29 November 2019 Attachment 3

Report prepared by Elissa McElroy IMAP Executive Officer

IMAP Implementation Committee

Business Arising

29 November 2019

A IMAP Implementation Committee (30 November 2018 ) Responsibility Action Due Progress 12. Way finding

signs

All Committee members

CEO advocacy to be targetted through Government agencies, and Councillor’s discussion with Ministers to include way finding signage consistency across all State Government projects.

Ongoing. Met with DoT 25 Oct 2019

Completed

B IMAP Executive Forum (19 December 2018 ) Responsibility Action Due Progress 4 Bus

Arising IMAP Exec Officer That the IMAP Executive Officer prepare a letter that advises the

Minister of the resolution of the Committee relating to advocacy options around “affordable housing planning mechanisms”.

Feb 2019 Await current Afford. Housing initiatives

PwC report completed CLT Stage 2 report completed Refer items Nov 2019 agenda

C IMAP Executive Forum (16 August 2019 ) Responsibility Action Due Progress 3. Telstra Ms Ferres-Miles,

CoM IMAP Executive Officer

CoM to provide further updates to IMAP Councils as progress occurs with Telstra installations

Executive Officer to reply to Cr Bosler and the Mayors updating them on current progress with Telstra.

Ongoing 30 Aug

Draft letter to Cr Bosler forwarded to CoM for checking. Awaiting CoM response.

6. Business Arising – ESD Factsheets

IMAP Executive Officer Mr Smith CoPP & Ms Vaidyanath CoY

The Executive Officer to advise the Executive Forum of the quote to complete the ESD Factsheet project when received and reviewed.

Mr Smith and Ms Vaidyanath will investigate/discuss resourcing for the project lead council to oversee the ESD project consultant.

30 Aug Quote received. Project lead confirmed: CoY Mary Osman Arranging meeting with consultant to review quote.

6. Business Arising – Streetcount

Tony Keenan, CoPP & Barney Wilson, CoM

Tony Keenan CoPP and Barney Wilson CoM to bring together appropriate staff from across the councils to assess the options for the next StreetCount event in 2020 and prepare a proposal for the November IMAP Implementation Committee to consider.

1 Nov Completed – Meeting held 12 Nov 2019. Refer StreetCount item Nov 2019 agenda

7. Other Business

IMAP Executive Officer

Executive Officer to place Energy Initiatives as an item on the next Executive Forum agenda.

1 Nov Completed – Meeting of IMAP CEOs - 27 Nov 2019

D IMAP Implementation Committee (30 August 2019 ) Responsibility Action Due Progress 7. Street Count

IMAP Executive Officer

Executive Officer to check with DHHS on invoicing State Government for the full amount ($100K) this financial year for StreetCount 2020 and 2022.

Sept 2019

Completed

8. Fin report/ budget

IMAP Executive Officer

Executive Officer to incorporate StreetCount changes to the IMAP budget for 2019-20

Sept 2019

Completed

9. Comms & Gov

IMAP Executive Officer

Executive Officer to confirm 2020 Committee meeting venues and circulate dates for advertising

Sept 2019

Completed

10 Annual Report

IMAP Executive Officer

Executive Officer to finalise Annual Report and circulate Sept 2019

In Progress –

copies sent to

IMAP Councillors

29 November 2019 Attachment 3

Report prepared by Elissa McElroy IMAP Executive Officer

11. IMAP plan update

IMAP Executive Officer

Executive Officer to add Inner Melbourne Action Plan update to the IMAP website

Sept 2019

Completed

13 MOSS presentation

IMAP Executive Officer

- Invite Executive Director Delivery, Victorian School Building Authority, Department of Education and Training and rep from Department of Education to meet with members of the Committee.

Circulate 1929 Radial network and Infill map from Fran’s presentation (Metro Town Planning Commission Melbourne & Suburbs).

Nov 2019

Completed

E IMAP Executive Forum (1 November 2019 ) Responsibility Action Due Progress 3. Bus Arising

IMAP Executive Officer Director City Strategy & Place , CoM IMAP Executive Officer

The Executive Officer (EO) to remove actions from 2018 from Business Arising list

Claire Ferres Miles to review the draft letter in response to Cr Bosler’s Telstra enquiry and update to reflect the current position

EO to review the StreetCount item.

Nov 2019 Nov 2019 Nov 2019

Completed

Completed

5 Wayfind-

ing

Director City Strategy & Place , CoM IMAP Executive Officer

Ms Ferres Miles to send Paul Younis an email on what was agreed at the meeting. Patrick O’Neill (Director, Office of the Secretary) to be copied in.

Request for all costings on this project to be supplied to the Executive Forum.

Nov 2019 Nov 2019

Completed

7. Budget

IMAP Executive Officer

EO to book a half day IMAP workshop in February with the consultant (Governance review).

TBA In Progress

8. Other Bus –

Electric Bikes

CoPP CEO CoS CEO

CoPP CEO - interested in collaborating on the electric bike’s MoU with CoM.

CoS CEO - CoS will have a look at this.

TBA In Progress

Correspondence

Outward Att 3a - Email to DHHS – follow up of StreetCount funding Inward Att 3b - Letter from CoM advising on the roll out of the new CLUE system. Att 3c – Email from S McQuade, My Parcel Locker re inclusion of systems to facilitate 24/7 deliveries: incl DELWP

submission for information Att 3d – Email from K Kemp, