne domain names, an excellent response.

ARI Registry Services, which is managing the .melbourne launch and roll-out on behalf of the Victorian Government, will shortly be contacting all of the agencies that registered their claims.

As part of this notification, ARI Registry will provide successful claimants (you) with a:

- list of accredited .melbourne registrars to contact in order to register and pay for the .melbourne domain/s claimed; and - unique identifier token(s), that must be provided to the registrar when making a claim for your approved .melbourne domain(s). You should present the token(s) to an accredited registrar with a request for registration prior to 31 October 2014.

Claims that appear on the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) Collision Names List cannot be assigned at the moment. ARI Registry Services is working with ICANN on releasing these names and will notify claimants as soon as they become available. These claims retain priority throughout this period.

The new .melbourne domain enters a public auction period in October (“Landrush”) before public launch in November. These periods provide further opportunity to register domains of your choice. Our congratulations and thanks to all of the successful claimants.

Regards Cheryl Hardy Victorian Government Domain Provider Department of State Development, Business and Innovation

Attachment 4d

1

Elissa McElroy

From: [email protected]: Thursday, 4 September 2014 10:42 AMTo: Cheryl Hardy/MMV/DSDSubject: .melbourne Government EOI closing soon....

Less than two weeks remain for government departments, local government and their entities to make a claim for a .melbourne domain. There are currently over 79 registrations from government for .melbourne domains.

The .melbourne domain is at the forefront of a world-wide internet revolution in domain names. A year ago, there were only 22 top level domains, such as .com, .gov, .org. Now there are more than 270. Other international cities such as New York, Berlin, Montreal, Tokyo are already available and being used. So too are other new domains such as .shop, .car, .money.

.melbourne is on track to be launched to the general public in October. The government EOI provides you with an opportunity to get in first and stake a claim to a .melbourne domain now.

To find out more, or to make an EOI claim go to: http://digital.vic.gov.au/dotmelbourne/

Regards

Cheryl

Cheryl Hardy | Victorian Government Domain Provider 03 9938 0514 | 0419 106 212 | [email protected] Digital Government Innovation, Services, Small Business and Technology Division Department of State Development, Business and Innovation Level 20 | 80 Collins Street | Melbourne VIC 3000

www.vic.gov.au | www.data.vic.gov.au | www.digital.vic.gov.au | www.business.vic.gov.au 1300 366 356 Victorian Government Contact Centre 13 22 15 business.vic.gov.au 'Follow' us on Twitter: @digitalGovVic, @VicGovAu, @businessvic

******************************************************************************** Department of State Development, Business and Innovation, Government of Victoria, Victoria, Australia.

This email, and any attachments, may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not distribute or reproduce this e-mail or the attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify us by return email.

********************************************************************************

Attachment 4d

CITY OF STONNINGTON

r-1 --— - —• PFWAI\f-r,-"F I_ 1 . ,-

ATM.

KE''' WORD

COO. No,

COPIES To 1

Friday, 17th

, October 2014

Ms Elissa McElroy


City of Stonnington

PO Box 21

Prahran VIC 3181

Procurement Australia

AB N 45 058 335 363

t: 03 9810 8600 f: 03 9810 8699

e: enquiries@paltd,com.au

www.procurementaustralia.com.au

447 Auburn Road, Hawthorn East

VIC 3123

Euky ISO 901

Dear Elissa

Procurement Australia

Thank you for your time in meeting with me, and further to our conversation, I have outlined some

information about Procurement Australia and our role aggregating spend on behalf of Local

Government and Not for Profits.

Procurement Australia was created by government for government almost thirty years ago by the

City of Melbourne and a group of surrounding councils to aggregate their spend, Procurement

Australia is now one of the nation's largest buying groups, helping over 700 members to purchase

common-use goods and services. Our members consist of:

• Local Government

• Cemetery Trusts

• Water Corporations

• University and TAFE's

• Not For Profits

By aggregating the buying power of our members, Procurement Australia can attain best value and

create collaborative purchasing arrangements. As an 1509001 accredited organisation, audited by

Procurement Australia is a leader in negotiating and facilitating procurement contracts, working in

partnership with buyers and suppliers to seek innovative purchasing solutions.

Procurement Australia processes have evolved to meet the needs of its members, encouraging new

thinking and working collaboratively with our members to achieve innovative and solutions

focussed outcomes.

I would like the opportunity to present to the IMAP Group to outline how Procurement Australia can

partner with your members to deliver best practice aggregation solutions

Yours Faithfully,

Joe Arena

Chief Executive Officer

Attachment 4e

1

Elissa McElroy

From: Adam Zaborszczyk [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, 21 November 2014 12:04 PMTo: Elissa McElroySubject: Renewable Energy Purchasing Group

Dear Elissa,

The City of Melbourne released an initiative on Wednesday to drive investment in renewable energy projects in the grid outside the municipality.

We established a group of large energy users that have signalled their interest in testing a new approach to drive investment in renewable energy. The group includes the Cities of Yarra and Maribyrnong.

We are running a Request for Information process which will demonstrate the business case for this approach and enable the partner organisations to proceed to tender.

We envisage that there will be opportunities for other organisations to replicate this approach and possibly to join in a tender process following the RFI stage.

I have attached for your information the City of Melbourne’s media release as well as links to articles which appeared in the Guardian and the Fifth estate during the week.

Media release: http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/MediaReleases/Pages/Melbournetestsnewmodelforrenewableenergy.aspx

Project Page: http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/MediaReleases/Pages/Melbournetestsnewmodelforrenewableenergy.aspx

The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/18/melbourne-councils-band-together-to-buy-100gw-of-clean-energy-direct

Firth Estate: http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/politics/local-government/melbourne-councils-and-businesses-take-charge-in-huge-renewables-program/69764

Regards

Adam.

Adam Zaborszczyk | Senior Sustainability Officer – Sustainable Energy| City Planning and Infrastructure

City of Melbourne | Council House 2, 240 Little Collins Street Melbourne 3000 | GPO Box 1603 Melbourne 3001

T: 03 9658 8041 | F: 03 9650 3572 | E: [email protected]

www.melbourne.vic.gov.au | www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/whatson


Attachment 4f

2


Share your feedback on our website

Hi,

At City of Melbourne, we’d love to hear about your recent experience with our website.

Your feedback is important. Our short survey should take less than 2 minutes.

Your feedback will be used to help improve our services that you, and others, receive in the future.

Thanks for your time.

Customer Relations | City of Melbourne

Yes, I'll give feedback

No thanks

Melbourne tests new model for renewable energy

Wednesday, 19 November 2014

The City of Melbourne has established a group of large energy users that have signalled their interest in testing a new approach to drive

investment in renewable energy.

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle said the City of Melbourne must lead the way to meet our goal of zero net emissions by 2020.

“The City of Melbourne has united other like-minded local governments and businesses to challenge the market to supply us with the right

energy at the right price,” the Lord Mayor said.

“We have launched a Request for Information Process to combine our purchasing power and signal our interest in securing a competitive price

for a long term electricity supply from renewable sources.

“We hope this scale of demand will stimulate investment in a new renewable energy project that is shovel-ready and has planning approvals in

place.”

The group has a collective energy consumption of around 100 GWh worth of energy, which under current market conditions is equivalent to

around 250,000 solar panels or 15 wind turbines.

Chair of Council’s Environment Portfolio, Councillor Arron Wood, said the City of Melbourne has a target of sourcing 25 per cent of the

municipality’s electricity from renewables by 2018.

“Goals are easy to set but harder to meet. Achieving this ambitious target requires substantial structural, economic and policy changes in

Melbourne to help decrease our reliance on carbon intensive fuel sources,” Cr Wood said.

“The target cannot be achieved through council actions alone and we can’t currently access the level of renewable energy we require from

within the municipality of Melbourne,” Cr Wood said.

“What we are proposing is a new model for securing renewable energy. If it works we would encourage other organisations to adopt a similar

model.”

Partners involved in the group are:

City of Maribyrnong

City of Yarra

Federation Square

NEXTDC

Mirvac

bankmecu.

Page 1 of 2Melbourne tests new model for renewable energy - City of Melbourne

21/11/2014http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/MediaReleases/Pages/Melbournetestsnewmodelforren...

Attachment 4f

Advertisement

home › environment cities development australia world sport football

Melbourne councils band together to buy 100GWh of clean energy direct

Group hopes to kick-start wind and solar projects that have stalled because of uncertainty

over the renewable energy target

A windfarm near Burra, South Australia. Solar and wind farms will be asked if they can provide councils with

energy at a similar cost to fossil fuels. Photograph: Angela Harper/AAP Image

Oliver MilmanWednesday 19 November 2014 03.46 +11:00

5,749 176

Shares Comments

Renewable energy

Winner of the Pulitzer prize

all sections

masterclasses Australia edition sign in search

Page 1 of 6Melbourne councils band together to buy 100GWh of clean energy direct | Environment | The Guardian

21/11/2014http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/18/melbourne-councils-band-together-to-buy-100g...

ATTACHMENT 4F

Advertisement

A group of Melbourne councils are banding together to bypass the renewable

policies of the state and federal governments and directly appeal to clean-energy

providers.

In what could evolve into a national initiative to directly boost renewable energy

uptake, the City of Melbourne, City of Maribyrnong and City Of Yarra will open a

dialogue with clean energy producers ahead of a potential full tender process.

The trio of councils have partnered with businesses including Mirvac and

Federation Square for the project. Renewable providers, such as solar and wind

farms, will be asked whether they can supply the group’s combined 100GWh

worth of energy at similar or lower cost than fossil fuel providers.

This 100GWh is the equivalent to around 250,000 solar panels or 15 wind

turbines.

The consortium hopes to .nd renewable energy projects that are ready to proceed

but have been hindered by uncertainty over the renewable energy target, which

has seen investment in the sector grind to a virtual halt.

Victoria’s renewable energy industry has also been hit by severe restrictions on

new wind farm developments, allowing states such as South Australia surge

ahead of it in terms of clean energy.

By joining together, councils and businesses can o1er a reliable demand for

renewable providers to allow their projects to proceed, while at the same time

potentially driving down the cost for users.

The City of Melbourne has a goal of zero net emissions by 2020. This target is

supplemented by a goal of sourcing 25% of electricity from renewable sources by

2018. Just 5% of this target has been achieved via rooftop solar panels in

Melbourne’s CBD, prompting the council to look to large-scale renewable projects

in other parts of the state.

City of Melbourne councillor Arron Wood said the

new approach will help counteract the

“worrying” renewable energy policies of both

state and federal governments.

“We are literally going out to test the market and

.nd out what the price is,” he told Guardian

Australia. “Our hope is that they will be on a par

with fossil fuels or cheaper, because then the

business case becomes a no brainer because

renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels in the

long-term.



Renewable energy Solar power Wind power Melbourne Victoria More…

“There are certainly some worrying signs over the state government’s attitude to

renewable energy. There are genuine business opportunities for the state and

we’re saying we’re open for business for renewable energy.

“There’s been the removal of the carbon price and uncertainty over the RET,

meaning that in quick time a $1bn industry has ground to a halt. We can

demonstrate a model that isn’t just a purchase of green energy, it can drive

investment in new renewable energy.”

Wood said he expected other councils in Melbourne and across Australia to look

closely at the concept in order to bolster renewable uptake. The City of Sydney,

for example, has a 30% renewable energy target by 2030.

“Most metropolitan councils in Australia have a renewable energy target,” he said.

“Cities are well set-up to band together for large-scale renewable generation. I feel

many of them would be interested in this.”

WestWind, a German wind farm developer that has two approved projects in

western Victoria, said it welcomed the initiative.

Tobi Geiger, managing director of WestWind, said there should be plenty of

interest from solar and wind providers.

“I’d say there are around 10 projects in Victoria that would go for it,

predominantly wind because we are blessed with wind all year round in Victoria,”

he told Guardian Australia.

“We’ve had to wind back activities quite dramatically because of uncertainty over

the future of the RET. We’ve been Abbott-proo.ng our company by looking at

opportunities in renewable energy that don’t require government support.

“I think this kind of partnership will do well as long as we have a recalcitrant

government. There’s a lack of government leadership so councils are stepping into

the vacuum. The more Neanderthals that go back to fossil fuels, the more of these

things we’ll see.”

email

Get the Guardian's Australian politics email

Latest politics news and comment, delivered to your inbox





IMAP Implementation Committee

Financial Report for the 3 months ending 30 September 2014

1 July 2014 – 30 September 2014 ___________________________________________________________________________________

Background

1. The IMAP financial position was last noted at the IMAP Implementation Committee meeting held 29August 2014

2. Retained Earnings carried forward from the 2013-14 financial year totalled $409,557 (excludingGST). $68,096 of this total relates to the Tourism budget.

Income

3. Billing for the 2014-15 IMAP revenue has been undertaken in the following quarter. The onlyrevenue indicated in this quarter is the Carry Forward.

4. Total Income for the 3 month period to 30 September 2014:

2800 Sundry Income:Retained Earnings carried forward from 2013-14 $ 409,557 2810 Contract Income:Not invoiced._______________________________________________________________________________

TOTAL OPERATING INCOME $409,557________________________________________________________________________

Expenditure

5. Total Expenditure for the 3 month period to 30 September 2014:

4108 Stationery – GeneralIMAP Reimbursement – Office stationery $ 365 4130 AdvertisingAction 11 IMAP banner AIDS Conference $ 410 4131 Promotional PublicationsAction 11 Tourist Map distribution as per DML Contract $ 45,000 IMAP IMAP Website Domain renewal $ 44 $ 45,044 4150 Consulting FeesIMAP IMAP Review Inception payment $ 13,000

IMAP Review Completion Stage 1 $ 19,500 IMAP Annual Report photos $ 727 IMAP Website – Annual Hosting fee $ 3,063

Action 9.2 ESD Factsheets design - Site permeability $ 1,170 - Sunshading $ 1,030 - Green Roofs $ 1,050 - Green Roofs/Rating $ 660

Action 11 AIDS conference Brochure $ 750 IMAP Map amendments $ 1,500 IMAP Map updates $ 8,875 $ 51,325

4211 Staff catering IMAP Catering: staff meetings $ 182

Catering: IMAP Review - meetings/workshop $ 779 $ 961

TOTAL EXPENDITURE $ 98,104 ________________________________________________________________________

NET SURPLUS $ 311,453



________________________________________________________________________

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

Recommendation

6. That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to receive the IMAP Financial Report for thethree months ending 30 September 2014.

28 November 2014 Attachment 5a

Reporting Scope - IMAP Operating Perfomance 0.0%

Operating & Capital Works Statement for period ended September 2014 Capital Perfomance 0.0%

CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE

TotalCommitted Budget Variance

UnmatchedPurchase

Orders ActualsTotal

Committed Budget Variance

2800 - Sundry Income 0 0 0 0 409,557 409,557 0 409,557

Other Revenue 0 0 0 0 409,557 409,557 0 409,557

Total Operating Income 0 0 0 0 409,557 409,557 0 409,557

4108 - Stationery - General 0 0 0 0 365 365 0 -3654130 - Advertising 0 0 0 0 410 410 0 -4104131 - Promotional Publications 45,000 0 -45,000 0 45,044 45,044 0 -45,0444150 - Consulting Fees 23,410 0 -23,410 0 51,325 51,325 0 -51,325

Administration Expenditure 68,410 0 -68,410 0 97,144 97,144 0 -97,144

4211 - Staff Catering 779 0 -779 0 961 961 0 -961Materials, Services and Maintenance

779 0 -779 0 961 961 0 -961

Total Operating Expenditure 69,189 0 -69,189 0 98,104 98,104 0 -98,104

Operating Profit / (Loss) -69,189 0 -69,189 0 311,453 311,453 0 311,453

Net Surplus / (Deficit) -69,189 0 -69,189 0 311,453 311,453 0 311,453

IMAP Projects: Expenditure against Budget 2014 -15Expenditure for the 3 months ending 30 September 2014

REVENUEBUDGET 2014-

15Year 9

ACTUALS 1st qtr VARIANCE

IMAP Councils Annual Contribution 175,000 -175,000

IMAP Councils Annual Tourism Contribution 100,000 -100,000

IMAP Map Licence fees 700 -700

Total Revenue 275,700 0 -275,700

PROJECT ALLOCATIONSBUDGET 2014-

15Year 9

ACTUALS 1st qtr VARIANCE

IMAP General Expenses Ongoing IMAP Annual Report, Website, catering etc 15,000 5,160 -9,840

IMAP GIS Expenses Ongoing IMAP GIS Support (Ground truth) 7,400 -7,400

IMAP IMAP Review Not started Publish new plan ($65K + bal Carry Fwd) 72,781 32,500 -40,281

On hold 1. Establish joint view on Hoddle St 0

Not started 2. Boulevard Study 0

2.3 Bike Network legibility Current Mapping priority routes 0

2.4 Wayfinding signs CurrentVisitor Sign Project - Master Style Guide ($50K

+ bal Carry Fwd)81,440 -81,440

Current 1. Capital Program - Bike Lanes 0

Not started 2. Measure & map Level of Service rating 0

3.2 Roads as Places Not Started Brief prep'd. Not started 40,000 -40,000

3.5 Reduced through traffic Not startedParking provisions which support sustainable

transport 100,000 -100,000

5.2 Affordable Housing CurrentOngoing housing initiatives - Stage 2 of CLT

research10,000 -10,000

5.4 Social Infrastructure and Services

5.5 Infrastructure Development

7.2 Support Creative Businesses Current Formulating brief. 10,000 -10,000

8.1 Priority for freight movement Not started Freight Movement Strategic Plan 87,500 -87,500

Current Develop ESD Factsheets - stage 2 underway.

All funds commtted.2,748 2,748 0

Current Review ESD Policies, tools & methodologies,

advocacy10,000 1,162 -8,838

Not started Identify ESD retrofit issues 30,000 -30,000

1. Develop an approach for Green Roof

initiatives3,491 -3,491

2. University of Melbourne - ARC grant

contribution: Year 2 of 320,000 -20,000

CurrentDistributed Energy - Map the potential & likely

locations of distict energy cogeneration systems0

10.1Regional Open Space & trail

networkCurrent

Identify linkages and gaps in OS and trail

network0

11 Regional Tourism Strategy Current3 year Tourism Strategy - Year 2 of 3 (+ Carry

Forward $68,096)168,096 56,535 -111,561

Total Expenditure 658,456 98,105 (560,351) Net Surplus (Deficit) -382,756 -98,105Opening Balance of IMAP Account 409,557 409,557Closing Balance of IMAP Account 26,801 311,452Please note that the funding calculation does not include Operational Costs of $35,000 per council in 2014/15.

0

28 November 2014 Attachment 5b

1.4Boulevards & Major Roads -

Hoddle Street

2.5 Bicycle Network:

Green Demonstration Projects

Current

Not started

Map growth areas & locate current services to

identify funding requirements for future planning

(DEFERRED to 2015-16)

9.2Environmentally Sustainable

Design - commercial buildings

9.4


Report prepared by: Elissa McElroy, IMAP Executive Officer


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:

o 10 September – met with the IMAP Executive Forum and IMAP Review Working Group andconsultants to ensure the approach was consistent with expectations

The IMAP review has progressed through the Stage 2 information gathering phase of the contract. The following meetings with staff have been held during the period:

Refer draft Minutes: Item 3 (Attachment 2)

o 22 September – IMAP Review Working Group meeting and consultants – met to brainstormvariations suggested by the Executive Forum.

o 13 – 16 October – 5 half-day Reference Group workshops were facilitated by consultants underthe topics: Environmental Sustainability, Economy, Communities, Transport, andNeighbourhoods and Places. About 70 staff from across the 5 councils participated. 130 staffhave been included in the distribution network (Basecamp) for consulting on the project.

o 30 October – IMAP Review Project Control Group meeting

o 14 November – Joint meeting of the IMAP Executive Forum and Project Control Group to reviewthe first draft of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan compiled by consultants.

Refer draft Minutes Item 4 (Attachment 3)

o 19 November – Forum #2 for Councillors and Executives – this workshop has been postponed

Councillors and Executives across the 5 IMAP councils were updated on the project via emails from the Executive Officer on 29 September and 12 November 2014.

on the advice of the IMAP Executive Forum, until the new year when the draft plan has beenfurther developed..

Refer to Item 13 (Attachment 9) on the agenda for the IMAP Review update report.

3 Revenue 2014-15

4

: the 5 IMAP Councils were invoiced for this year’s contributions in October.

Annual Report

5

: Distribution of the Annual Report has been delayed due to work being undertaken on the IMAP Review. This is now being finalised and is due to be circulated in December.

Change of Meeting Date: the February meeting of the IMAP Implementation Committee is scheduled for 27 February 2015

Due to a clash with the senior officers meeting in Hobart the same day, it is suggested the meeting date be changed to the earlier date of

at the City of Stonnington.

Friday 13 February 2014 at the City of Stonnington. The Inner South Metropolitan Mayors Group will also be meeting at Stonnington later that day.

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 – the Melbourne Visitor Signage Coordinating Committee ran 2workshops on 27 October and 17 November to review the work being undertaken by DavidNash, Traffinity.

o Action 5.2 Affordable Housing – the first meeting of the project team for phase 2 of theCommunity Land Trust project is being held on 20 November. The contract between the variouscontributors is still being finalised.

o Action 7.2 Support Creative Businesses (Urban Manufacturing) - two workshops were heldin early October for the IMAP Urban Manufacturing Investment Logic Mapping exercise to moreclearly define the scope of this project.

Refer to Item 12 for an update on this project

o Action 9.2 Environmental Sustainable Design - the project team and Executive Officer met on22 September to finalise next steps on the Sustainable Design Factsheets development with theconsultant graphic designer. Additional illustrations and redrafting have resulted in additionalcosts. Communications are continuing with Corporate Counsel at Stonnington to finalise thelicensing agreement with CASBE.

o Action 9.4 Energy Mapping – work has been undertaken with the CSIRO to resolve the finalIT and Communications strategy for the project. The final invoice was withdrawn until thecompletion of this project.

Refer to Item 11 (Attachment 8)

o Action 9.4 Growing Green Guide

o A further meeting of Canopy – Melbourne’s Green Roof Forum was held on 10 Septemberand continues to receive a good attendance.

o The project team leader, Gail Hall from City of Melbourne and IMAP Executive Officerattended the World Green Infrastructure Conference in Sydney held 8 – 10 October. Someof the work associated with the IMAP project was showcased by Ian Shears from City ofMelbourne and speakers from the University of Melbourne’s Burnley campus.

o This project has been entered for the AILA Awards for Victoria by Gail Hall and project teammembers. The entry is attached for your reference – refer Attachment 6a.

o Roof top gardens media reports and enquiries continue – refer Attachments 6b and 6c

o Action 11 Regional Tourism:

o Agreements have been put in place and finalised with Destination Melbourne Ltd for theIMAP map to be included in the Official Visitors Map for Melbourne. The agreement is for 2years, with an option for a further year. IMAP is contributing towards costs for the 1 millioncopies to be printed and distributed this year. Due to timing of the print runs, two annualpayments will be made this financial year.

o The OVM has now been published and is widely available throughout the inner city – referAttachment 6d

o IMAP has registered interest in three .melbourne website domain names with the launch ofthis new initiative..

o Other. The IMAP Executive Officer also attended the following :

o Monthly update meetings with both RMF and MPA staff on 15 September, 16 October and24 November.

o RMF projects: met with:

Yuriy Onyshchuk, Team Leader and Austin Ley, Manager City Research, CoM, Javiera Almeida Maturana, Senior Policy Officer - Regional Strategy Coordinator,

Department of Premier and Cabinet; and Liz Mackevicius, Strategic Policy, CoY

on 5 November to discuss the RMF projects and synergies with IMAP projects on urban manufacturing, CLUE etc. Provided feedback on the proposed position description for Project Manager.

o Attended the MPA’s Central City Community Infrastructure Planning Workshops held inSeptember and October.



o 11 September met with the CEO from Procurement Australia.

Refer to correspondence – Item 7

o 13 November – Attended the MAV presentation on “Freight and the Port” – Dr HermioneParsons and the supply chain advisory network presentation.

Recommendation

That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. Note the Communications and Governance Briefing Paper.

b. Approve the change of date for the IMAP Implementation Committee February 2015 meeting to theearlier date of Friday 13 February 2015.

Attachments

6a Presentation for AILA awards Victoria, Growing Green Guide for Melbourne Project

6b Media article – Rooftop gardens

6c Email – Julie Francis – Update on enquiries and publications relating to green roofs

6d Official Visitors Map Media release from DML

offrOPM40 10014414of

•

• • ROWING REEN

Fast Facts

Location: Developed in Melbourne, for use in Victoria and Australia

Budget: Total budget $380,000 (consultancy $188,000)

Project Partners: Inner Melbourne Action Plan councils - City of Melbourne - City of Yarra - City of Stonnington

- City of Port Phillip

The University of Melbourne

The Victorian Sustainability and Adaptation Partnership (funding partner)

GROWING GREEN GUIDE

wpm, ...1k6Aki. 1

I

The Growing Green Guide for Melbourne Project

Category: Research and Communication

Organisation: Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP)

Client: Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries

ATTACHMENT 6A

GROWING GREEN • •

trietwoR

0$9119,

..aifiAair 1

Executive Summary

Overview The introduction of vegetated green spaces in built up areas has many documented benefits but is an underutilised

approach to adapt to climate change and increasing population growth in urban areas. Using a collaborative approach

between government. commercial and research sectors, the Growing Green Guide for Melbourne Project began with the

objective to increase the number of high quality green roofs, walls and facades in Victoria.

The project outputs included:

• Best practice guidelines to increase knowledge about and reduce the technical barriers to the design, maintenance and

construction of green roofs, walls and facades (titled the Growing Green Guide)

• A freely accessible website for the Growing Green Guide Project content to be shared.

• A policy Options paper for use by organisations and governments across Victoria

• Identification of potential demonstration sites and development of concept designs for green roofs, walls or facades

within the four partner council municipalities.

Executive Summary

Special factors • The Growing Green Guide is Australia's first set of guidelines for green roofs, walls and facades. Although guides exist

in other parts of the world, the Growing Green Guide provides technical information that is relevant to the Victorian

climate, and to building and planning regulations.

• The project was a unique collaboration between State and local government, landscape architects, industry

professionals, and The University of Meibourne.The project brought together a wide range of expertise, knowledge

and experience to cooperatively develop best practice approaches to implementing green roofs, walls and facades in

Victoria,

• The Growing Green Guide is freely accessible and published under a Creative Commons License to allow others to

use and update the content.

• The inclusion of detailed Victorian case studies in the Growing Green Guide disproves the myth that green roofs are

prone to faults, or too difficult and too costly to be successful.

• A template for assessing site feasibility was developed,This can be used by others to accurately determine the feasibility

of any potential green roof wall or facade site.

ftelitirtt Wthesto

•

GROWN GREEN GUIDE

•

FT.

•

•

•

ATTACHMENT 6A

GROWING GREEN GUIDE

increased amenity Cleaning the air

Background

Why did we do this project? Urban areas are feeling the pressure as population levels and impermeability

increase,This will worsen as our climate changes.The health and wellbeing of urban communities suffers as space for on-ground vegetation is lost to buildings and development. Green roofs, walls and facades present an opportunity to increase vegetation by making use of underutilised urban surfaces, leading to environmental, social and economic benefits for the community

Figure I. Pressure builds over our cities, with the transition from natural landscapes to hard infrastructure, an increasingly variable climate and a growing population

Figure I from the Growing Green Guide was developed to describe the pressures are Cities are under and help make the case for green roofs, walls and facades.

The benefits of green roofs, walls and facades

There are a range of benefits that can potentially be provided by green roofs, was and facades when planned and constructed well.The importance of identifiying the desired benefits of a green roof, wall or facade during the design phase is a key message in the Guide.The benefits are explained in more detail on page 8 of the Guide.

iiitliIii '

Cooling buildings and the city Stormwater management

Potential benefits of green roofs, walls and facades

Increased ecology and biodiversity

6114 thib, sowl,

Increased property value

I

GROWING

GUIDE GREEN

ATTACHMENT 6A

GROWING GREEN GUIDE

•

11$0.1fett • •

ROWING GREEN GUIDE

ststs/Wto htetieltitO

• • •

p III

Project Objectives

In recognition of these pressures on our urban spaces and the potential benefits that green roofs, walls and facades can bring to alleviating them,The Growing Green Guide for Melbourne project was established.With a vision to increase the number of high quality green roofs, walls and facades in Victoria, four key objectives were identified:

I. Planning and policy - investigate the changes that could be made to the planning scheme or policies that would lead to an increase in green roofs, walls and facades.

3. Reduce the Urban Heat Island Effect - improve community resilience to climate change by increasing the amount of green open space in the urban landscape, leading to reduced temperatures.

2. Assisting local businesses - provide Victorian designers and installers wrth the technical knowledge to give them a leading edge in the green roof and wall industry.

3. Reduce our impact on the environment - green roofs and facades on

buildings help to reduce the impacts a building can have on the environment by providing habitat lost through development, reducing stormwater runoff, reducing air temperatures, and providing insulating and shading benefits for buildings,

Project Methodology

The methodology to achieve the objectives of the Growing Green Guide for Melbourne Project included:

• Research - local and international research formed the basis of the project, informing the development of the Guide and the Policy Options paper

• Engagement and collaboration - with industry, governments and the community to ensure widespread buy-in, and to gather the knowledge and experience of local experts.

• Development of techincal guidelines and standards for green roofs, wails and facades in Victoria

- to share the technical information gathered in the research and expert consultation stages with the broader community.

• Providing policy options for councils and organisations - recognising that widespread benefits can be achieved when living architecture is encouraged at a large scale, by a broad range of organisations and using a range of measures.

• Identifying and planning for potential demonstration sites - to test the best practice design approaches

set out in the Guide and to progress towards Melbourne's first publicly accessible green roof. • Communicating the information - create a website to distribute the information gathered throughout the

project to local, national and international audiences.

ATTACHMENT 6A

ftROWING GREEN GUIDE

Research

• Review of existing international green roof and wall policies, and literature, to inform the Policy Options

• Partnership with RMIT University to

carry out primary studies on the social and economic impacts of greening and the most effective methods for communication with key stakeholders.

CRUM'. rrt.r.0.-. 4.•• rain ann.,. dkliermf Initrfut,

Evidence-based benefits of green roofs, walls and

facades The research findings are presented in Section 2 of the Guide so that designers and policy makers can understand the full potential of green root wall and facade systems.

kon• ! Oreryemny, PLO C.A.roviq

Awl 0%11 Wm, 41 ,rmse aro.p...-dl

11 i01.1C44

...a MOT M.I.111.101

MR Al., PAS.11.10.1.

GROWING GREEN GUIDE

Research

Research was a central theme in of the project, informing the development of the Guide and the Policy Options Paper Research activities included:

• A strategic partnership with the University of Melbourne provided access to years of primary research on green roofs at the Burnely School of Horticulture campus.

• Extensive review of local and international academic literature to inform the develop of best practice approaches to design, constuction and maintenance of green roofs

walls and facades.

ATTACHMENT 6A

n

*nnyonn tosmoso

I • •

04111 pipe

•

1

Engagement and Collaboration

A high level of engagement and

collaboration was a central theme throughout all stages of the project Research into similar guidelines development in the UK (The green roof guide) found that if some sectors

of industry are not involved in the development of best practice guidelines, they can, in fact, be opposed to the final product. In consideration of this, a large spectrum of stakeholders was enaged to ensure that the guidelines and policy options would be relevant, useful and to get buy-in from the relevant areas of government and industry.

Artist's impression of a green roof, ,LIScd in coriceltation sCWOn5

GRO WIN GREEN GUIE

Enagement and Collaboration

Engagement and collaboration activities throughout the project included:

Project launch to increase awareness and allow people to get involved.

Workshops with industry and community to determine the scope of the Guide and Poky Options.

Formation of three expert reference groups: Guidelines Reference Group, Policy Reference Group and Project Control Group.These groups met regularly throughout the project to develop and review content.

Presentations about the project at a range of industry events, universities, public events and forums, including the Canopy Green Roof Forum.

A media event at the completion of the project to promote the Guide, Policy Options and new website. Held at the University of Melbourne's Burnley campus, the event included tours of the Burnley green roofs and research areas.This was followed by an industry specific launch for designers and other practitioners.

11

GROWIFIG

SLIME GREEN

ATTACHMENT 6A

Review

A number of mechanisms were used to review the content in the Growing Green Guide to ensure that the final product was a high quality, reliable and useable document.

These included:

• Periodic content review from the experts on the Guidelines Reference Group.

• A widely publicised feedback period for all members of industry and community to comment on the draft guide.

• Two peer reviews of the final document, from one local

and one international subject matter expert.

Ii 119101,11

• Expert review by AILA

Growing Groen Guide rigi'dh event on the green roof

.Unialrsity of Melbourns Burnfdy campus

GROWING GREEN GUIDE

Output I: The Growing Green Guide

The need for technical guidelines that relate specifically to Victorian

conditions and regulations was established in early in the project.This approach has been successful in Europe and North America, but the lack

of local information has been a barrier in Australia.

The Growing Green Guide was published in February 2014 and includes

the following sections:

Introduction - can be read independantly from the rest of the guide. A summary of living architecture and benefits for a general audience and

clients Academic research - evidence base for the guide Technical guide - detailing how to assess potential sites, design, build and maintain living architecture

Victorian case studies - including costs and lessons learnt for nine

green roof, wall and facade projects

The Growing Green Guide website was also created to share this

3. DESIGN & PLANNING

LGUIDE TO GREEN ROOF.Sj WALLS AND FACADES

5. BUILDING & INSTALLATION

GREEN I

GROWING GREEN GUIDE

ATTACHMENT 6A

11•M r16.1•1[11•4 1.• LO 14.411<r, PC. El C11,611r

mop•rt

A range of infographics were used as contrnenicasion tools in de guide

'

GROWING GREEN

Policy Options Paper

Communication

Research carried out at the project outset suggested that visual interpretation of complex systems is an effective method for communication, As such, designers were engaged to develop infographics for the guide.

Exemplify • Lead by example • Consistent Council strategies

Consistent strategies across all levels of government

Encourage • Direct financial

incentives Rebates an local fees and taxes Use the planning scheme to encourag or require

Catalyse

Engage • Public promotion • Work with industry groups

Enable • Ensure local laws are

not a barrier Ensure building and occupancy permit process is not a barrier Provide information and support Create space for experimentition

• •

Policy and planning mechanisms have been used successfully in other countries to encourage the uptake of green roofs, walls and facades. At the time this project was started, no specific policy approaches had been used in Australia to advance the industry.The Policy Options Paper was developed to provide examples and guidance for organisations in this area.

OROWIN GREEN

LIGUIDE

The paper was collated based on existing literature, interviews with policy experts and input from the Policy Reference Group. Councils and the Victorian Government were given the opportuntity to provide feedback and comments on the draft document in a series of workshops. This chart shows the four role-pries of policy options detailed in the paper This approach

is commonly used by policy makers across the globe to co tolyse behaviour change.

1 4991/901

ATTACHMENT 6A

Demonstration sites

Publicly accessible demonstrations sites for green roofs, walls and facades have boosted the popularity of these systems in other parts of the world, such as New York's famous 'Highline green infrastructure installation.While it is estimated that approximately 50 green roofs exist currently in Victoria, none of these are freely available for the public to access.

Although constructing a demonstration site was outside the scope of this project, the project team determined that carrying out the preliminary work for demonstration sites would generate public discussion and interest, and provide ideas to developers and building owners. It was also used as a way to pilot-test the best-practice design approaches in the draft Guide

Dernombellen $rlos co!

Gr0111 Rawls. Willi on.d Facades

The development of demonstration sites was carried out in stages: I . Opportunties Assessments were carried out in each of the four IMAP

municipalities - I 6 sites identified 2. Feasibility studies for nine of the identified sites and site assessment

templates developed (ASPECT Studios) 3. Concept designs developed for four sites, one per municipality (BENT

Architecture)

GROWING GREEN GUIDE got 41111$4041

Demonstration sites

Concept designs for a green roof and facade system on a air park in the City Concept designs for a green roof at RMIT University's Melbourne city campus

of Stonmngton • BENTArchitecture

GROWING GREEN

UWE

ATTACHMENT 6A

A page from the Growing Green Guide website

showing Victorian case studies, and a OR code that was used in promotional material during the

project.

I

Communication - website

The fourth output of the Growing Green Guide Project focuses on the communication and distribution of information. One strength of the project is that it brought together experts from many different fields and collated their knowledge, along with years of local and

international research, into a comprehensive set of documentsiThe

final stage in this process was to share this collective knowledge with the community and industry,

The Growing Green Guide website presents all of the information

gathered throughout the project, and includes additional content that was not included in the other outputs. Local, national and international users can download the Guide, Policy Options Paper

and demonstration sites reports, or access the content directly on

the website. A QR code was used to link promotional material to the website.

The website has had almost 500,000 hits since it was launched, with over 42, 000 individual downloads of the Growing Green Guide

itself. More detailed usage statistics are provided in the supporting documentation.

GROWING 'GREEN

GUIDE

vklaionume.inea•T**41...••••••••*-140 ••••• 0/041....•••••1•11.11,1.••••1.. wane • Iva

a•••••%.•

Victorian Case Studies

• N.A..' 51•11,..1

411114111,1,

new

• neap...wpm._ et•••••••••e•

• .1•114...1.-1.1•10.

• vler.10.31......:1•••ean

• 94.1.11.1,,19.111MI,

• um. mxre,awil. e••••••eas

• 61...11u1.1.,-.•

Populm Papes

•

•

Response to criteria

Criteria I : Excellence

I a innovation Green roofs, waiis and facades are an inventive way to add green

infrastructure to a city because they can be included on new buildings or retrofitted onto existing buildings. mostly without requiring space at ground ievel.They can partly compensate for the loss of natural vegetation, and provide localised cooling and aesthetic improvements in

dense urban centres where space for other types cir green infrastructure is limited or absent. However despite persuasive business cases for green roofs and the expansion of the induStry overseas, green roofs,

walls and facades have not yet been widely implemented in Australia. The Growing Green Guide pro;ect was developed specifically to

remove the knowledge barriers hindering the development of these forms of green infrastructure. I he Growing Green Guide (the Guide)

IS the first such document to be produced in Australia.The methods of collaboration and engagement used to develop the Guide were original and highly successful (see 3b for expansion on this collaboration),

lb Application of best practice techniques the purpose of the Guide is to provide landscape architects and other

industry professionals with a best practice approach to designing, constructing and maintaining green roofs, walls and facades. Development

Included a review or best practice techniques in other parts of the world primary research, extensive expert consultation and a peer review process.

The best practice approach outlined in the Guide was tested during the development or the concepts for demonstration sites

lc Demonstrates the fusion of practice and theory The Guide iised published research and a range of Australian (mostly

Victorian) examples of green roofs, walls and facades along with knowledge from experts in the industry to provide real guidelines for use.

Practical evidence-based design examples were developed through the Demonstration Sites, where the Guide's content was used to inform sae

selection and concept design.

GROWING II3REEN GUIDE

•

•

O

ATTACHMENT 6A

2c Quality of content, outcomes and presentation I he Guide was continuously and purposefully critiqued during its development through the partner organisations, a speciftcally convened technically expert group of industry experts (the Guidelines Reference Group), extensive public and professional consultation and peer review .1 he document was very well received by industry. government and education instrtutons.This can be seen in the supporting documentaton for this apphcation in the form of testimonials from landscape architects. articles and media coverage. The volume of traffic to the website shows the level or national and internationat interest in the information, with over 500,000 website hits since the launch and over 10,000 unique downloads of the Growing Green Guide in the four months after its release (see supporting documents for webste traffic summary).

The duality of the outputs is demonstrated by the use or these products as prescribed reference materials in degree and diploma courses at RMIT and The University of Melbourne, details of which car be found in the supporting documentation.


Criteria 2: The Brief

2a Appropriateness to function Studies have shown that lack of technical knowledge and understanding are significant barriers to the uptake of green roofs, walls and facades. The Guide works to eliminate this barrier by sharing knowledge and understanding"! he focus is on Melbourne and Victoria, but the content is relevant to readers nationally and internattonatty.The publication of this information on a dedicated website allows it to be easily and widely shared

2b Effectively responds to and extends the intention of the brief I he br ef requ:red that documents be developed to support the growth of the green roof, wall and Facade industry The true measure of the project's success will be seen tn the number or high quality green roofs,

watts and facades that are constructed ir our ci tes in years to come. In the meantime, the use of the Guide as a resource for a number of tertiary courses indicates that it is supporting professional development and wit read to a more confident application of the technology. Another indirect outcome from the project is the formation of new networks, partnerships and working relationships between councils, academia and industry professionals. This will :cad to more collaborative projects in the Faure.

•—

GROWIN GREEN

UWE

•

'mope

•

I

•


Criteria 3: Influence

3a The role and influence of the landscape architect within the multi-disciplinary team

st s ;i ..1 . -• iberative across multiple disciplines to cover the Campe I,25 01 On•building greening. landscape architects formed an integral part or the project governance, content development, consultation and intended audience for the project. t his included: • iwo landscape architects as members of the six person Steering

Group for the project, • Four landscape architects were members of the I 7 person Cuidetines

Reference Group, • A formal submission from All A, landscape architects in each couric

and private practice were made during consultation of the craft Guide, • Peer review by a landscape architect, Graeme Hopkins of Fifth Creek

Studio • Foreword to the Guide wr tten by Sidonie Carpenter. landscape

architect and co-founeer of Green Roofs Australasta. • Aspect Studios were engaged to uncierLake the feasibility study for

demonstration sites.

3b incorporates effective community engagement Effective engagement was ussert v io eilst.mc. that the gt: cm arc po:•cy options would be widely acceptec arc usec. Research Into similar projects (The Green Roof Guiee, UK) found that if sectors of indL;stry are not nvolved in the development of best practice guidelines, they may be opposed to the final productl hese learnings attowee us to build this into our engagement strategy at the outset.As a result, we purposefully involved a large spectrum of stakeholders to ensure that the outputs would be relevant, useful and engage both government and industry. I he testimonials included with this application are evidence or this outcome.

Two key elements of engagement were used in the development of the Cade and the Policy Options Paper:

• We identified professionals engaged in the design. construction and maintenance of green roofs, walls and facades to join expert reference groups to help write these documents.

• We held public forums, meetings and consulted on the draft Guide to engage other professionals and interested Community members with the proiect and with each other

GROWING GREEN GUIDE krilu

ATTACHMENT 6A

•

41414,411,

..akeaa. I

•

648 6 66646 6 t

6 6 446 6 6 646 6 t

6 6 4 4 6 6 4 6 I 6 6

6 6

6 6

4 6

4 6

4 6

6 6

6 6

6 6

6

•

0

•

I II

GROWING GREEN GUIDE 40110,40


Criteria 3: Influence

3c Fosters broad support and understanding of landscape architecture

he Cultic (p.1 /) highlights the mit] -disciplinary nature of the development of these types of systems and identifies and explain the professionals used in these protects, inciuding landscape architects. Media associated with the Guide has helped to make this information easily accessible and increases the understanding and support of green roofs, walls and facades.-fhe concept designs work towards establishing :.;reen roofs that are pubhcly access.ble to increase the profile of living drchitecture.

3d Raises the awareness & understanding in the community of environmental/cultural values The introduction sect or or the guide (p.2 - 2.) s targeted at a general audience to help broaden understanding of these systems in the community. II provides a simple explanation of the environmental and social benefits that living architecture can provide and can assist landscape

architects to increase understanding for clients.

J. saA

GRDWIN GREEN GUID


Criteria 4: Sustainability emphasis

Urbanisation leads to the loss or vegetation and potential habitat for wildlife, and increases the area covered by impervious surfaces, leading to excess surface run-off and flash fooding.These issues are exacerbated by increasing population densty and a wamier climate. which presents enormous environmental, economic arid social challenges. As demonstrated in the 13enefits sect on of the Guide (p.8), the increase of high quality green roofs, walls and facades in cities will help to increase urban resilience and adaptation to our changing climate.

The impact of this proect was minimised by creating a website to house the information, rather than large-scale printing VVhene printed copies of the guide were required (e.g. for key stakeholders), a sustainable printing speciai st was engaged Lo ensure minimal environmental impact.At the launch of the guide, people were offered the option of a USB stick containing the guide, rather than a hard copy.

ATTACHMENT 6A


Criteria 5: The Australian Landscape Principles

5.1 Value our

landscape he pol.cy opt ons paper

developed empowers

councils to promote green roofs walls and facades

through the planning

process whilst the Guide

provides developers with both lhe information and

the motivation to include

these landscape elements

in their projects.1 he

Demonstration Sites project

has developed a method for assessing sites feasibility for

living architecture.

• GROWING GREEN GUI%

5.2 Protect

Enhance I Regenerate he am of the project was

to encourage and advocate

for urban landscapes where high quality green

roofs, walls and facaces are commonplace :I his

innovative approach to

greening will enhance

our cties by reducing

urban temperatures ann

stormwater runoff to create resilient restorative places

for people to work, visit and

kfe.The project reflects the principle of biophiiia, and

recognises that cities offer a

real opportunity to replace

habitat that is lost through urbanisation and to faster

a connection to nature for

rity, ctweiiers.

5.3 Design with

respect

Clies have, as a rule,

developed without

adequate consideration or their impact on ecosystems.

this projects aim was

encourage urban landscapes

to incorporate more nature, for the beneVt of the

community, environment

and economy. Such

benefits include increased biodiversity cleaner air

arc cooler temperatures,

leadrg to increased activity

in retail and hospitality

sectors,

5.4 Design for the future

Si 5.2 and 5.3

demonstrate the role

that green roofs, walls

and facades can play in

creating urban landscapes

that are resilient to future

challenges. The production

of the Guide and Policy

Options Paper supports the growth of green roofs

and walls industries in

Victoria. Furthermore,

the Creative Commons

Licence under which the

Guide is published allows

the development of future iterations (See 5.5).

•

5.5 Embrace responsive design

I he projecl group.

understanding that any

guidelines would at some point become out dated,

embraced responsive design

through Creative Commons

licencing. ibis means that the Guide can be updated

by any organisation or person as the industry

and technology evolves

but must remain non-

commercial.

• ' filogehlet

•

"PIP

Project Success

In the long term, the success of the Growing Green Guide project will be measured by the number of high quality green roofs, walls and facades in our urban landscape. However, the interest and uptake of the Guide and website in the months since the project completion demonstrates the impact on industry. Some examples are provided here, and in the supporting documentation.

Graeme Hopkins and Christine Goodwin. Fifth Creek Studio and the authors ol Living

Architecture: Green roofs and walls

Warwick Savvas, ASPECT Studios

• Erik van

Zuilekom. Fylogreen Australia (Victoria)

ROWING REEN UWE

mrsirst •

• • •

ATTACHMENT 6A

GROWING GREEN GUIDE

91011,904 II

A vision of Melbourne where green roofs, walls and facades are common in the urban landscape...

Client Statement

The need to develop guidelines and policy to encourage the proliferation of green roofs, walls and facades in Victoria was

dear and the /MAP group were successful in gaining funding support from the Victorian Government through the Victorian

Adaptation and Sustainability Partner ship. This project has developed shorig relationships across government, industry and

research sectors. The outputs of this project will heip Victorians adapt to a changing climate and improve Melbourne's world

leading liveabllity.The project WM expertly managed and was delivered ahead of schedule and within budget. '

Ben johnson,Victorian Adaptation and Sustainability Partnership

Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries

10 REEN S A GROWING

ir UWE 71

ATTACHMENT 6A

Policy Reference Group Brendan Cousins City of Melbourne

Meg Jones

Casey Lord Jim McLauchlan Vince Lodato

Elizabeth Brant

Nic Drent Leon Yates

Tania Crisafi

Gail Hall

City of Stonnington

City of Yarm

City of Port Philip

Depart, nent of Transport. Planning and

Local Infrastructure

City of Melbourne

Project Team Gail Hall Julie Francis

Elissa McElroy

Meg Jones

John Rayner Sue Murphy

Inner Melbourne Action Plan Making Melbourne More Liveable

r

101.

pt40:' CITY OF MOWOURPIE

LIBOURN L SCHOOL OF LAND & tF,YIKONFLHt

r.y STONNINGTON A

Victorian Adaptation b SustainabilityPirtoqrsi.ir

Maribyrnong CITY COUNCIL

Consultancies Universal Favourite

ASPECT Studios

bent architecture

Infographics for the Guide

Feasibility study for demonstration sift",

Concept designs for demonstration sites

Acknowledgements

Guidelines Reference Group Nic CuInane Phil Edwards Jock Gammon Ken Hitchcock Sam lnnes Rafael Katigbak Euan Lairc Matthew Mackay Carlo Missio Ben Nicholson Clare Parry Merra n Ponazoski Warwick Savvas Nick Somes Erik van Zuilekom Scott Watson Ralph Webster

John Rayner

The CO1 make for Melbourne

Melbourne Water

Junglefy

KHD Landscape Engineering Solutions

City of Poi t /WO

Ronstan Tensile Architecture

Nurser y and Gal den Industry of Victoria

Hassell Pry Ltd

GHD Pty Ltd

Groot Consulting Umow Lai

Bent Ai chitecture ASPECT Studios

Ecodynarnics Pty Ltd Fylogree..n

VicRoads Pad Creations

University of Melbourne

-

of.toMOstl tottlieltio0

•

• 13R0 WIN GREEN

•

•

•

•

•

gottri,

•

Acknowledgements

City of Melbourne

Inner Melbourne Action Plan

City of Stonnington

University of Mclbour ne

Joanna Bush Kevin Ayrcy Justin Hanrahan

City Of bu n

City of Put t PhilIp

Department of Environment and Primary Industries

La litha Ramachandran Sam Innes Nick Alsop

Andrew Straker Brod Street Kirsty Lee Ben Johnson

• ,

GROWING REEN

GUIDE

itilititit

UI •

•

Offitift.

ATTACHMENT 6A

t

41101 00.11rpri -

Rooftop gardens on the rise as inner-city Melbourne grows green Page 1 of 2

Rooftop gardens on the rise as inner-city Melbourne grows green

Christina Thou and Alice Stolz

Melbourne is developing a world of private parklands hidden from the streetscape.

Rooftop gardens are springing up across the city, luring residents away from traditional house blocks to apartments with shared green space.

Colliers International's Matthew Stagg said rooftop gardens were becoming more popular as the city's apartment market matured.

"Traditionally, apartments in Melbourne have been catered towards singles and couples," he said.

"Buyers and tenants are now looking for additional amenities that are available exclusively to residents ... particularly Asian buyers and an increasing

number of families with children seeking larger apartments and amenities."

Melbourne is catching up with the latest international trend popular in New York, Singapore and Shanghai.

Gail Hall, project coordinator of urban landscapes at the City of Melbourne, and co-author of the Growing Green Guide, has seen an increase of green

developments over the past year.

She said inner-city councils encouraged the uptake of green roofs as it helped make the city more resilient tothe negative impact of increased density

and loss of urban greenery as the population increased.

But not only the inner city is recognising the need for more green space. Earlier this year Stonnington Council indicated it would consider creating more

parks in its suburbs, which currently have only 6.7 per cent as public open space. The council is also looking at creating ''pocket parks" in dead-end

streets and roof gardens.

As well as improving aesthetics and creating open space, the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects Victorian president Jon Shinkfield said

rooftop gardens should also be functional.

love the idea, for instance, of being able to walk down Collins Street and to be able to buy tomatoes at a street vendor where the tomatoes have

been grown on the top of a building," he said.

The Far East Consortium's Upper West Side project, bordered by Spencer, Lansdale, Little Bourke streets and Rose Lane, is one of the many

developments that are going green. It will give residents access to more than 4000 square metres of podium garden when completed.

Sprawling over four interconnected residential towers, there will be a variety of amenities including barbecue facilities, pavilions for shade, vegetable

patches, a bocce court and garden lounges.

Cottee Parker Architects' Victorian manager Shane Williams, who worked on the project, said this would be the largest of its kind in Melbourne.

Freshwater Place in Southbank, one of the tallest residential towers in the CBD, was completed in 2005 with a garden on level 10. The space was

designed by LBA Design director and landscape architect, Laurence Blyton. "Because of the clientele they were trying to attract, empty nesters from

the leafy eastern suburbs, the roof garden on Freshwater Place was designed to resemble what they'd left behind," Mr Blyton said.

He said he doesn't see the trend easing any time soon. "People are now demanding a hamburger with the lot. They don't just want a lovely new

apartment, they want the garden to go with it."

http://theage.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/rooftop-gardens-on-the-rise-as-innercity-melbourne.. . 1/09/2014

Attachment 6b

1

Elissa McElroy

From: Julie Francis [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, 7 November 2014 1:31 PMTo: Kelly Hertzog; Sue Murphy; Elissa McElroy; [email protected]; Meg Jones;

Kevin Ayrey ([email protected]); John Patrick RaynerCc: Ian ShearsSubject: Growing Green Guide still going strongly

Hi all,

It’s good to see the continued interest in the Growing Green Guide, in the last few days we have seen:- A Chinese inquiry ask about copyright and use of our information in a new book on green facades- Inclusion of a reference and link to the GGG in Sydney’s new green roof and wall waterproofing

guide (still a draft at present)- Regular people promoting the GGG and its broader goals on the People for Places / Participate

Melbourne website (another City of Melbourne project)- The completion of a civil engineering UoM student project investigating load bearing, based on

conversations I started when the project was in full swing last year

We also have planners from all 5 (including Maribyrnong) IMAP councils committing to investigating some wording in the planning scheme to reference green roofs, walls and facades. A policy reference group meeting will be held the week after next.

I will be updating the GGG website soon, so please send through anything you think should be up there.

Also, be aware that Sustainability Victoria has grants available for environmental improvement infrastructure projects, to be built by 2017. This is a great opportunity for getting up demonstration projects (particularly cheaper wall and façade projects) with co-contribution of Council funds. Let’s keep the momentum going!!

Julie

Julie Francis | Coordinator Green Infrastructure | Urban Landscapes | City Design

City of Melbourne | Council House 2, 240 Little Collins Street Melbourne 3000 | GPO Box 1603 Melbourne 3001 T: 03 9658 8097 | F: 03 9650 8840E: [email protected] www.melbourne.vic.gov.au

The Growing Green Guide for Melbourne is here, find out more at the website www.GrowingGreenGuide.org


Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this email.


Attachment 6c

1

Elissa McElroy

Subject: FW: Media Release: Melbourne Official Visitor Map Makeover

From: Destination Melbourne [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of

Destination Melbourne Sent: Thursday, 4 September 2014 4:03 PM To: Robert Wolff

Subject: Media Release: Melbourne Official Visitor Map Makeover

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view online.

Melbourne Official Visitor Map Makeover Thursday 4 September, 2014

Destination Melbourne is proud to release the latest edition of the Melbourne Official Visitor Map. The new

look map is the result of a combined project between Destination Melbourne and the IMAP Councils to

produce one map for Melbourne that meets the needs of visitors and the industry.

In January 2014, a significant research project was undertaken to gain a deeper understanding of how visitors use

maps whilst in Melbourne. The new-look Melbourne Official Visitor Map is driven by findings from this research and

combines the best elements of the previous two map brochures into one comprehensive visitor map.

One million copies per annum of the map will be distributed through key visitor touch points ensuring it is the most

widely distributed Melbourne visitor map.

Attachment 6d

2

‘’Destination Melbourne is committed to ensuring Melbourne’s visitors have the best resources available to them. We

are proud to be working with the IMAP Tourism Working Group to produce a single comprehensive visitor map for

Melbourne,” Laura Cavallo, Chief Executive, Destination Melbourne.

“The IMAP Committee is proud of the terrific result of the collaboration between Destination Melbourne and the Cities

of Yarra, Maribyrnong, Stonnington, Port Phillip and Melbourne.

These Cities, which form the inner Melbourne region, all have much to offer visitors. This comprehensive, consolidated

visitor map showcases inner Melbourne’s best attractions and will encourage more visitors to explore these must-see

destinations.” Cr Amanda Stevens, Mayor, City of Port Phillip and IMAP spokesperson.

The Inner Melbourne Map (pink brochure) has now ceased production as a stand-alone product. However, the

redesigned Melbourne Official Visitor Map will continue to carry the IMAP inner Melbourne map, which has been

updated to include part of the western suburbs.

Destination Melbourne and the IMAP Councils are committed to ensuring our visitor product offers a seamless

experience for visitors exploring Melbourne and we welcome industry’s feedback on the map.

Destination Melbourne would also like to acknowledge the support of Tourism Victoria and Public Transport Victoria as

key partners of the Melbourne Official Visitor Map.

Click here to view the new look map.

Note: The Cities of Melbourne, Yarra, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Maribyrnong are partners in the implementation of

the Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP).

-ENDS-

More information please contact:

Kellie Monger

Marketing Manager, Destination Melbourne

98692413

[email protected]

To order your copy please contact:

Michael McBean

Marketing Intern, Destination Melbourne

9869 2444

[email protected]

3

Destination Melbourne

Phone: (03) 9869 2444

Fax: (03) 9869 2424

[email protected]

Mailing address

Level 12,

50 Queen Street

Melbourne 3000

You are receiving this email because you are on the Destination Melbourne mailing list.

If you no longer wish to receive these, you can unsubscribe here.

View our privacy policy


1

IMAP Progress Report November 2014

The Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) identifies 57 actions within 11 regional strategies to help build

the inner Melbourne region to embody creativity, liveability, prosperity and sustainability across a

range of diverse neighbourhoods.

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

Action 9.4 Green Demonstration projects (part) - Water Sensitive Cities Report

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

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 Achievements

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

IMAP Annual Report 2013-14

Governance

Annual Reports

Goods & Services Procurement Policy and MoU


2

Governance & Relationships Report

IMAP Plan Review 2010; Financial Review 2010

Memorandum of Understanding – Intellectual Property

IP Licence Agreements – ESD Factsheets, IMAP Regional Tourism MapCommunications

IMAP Geographic Information System (GIS)

IMAP Website and GrowingGreenGuide.org website

National Conference presentations (2009, 2011 & 2012)

Club IMAP

Council BriefingsAdvocacy

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

Action 1.4 Boulevards and Major Roads

Preliminary work – ON HOLD

The IMAP Implementation Committee keeps a watching brief on work by VicRoads on the Hoddle Street Study. Awaits state government decisions.

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.

The Melbourne Tourism Partnership are exploring ways to assist visitors orientate themselves and navigate the city. In 2013 the project was extended to the IMAP Councils and the Melbourne Visitor Signage Co-ordinating Committee was established.

The Committee seeks to:

build common threads between roads, public transport, tourism, pedestrian, cycling and street directionalsignage systems across the inner Melbourne region. Shared symbols and terminology will be applied acrossthese key signage systems and coordinated responses to signage requests by tourist attractions, precinctsand major developments provided.

To date, the following has been achieved:

Identified priority attractions, key routes requiring navigation, visitor signage policies and areasbenefitting by decluttering

Initial work on a Melbourne visitor signage Master Style Guide undertaken in 2013-14 to articulateagreed sign principles, policies, symbols, terminology and design standards.

Identified the contents of the Master Style Guide for comment (including liaison with the BicycleWayfinding Working Group established through Knox City Council).

Reviewed the draft Part 1 of the Master Style Guide. (Representatives of Wyndham Council nowattending).

Identified representatives of the IMAP Councils to participate in the next steps on this project.

A consultant has been employed to review the signage policies across all agencies and councilson the Signage Committee to identify synergies and provide style recommendations. The VisitorSignage Coordinating Committee ran 2 workshops on 27 October and 17 November to review thework being undertaken.


3

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. This project aims to coordinate bike lane development priorities and capital projects by the 5 IMAP Councils and VicRoads across the inner Melbourne region.

The City of Yarra is the lead council for this project. An initial meeting of the Working Group was held in October 2013 to scope the project.

A Workshop in November in conjunction with State Government representatives started the collationof data on Council cycling initiatives, current and planned.

DTPLI presented to the IMAP Committee at the 28 February 2014 meeting on how this work can beintegrated by the Department and coordinated through a series of additional workshops to determinethe detail required to establish key cycling corridors. The IMAP project team also reported to theCommittee in progress to date.

Joint workshops have been held and the project awaits feedback from the State Government on the proposals put forward from the group.

Action 2.5 Bicycle Network

IN PROGRESS - Implementation of Priority Routes

Action 2.3 delivered the Priority Bicycle Network Map for IMAP (January 2008) forming the basis for the implementation of Action 2.5. Focus is on the high bicycle usage routes or those routes which have the potential to carry significantly increased bicycle volumes as they:

require the most work to bring them up to a standard that could safely accommodate increasing bicyclevolumes.

provide the opportunity to implement “best practice” separation and delineation treatments being designedand installed in various municipalities; promote and share this knowledge more

To date, the following has been achieved:

The Working Group reported their gap analysis of the network in May 2010, identified the need to fasttrack completion of the network and to establish coordinated design guidelines for standardized bike

lane treatments across the IMAP councils. Representatives from the City of Maribyrnong joined the project team in 2011-12.

Increased funding, improvement of strategic links, upgrades and detailed design are ongoing.

All cycling infrastructure works undertaken in 2013-14 are listed in the IMAP Annual Report 2013-14 approved at the August 2014 meeting.

Action 3.2 Roads as Places

ON HOLD

A Briefing paper was prepared for consideration by the IMAP Implementation Committee in February 2010. Arevised brief was approved at the February 2012 Committee meeting to consider place making attributesaround tram super stops.

City of Melbourne is the lead Council for this project. This project is on hold pending the completion of theIMAP Review.


4

Action 5.2 Affordable Housing

COMPLETED - Stage 1: Planning mechanisms:

IN PROGRESS - Stage 2: Community Land Trust Research

(Phase 1 – COMPLETED)

Research commissioned by the City of Port Phillip on “Affordable Housing Development Models”prepared by Affordable Housing Solutions [AHS] was made available to the IMAP councils in March 2011for consideration. Research has now been undertaken on Community Land Trust models and theirapplication in Australia through the University of Western Sydney.

The Australian CLT Manual is now completed.

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

(Phase 2 – IN PROGRESS)

The Scope of Work for Phase 2 was reported to the February 2014 IMAP Committee meeting and fundraising for the next phase of this work– to develop financial models and case studies - has beensuccessful.

the UWS Partnership Agreement is now available for consideration by financial partners

the first meeting is to be held on 20 November 2014 to commence discussions on the next stage.

Action 5.4 and 5.5 Social Infrastructure and Services/Infrastructure Development

ON HOLD

This project proposes to undertake research to identify the capacity of social services currently provided tosocial housing developments, across the IMAP region, both existing and proposed, and to identify gaps whichmay exist in service provision. In addition the project aims to map the way people move through themunicipalities and how this affects services. An initial project brief was approved at the November 2011Committee meeting.

Further development of this project awaits completion of the IMAP Review.

Action 6.3 Managing Conflict in Activity Centres

ON HOLD

A submission to address the disparity between Definitions in the legislation with the Department of Justiceis on hold awaiting resources to complete this work.

Action 7.2 Support Creative Industries

IN PROGRESS

An initial meeting was held in December 2012 to scope this project. The Cities of Stonnington and PortPhillip co-lead this project.

Consultation has been undertaken across the 5 IMAP Councils to create an inventory of currentprograms being undertaken and identify IMAP potential projects.

The Inventory report was considered by Council representatives in September 2013. A number of“quick wins” and research areas were identified for further work.

The City of Port Phillip’s research on the creative sector has been completed and made available tothe project team. The IMAP Councils were asked for their response to the report inJanuary/February 2014 prior to it being considered by the Port Phillip Council.


5

A definition of “Creative Industries” has been agreed and the need for an IMAP Creative Businesspolicy identified.

In a separate initiative, representatives of the IMAP Councils are investigating the business caseto investigate urban manufacturing in the Inner Melbourne region. The IMAP Committee willconsider their recommendations at the November 2014 meeting.

Action 8.1 Priority for Freight Movement

ON HOLD

Awaiting work being undertaken by the State Government as it may modify the brief for this work. The projectwill be led by the Maribyrnong City Council.

Action 9.2 Environmentally Sustainable Design – commercial buildings

COMPLETED Stage 1

Work on the Communication Strategy commenced in December 2010. ESD topics were identified and writtenup in the form of Factsheets for publication.

The Factsheets pack was formally launched at a function held at the City of Melbourne on 11 May2012 with the first 10 topics now available on Council and the IMAP websites.

Topics include:

1.0 Indoor environment quality 2.0 Energy efficiency3.0 Water efficiency 4.0 Stormwater management5.0 Building materials 6.0 Transport7.0 Waste management 8.0 Urban ecology 9.0 Innovation 10.0 Construction and building management

The Factsheets have been licensed for re-badging and use by 8 other Melbourne Councils.

IN PROGRESS Stage 2

Additional topics currently in preparation include:

4.1 Site Permeability 2.1 Sunshading 8.1 Green roofs, walls and facades Melbourne’s Climate (including adaptation) ESD Tools

The Working Group reported to the May 2014 Committee meeting:

The 10 original fact sheets have been designed to support the SDAPP framework and havesince become reference documents for the six local governments who had adopted theproposed local planning scheme amendment for ESD.

The success of the Fact Sheet Project can be defined by a recommendation from theMinisterial Advisory Committee (MAC) and Panel Report for the proposed EnvironmentallyEfficient Design (EED) policies which were exhibited by six local governments including PortPhillip, Stonnington and Yarra.

The recommendation read as follows:

‘The Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process Fact Sheets in existence at thetime of Amendment exhibition be adopted in the local policies as reference documents.’

Ref: Item 3, Page 103/117 Advisory Committee and Panel Report, Environmentally Efficient Design Policies, 7 April2014.

A further report to the IMAP Committee in August 2014 requested consideration of agovernance approach to managing the Factsheets in the future, by encouraging Councils to


6

adopt the factsheets through engagement with CASBE, who will oversee the ESD standards and improve consistency. Following Committee approval for this approach, the project team is now developing an IMAP licence agreement with CASBE, and finalising changes to the five latest Factsheet additions noted above.

Action 9.4 Green Demonstration Projects

IN PROGRESS

1. Green Roofs Research Project - Australian Research Council Linkage Grant - CURRENT

In 2013 the IMAP Implementation Committee partnered in an ARC Linkage Grant with the University ofMelbourne 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 willprovide:

Design, monitoring and management recommendations for Green Roofs, particularly inrelation to stormwater quality and quantity, temperature (building energy efficiency) andimproved biodiversity.

The research team are now well into their first year and have provided an update on progress to IMAP representatives.

2. Distributed Energy Mapping – IN PROGRESS

The Distributed Energy project aims to undertake an analysis of the potential for distributed energy in theIMAP area (district scale cogeneration, renewable and energy efficiencies) and develop business models forimplementing commercially viable distributed energy systems in Melbourne.

Work has focussed on:

extracting relevant Council data for the CSIRO modelling

engaging the relevant utilities to participate and provide data.

meeting with representatives from CSIRO to finalise data access arrangements

The energy modelling was demonstrated at the IMAP Implementation Committee’s August 2013 meeting.Workshops held in October 2013 and February 2014 helped identify how the information should bedelivered to stakeholders. Progress was reported to the February 2014 IMAP Committee meeting.

CSIRO representatives met with the project team on 15 May 2014 to determine final changes to themapping projection scenarios.

Information on the projected growth areas was then sourced to ensure the model allows forfuture changes predicted across the region.

The Final Report was provided to the IMAP Committee at its August 2014 meeting. Subsequently workhas progressed developing a communications strategy and enabling the data models to be run on councilcomputer systems to complete the project. The project team is preparing an Action Plan to report back tothe IMAP Committee.

Action 10.1 Regional Open Space and Trail Network

ON HOLD

A working group presented a draft Project Plan to the IMAP Committee on 28 August 2009.

In February 2010 the Working group detailed timeframe of the stages, desktop audit, engagement ofpartners and the development of an Implementation Plan, and in May 2010 updated the Committee on howthe project has been integrated into actions being undertaken by state government agencies.

In February 2011 GIS staff assisted the project by initiating the collation of land information across the 4councils onto a base map. The IMAP Geographic Information System (GIS) was set up for testing in


7

November 2013 and the open space data loaded as a test case. The project is currently on hold awaiting completion of the IMAP Review.

Strategy 11 – Regional Tourism

ONGOING A new 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 research with DML to gauge feedback on the contents and presentation of theOfficial Visitor Guide and the IMAP tourist map.

Collated IMAP expenditure on the Tourist Map to evaluate alternatives to printing and distributingthe map and options for distribution of the tourist maps.

The IMAP Map was included in the 15,000 AIDs conference delegate’s pack – the cover modifiedto include the cultural program link.

In August 2014 the project team updated the Committee on the agreement reached with DML for printing and distribution of the IMAP map through the Official Visitors Map. Following ratification of the Agreement, the IMAP Map has been included in the latest upgraded OVM publication.

IMAP Review

CURRENT The development of an new Inner Melbourne Action Plan is underway. Consultants were appointed in June 2014 to write the plan following consultation across the IMAP councils.

The IMAP review has progressed through the Stage 2 information gathering phase of the contract.

13 – 16 October: 5 half-day Reference Group workshops were facilitated by consultants under the topics:Environmental Sustainability, Economy, Communities, Transport, and Neighbourhoods and Places. About70 staff from across the 5 councils participated. The next Councillor workshop on the new plan isplanned for the new year.

130 staff across the 5 councils have been included in the distribution network (Basecamp) for consultingon the project.

Councillors and Executives from the 5 IMAP councils were updated on the project via emails from the

Executive Officer on 29 September and 12 November 2014.

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


Progress Report

IMAP Review

___________________________________________________________________________________

Purpose

To update the Committee on progress with the IMAP Review.

Background

The IMAP Implementation Committee adopted the Project Plan for this Review at their meeting on28 February 2014.

Progress on the Literature Review, Survey Analysis and update of statistics to assist the consultantswas reported to the Committee in May.

The appointment of consultants and the outcomes of the first two Workshops in Phase 1 for (1) Staffand external representatives, and (2) Councillors and Executives were reported to the Committee inAugust.

Discussion

Milestones

5.1 Outcome of the Phase 1 workshops

Echelon Planning prepared a summary at the end of the first phase for review by the IMAP Executive Forum. (Refer Minutes of the meeting – Attachment 2).

The senior executives assisted with the identification of 5 priority outcomes for the IMAP regions. These were further refined by the working group as follows:

a. Globally significant, strong and diverse economyb. Connected and efficient transport networkc. Diverse, vibrant, healthy and inclusive communitiesd. Distinctive, high quality neighbourhoods and placese. Leadership on achieving environmental sustainability and addressing climate change

5.2 Phase 2 Technical Reference Group workshops

Five staff workshops were held 13 -16 October based on the above 5 priority outcomes. Approximately 70 staff attended from across the IMAP councils.

Staff identified those actions currently undertaken by their councils which could be rolled out on a regional basis, plus new activities which could be undertaken regionally.

The consultants then constructed draft Strategies around the sugggestions received.

5.3 Review by the IMAP Executive Forum and Project Control Group.

On 14 November a joint meeting of the IMAP Executive Forum and Project Control Group reviewed an update of the work undertaken to date:

Proposed Vision and priority outcomes

Mission


2 Report prepared by: Elissa McElroy, IMAP executive officer

Proposed Strategies (relating to the 5 priority outcomes)

The reporting framework; and

Monitoring ( based on the liveability indicators – to be determined)

The consultant also presented:

the Decision-making criteria for determining projects (Actions); and

a proposed process for selecting and funding future IMAP Projects.

The IMAP Executive Forum requested further work be undertaken refining the planning work developed to date, prior to presenting the draft plan to Councillors. (Refer Minutes of the meeting – Attachment 3).

Next Steps

As result of the advice from the IMAP Executive Forum, the Workshop planned for the 19 November for Councillors, Executives and the Project Control Group has been postponed until the new year and the timeline reviewed. This is in accordance with the contract, which allows for revision of the phases of the project as required.

The process going forward is proposed as follows:

Under this proposal, the IMAP Implementation Committee may need a special meeting to discuss the draft plan in March 2015, outside of the quarterly meeting cycle.

The plan, inclusive of comments from the 5 IMAP Councils during their consultation, could then be considered in its final format at the May meeting.

If the plan requires further work in May, it can be referred back at this stage for anotherround.

If the plan meets requirements, it could be forwarded to each of the 5 IMAP Councils withthe Committee’s recommendation for approval and adoption.

The change to the project to increase consultation and review will add additional costs to the contract. A review of the project budget can be considered as part of the IMAP Three Year Implementation Plan – refer Item 14 (Attachment 10).

Recommendation

That the IMAP Implementation Committee:

a. note the current progress on the IMAP Review project;

b. approve the amended timeline for the development of the plan;

c. note that the changes to undertake additional consultation and review will incur additionalcosts to the contract.

Consultant to review draft plan.

Consult with senior staff (x2) for feedback

NOV - DEC

Consult Project Control Group and Council staff.

Seek sign off by IMAP Executive Forum

JAN 2015

Consultant to review draft plan with PCG feedback.

IMAP Implementation Committee to approve for Council consultation FEB - MAR

Workshop – Councillors, EMT & PCG of the 5

IMAP Councils confirm priorities

FEB 2015

Draft Plan referred to the 5 IMAP Councils for consideration.

Draft plan made available online f or public comment

MAR - APR


1 Project Team: Cameron Brenton CoPP (Team Leader); Austin Ley CoM, Liz Mackevicius CoY, Karen Watson CoS, Nigel Higgins CoMar, Virginia Miller CoPP Report prepared by: Virginia Miller


Briefing Paper

Research Proposal - Urban Manufacturing ____________________________________________________________________________________

Late item

Report to follow


Page 1 of 7 Report Prepared By: IMAP Executive Officer


Progress Report

IMAP Three Year Implementation Plan _________________________________________________________________________________

1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to advise the IMAP Implementation Committee on the update of the Three Year Implementation Plan for the Inner Melbourne Action Plan and the implication for budgets in 2015-16.

2 BACKGROUND

During 2009-2010 the IMAP Review was undertaken to ensure its direction and priorities continued to reflect current issues. The review endorsed the current 11 strategies in the plan and confirmed regional priorities in the areas of:

• Transport and connectedness• Environmental sustainability• Housing affordability• Regional development

In December 2010 the IMAP Implementation Committee approved a program of work and funding to enable a number of priority projects to proceed.

Four years on from that process, this report updates the Committee on the status of the IMAP projects, current and proposed, and the overall funding position.

The Review of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan currently in process, will only have an impact on the Three Year Implementation Plan once it has been adopted. At that time, the Implementation Plan will be revised to reflect the new priorities. In the meantime, however, this report is based on a ‘business as usual’ approach.

3 GOVERNANCE AND FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

The Inner Melbourne Action Plan contains 11 Strategies and 57 Actions. Approved in 2006, it is now in its 9th year of the implementation program.

IMAP is a unique partnership between the inner city Councils, with five Section 86 Special Committees meeting as one, bound by identical Council Delegations and Terms of Reference; and with formal MoUs in place for Procurement protocols and joint Intellectual Property matters. Its primary function is to oversee the implementation of Actions through cross council teams and associated partners.

The IMAP area represents the high growth, high density areas of the city and includes the greatest concentration of commercial buildings in the metropolitan area. The Committee has included the City of Maribyrnong as a full Member since July 2013 as its potential for development, increased growth and high density on the western boundary of the IMAP area identifies it as essentially facing similar issues to the Inner Melbourne councils.

With the inclusion of Maribyrnong and the publication of the State Government’s Plan Melbourne, the IMAP Implementation Committee resolved in February 2014 to review the Inner Melbourne Action Plan.



4 THREE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 4.1 CURRENT OVERALL PROGRESS IMPLEMENTING IMAP 19 Actions (33%) have been completed (11) or closed (8).

1.1 Heritage statement of significance Completed 2.4 Pedestrian priority areas - Greenlight project Completed 3.1 Commuter car use Closed 3.3 Regional parking management Completed 3.4 40% by 2020 Closed 3.5 Reduced through traffic (Part 1) Completed 4.1 Travel Smart Closed 4.6 Public transport pricing Closed 5.3 Integrating public housing Completed 6.3 Managing conflicts in Activity Centres Completed 7.1 Government industry links Closed 7.3 Improved information Closed 7.4 Regional economic development statement Completed 7.5 Wireless broadband Closed 7.6 Exporting health services Closed 7.7 Universities & regional development Completed 9.1 Regional sustainability targets Completed 9.3 Water sensitive urban design Completed 9.6 Recycled water for open space Completed

16 Actions (28%) have not been started or programmed into the current plan.

1.2 Public realm infrastructure standards 1.3 Built form controls 1.5 Key urban squares 2.1 Regional physical infrastructure 4.2 Street design standards 6.1 Activity centre local policy 6.2 Activity centre public environment 6.4 New cultural facilities 6.5 Activity centre services 8.2 Improved links to the port 9.5 Community capacity for sustainability 10.2 Physical infrastructure needs 10.4 Riparian open space project 10.5 Wild life links 10.6 Foreshore open space 10.7 Waterways planning & management

5 Actions (9%) proceed through ongoing advocacy by the IMAP Councils either jointly or on an individual basis.

2.6 Tram & Rail network Ongoing advocacy 4.3 Think Tram Ongoing advocacy 4.4 Enhanced bus priority Ongoing advocacy 4.5 Improved public transport infrastructure Ongoing advocacy 5.1 Regional housing statement Ongoing advocacy



17 Actions (30%) are current or due to commence. 5 of these Actions (9%) have been completed but remain current due to new work in these areas.

1.4 Boulevards & major roads Current 2.2 Wayfinding signage Completed Ongoing 2.3 Bicycle network legibility Completed Ongoing 2.5 Bicycle network Current 3.2 Roads as Places Current 3.5 Reduced through traffic (Part 2) Not started 4.7 Improvements to public transport services Current 5.2 Affordable housing Completed Ongoing 5.4 Social infrastructure & services Current 5.5 Infrastructure development Current 7.2 Support creative businesses Current 8.1 Priority for freight movement Current 9.2 Environmental sustainable design Current 9.4 Green demonstration projects Current 10.1 Regional open space & trail network Current 10.3 Open space links Current 11.1 Inner Melbourne map Completed Ongoing 11.2 Regional tourism programme Completed Ongoing

Some of these projects have indicative budgets. The funds are able to be held in the trust fund until the projects draw down the expenditure. There is generally a lag before the expenditure is incurred. The account arrangements enable all unexpended funds to be carried forward until the project commences. Tourism projects are funded separately from the other project items and maintain a running balance. 4.2 UPDATE ON CURRENT PROJECTS The Draft Three Year Implementation Plan for the period 2015-16 through until 2017-18 has been prepared on the basis that: • Current approved projects will continue to proceed until such time as a new plan and new agreed

projects are in place. • Any new funding requirements, such as for the Urban Manufacturing Project, will be addressed at

such time as the project has been approved through adjustment in timing of other projects. • Funding for the Regional Management Forum projects, to be undertaken in conjunction with the

State Government, will be managed through the IMAP account requiring additional funding and a change to the current budget.

• Any additional funding required for the IMAP plan review process requires a variation to the current budget.

The status of the current IMAP projects are summarised below and changes noted in bold: Action 2.2 Wayfinding Signage – Master Style Guide Lead Council City of Melbourne Total IMAP Project Budget $120,000 over 2 years - $48,560 spent to date Status Meeting regularly and progressing well. Action 2.3 Bicycle network legibility Lead Council City of Yarra Total IMAP Project Budget Nil, staff time only. Work with the State Govt on priority routes. Status Project team established. First meeting 27 November 2013. Action 2.5 Bicycle network Lead Council City of Melbourne Total IMAP Project Budget Nil, staff time only (Individual Council capital budgets)



Status Reporting once a year. About 75% of projects completed. Remaining projects lack funding or commitment. Await development of new priorities under Action 2.3.

Action 3.2 Roads as Places Lead Council City of Melbourne Total IMAP Project Budget $40,000 – not spent Status: Brief approved. Not started. Project may need to be reconsidered.

Action 3.5 Reduced through traffic (Part 2) Lead Council City of Stonnington and City of Melbourne Total IMAP Project Budget: (1) $100,000 Through Traffic modelling. Completed

(2) $100,000 Sustainable parking provisions Status: Parking project may need to be reconsidered via IMAP Review. Action 4.7 Improvements to public transport services Lead Council City of Melbourne Total IMAP Project Budget Nil Status: Linked to the development of the City of Melbourne Transport Strategy –

IMAP briefed during consultation stage. Unclear what further work is required.

Action 5.2 Affordable housing Lead Council City of Port Phillip Total IMAP Project Budget $10,000 towards Stage 2 of the CLT project – not spent Status: Stage 2 will investigate the development of financial packages to support

CLTs. Project commenced November 2014. Action 5.4 Social infrastructure & services and Action 5.5 Infrastructure developments Lead Council City of Yarra Total IMAP Project Budget: $40,000 – not spent Status: The original brief for this project was superseded by research undertaken

by the state government to develop the MPS. Project deferred awaiting IMAP Review.

Action 7.2 Support creative businesses Lead Council City of Stonnington & City of Port Phillip Total IMAP Project Budget: $10,000 for initial work– $3K spent Status: (1) The IMAP Executive Officer reviewed current work by the IMAP

Councils and state government. City of Port Phillip and City of Melbourne research has been considered. Initial work undertaken to identify priorities. (2) Urban Manufacturing project investigation being undertaken. No funding has been allocated awaiting final approval.

Action 8.1 Priority for freight movement Lead Council Maribyrnong City Council Total IMAP Project Budget $87,500 – not spent Status: Brief for this project prepared in 2011. Clarified further at the IMAP

Executive Forum on November 2013. Requires further assessment wrt State Government research project undertaken.

Action 9.2 Environmental sustainable design Lead Council City of Port Phillip Total IMAP Project Budget (1) $55,000 total budget for Factsheets development spent -

(2) $10,000 for ESD Policy review – being spent on factsheets (3) $30,000 to identify ESD retrofit issues (2014/15) – not spent

Status: 10 factsheets have been completed. 5 are in preparation to complete the series. Nine councils outside the IMAP region have licensed the factsheets for distribution under their logos. Developing CASBE licence to manage consistency.



Action 9.4 Green demonstration projects Lead Council City of Melbourne Total IMAP Project Budget (1) $180,000 Distributed Energy Project

(2) $130,000

- $100,000 paid, $80,000 payment held pending completion of CSIRO modelling

Growing Green Guide Project(3)_ $60,000

– Completed Green Roof research

Status: Distributed Energy Project awaiting final completion.

(ARC grant partner with University of Melbourne & Melbourne Water) – 3 year budget

Growing Green Guide Project completed. ARC grant project commenced in 2013-14 with the first payment made ($20,000).

Action 10.1 Regional open space & trail network and Action 10.3 Open space links Lead Council City of Yarra Total IMAP Project Budget Nil, staff time only. Status: There has been no reporting on this project since May 2010. Work was

undertaken to identify all open space land ownership in the 4 IMAP Councils in 2011. This information is now available on the IMAP GIS. Project has lacked consistent resourcing and may need to be reconsidered.

Action 11.1 Inner Melbourne map and Action 11.2 Regional tourism programme Lead Council City of Melbourne (Rotates) Total IMAP Project Budget $100,000 pa. Separate budget allocation by IMAP Councils. Any budget

surpluses are carried forward for this activity. Status: Successful, innovative project team, shared workload and allocation of

tasks. Ongoing since 2006. Majority of the annual expenditure goes towards the Melbourne visitor map production and distribution – via Destination Melbourne. Allowance made in the budget for this to continue.

IMAP Total IMAP Administration Budget

$15,000 pa operational costs $7,400 pa (+ 4% increase pa) IMAP GIS $85,000 over 2 years for the IMAP Review

Status The IMAP budget covers ongoing costs associated with the IMAP website, support for the IMAP GIS, production of the Annual Report, and administration expenses. Provision for the review of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan covers consultant costs and initial staffing only and requires some additional funds. Additional funding estimate provided in the budget. The IMAP website, established over 5 years ago, also requires an upgrade. Estimate provided in the budget.

Regional Management Fund (RMF) Projects Projects Integrated Service Models Measures of Liveability Total Budget $100,000 contribution from the IMAP Councils to match State

Government funding Status: The project was approved by the 5 Councils in principle subject to

government funding. Government funding has now been guaranteed. Additional Council funding is required to undertake this project in the current financial year. IMAP can be utilised to collect joint funds and make payment. Revenue and expenditure indicated in the budget.

# Refer to Attachment 10a for the Draft Three Year Implementation Plan modelling Refer to Attachment 10b for a summary of the IMAP projects’ status



5. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Approval of these projects annually as part of a rolling 3 year Implementation Plan is delegated to the Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee by the IMAP partner Councils. The Terms of Reference requirement for the IMAP Implementation Committee is to:

“Make recommendations to the member Councils of budget allocations required to effect the implementation of specific IMAP actions, to enable consideration in each Council’s annual budgeting process. Each member Council’s budget is expected to reflect necessary resources to deliver on commitments agreed in the Plan. The budget of each member Council would be specific to meeting the IMAP actions relevant to that respective municipality. The recommended budget allocation is to be based on the perceived benefits and / or capacity of each member Council.”

6 FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS The IMAP Implementation Committee is to assess funding requests for all existing and new projects for the next 3 years. The project funding for the implementation program of identified IMAP projects is derived from: • Accumulated funds in the IMAP account • The annual regional tourism contribution of $20,000 • The annual IMAP project contribution from the partner councils – currently $35,000 per council in

2014-15 based on the current project load and timing. • Additional funding on a per project basis as required. To meet the costs of the implementation program, the IMAP Councils’ individual contributions for 2015-16 are proposed as follows: IMAP Annual Contribution $35,000 – per Council in line with the current year IMAP Annual Tourism Contribution $20,000 – per Council in line with the current years IMAP Share of Operational Costs $35,000 - per Council (Estimate, to be confirmed) (Total $90,000 per IMAP Council) To meet the costs of the RMF projects, the IMAP Councils’ additional contributions for 2014-15 are $20,000 per council in the current financial year. 7 CONCLUSION The projects are in line with the existing Strategies and Actions contained in the Inner Melbourne Action Plan and are largely a continuation of the Three Year Implementation Plan approved by the Committee last year. 8 RECOMMENDATION That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

a. Note this update on progress on the Inner Melbourne Action Plan, and

b. Approve the updated IMAP Three Year Implementation Plan, and changes to the current years budget



c. Approve the payment of $20,000 per IMAP Council in the 2014-15 financial year for the RMF projects.

d. Approve the request for each of the IMAP Partner Councils to make provision for funding in the 2015-16 budget as follows:

IMAP Annual Contribution $35,000 – per Council in line with the current year IMAP Annual Tourism Contribution $20,000 – per Council in line with the current years IMAP Share of Operational Costs $35,000 - per Council (Estimate – to be confirmed) (Total $90,000 per IMAP Council)

28 November 2014 Attachment 10a

IMAP Projects Budget - Three Year Implementation Plan - 5 IMAP Councils (excl GST)Funding ModelREVENUE 2014-15

(Year 9)2015-16 (Year 10)

2016-17 (Year 11)

2017-18 (Year 12)

Current

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

IMAP Councils Annual Tourism Contribution ($20K each) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

IMAP Map licensing fees 700 700 700 700Regional Management Forum Project funding 100,000

Total Revenue 375,700 275,700 275,700 275,700

FUNDED PROJECTS 2014-15(Year 9)

2015-16 (Year 10)

2016-17 (Year 11)

2017-18 (Year 12)

Ref. Action Status Brief Current

IMAP General Expenses Ongoing Annual Report, Website, Catering, Admin exps 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

IMAP IMAP GIS expenses Ongoing 7,400 7,600 7,850 8,000

IMAP IMAP Review Project Current $65K + balance C/Fwd $7,781 72,781

2.2 Wayfinding signs Current Visitor Signs Master Style Guide ($50K + balance C/Fwd $31,440) 81,440

5.2 Affordable Housing Current CLT research - Provision for Phase 2 (balance C/Fwd - committed) 10,000

9.2 Current 1. Communication Strategy -Develop ESD Factsheets (balance C/Fwd $2,748- committed) 2,748

Current 2. Review ESD Policies, tools & methodologies, advocacy (balance C/Fwd $10K - committed) 10,000

Green Roof initiatives (balance C/Fwd $3,491 - ongoing costs) 3,491

ARC grant contribution Years 2 and 3 (Committed) 20,000 20,000

Nearly completed Distributed Energy Map (CSIRO)

11 Current DML Map Agreement (Year 1: 45k; Year 2: 45K+CPI of 3%). (Committed). Year 3 TBC 91,350 47,741 49,173 50,648

Current Tourism Strategy implementation ($8,650 + balance C/Fwd $68,096 current year) 76,746 52,260 50,827 49,352

7.2 Support Creative Businesses Current 10,000

2.4 Bike Network Legibility Current Identifying future priorities for capital works

Current 1. Capital Program - Bike Lanes

Not started 2. Measure & map Level of Service rating

10.1 Regional Open Space & trail network Current Identify linkages and gaps in OS and trail network

On Hold 1. Establish joint view on Hoddle St

Not started 2. Boulevard Study 40,000

3.2 Roads as Places Not Started Brief prepared. Not started 40,000

3.5 Reduced Through traffic Not started Part 2: Parking provisions which support sustainable transport 100,000

5.4 Social Infrastructure and Services 20,000

5.5 Infrastructure Development 20,000

8.1 Priority for freight movement Not started Freight Movement Strategic Plan 87,500

9.2 ESD Commercial Buildings Not started 3. Identify ESD retrofit issues 30,000

IMAP Update website Proposed 45,000

IMAP IMAP Review Project Proposed Additional funding 15,000 15,000

RMF projects: (1) Integrated delivery models; (2) Measures of Liveability

Approved in principle

Project costs $200K: $100K from IMAP ($20K per council). 100,000

Total Annual Budget 658,456 222,600 122,850 123,000

Net Surplus (Deficit) 282,756- 53,100 152,850 152,700

Opening Balance of IMAP Account 409,559 126,803 179,903 332,753Closing Balance of IMAP Account 126,803 179,903 332,753 485,453

7.2 Urban Manufacturing Approved in principle

Project costs $300K: $60K state govt, $90K from IMAP ($18K per council). Subject to successful application for matched funds from Carlton Connect.

90,000

Please note that the funding calculation does not include Operational Costs of $35,000 per council in 2014-15.

PROPOSED

Green Demonstration Projects

Current

9.4

Regional Tourism Strategy

COMMITTED - NOT FUNDED

COMMITTED - FUNDED - NOT STARTED

COMMITTED - FUNDED

Environmentally Sustainable Design - commercial buildings

On Hold Map growth areas & locate current services to identify funding requirements for future planning

1.4 Boulevards & Major Roads - Hoddle Street

2.5 Bicycle Network:

28 November 2014 Attachment 10b


Progress Summary Strategy Action Status Heritage 1.1 Heritage statement of significance Completed

1.2 Public realm infrastructure standards 1.3 Built form controls 1.4 Boulevards & major roads Current 1.5 Key urban squares

Link Transport Routes 2.1 Regional physical infrastructure 2.2 Wayfinding signage Completed Ongoing 2.3 Bicycle network legibility Completed Ongoing 2.4 Pedestrian priority areas - Greenlight project Completed 2.5 Bicycle network Current 2.6 Tram & Rail network Ongoing advocacy

Traffic Congestion 3.1 Commuter car use Closed 3.2 Roads as Places Current 3.3 Regional parking management Completed 3.4 40% by 2020 Closed 3.5 Reduced through traffic Completed

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 Current

Population Increase 5.1 Regional housing statement Ongoing advocacy 5.2 Affordable housing Completed 5.3 Integrating public housing Completed 5.4 Social infrastructure & services Current 5.5 Infrastructure development Current

Activity Centres 6.1 Activity centre local policy 6.2 Activity centre public environment 6.3 Managing conflicts Completed 6.4 New cultural facilities 6.5 Activity centre services

Knowledge Rich Business Sectors

7.1 Government industry links Closed 7.2 Support creative businesses Current 7.3 Improved information Closed 7.4 Regional economic development statement Completed 7.5 Wireless broadband Closed 7.6 Exporting health services Closed 7.7 Universities & regional development Completed

Freight 8.1 Priority for freight movement Current 8.2 Improved links to the port

Environmental Sustainability

9.1 Regional sustainability targets Completed 9.2 Environmental sustainable design Current 9.3 Water sensitive urban design Completed 9.4 Green demonstration projects Current 9.5 Community capacity for sustainability 9.6 Recycled water for open space Completed

Regional Open Space Network

10.1 Regional open space & trail network Current 10.2 Physical infrastructure needs 10.3 Open space links Current 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 Ongoing 11.2 Regional tourism programme Completed Ongoing

agenda - imap - homeimap.vic.gov.au › uploads › meeting agendas › 2014... · 28 november 2014...

Documents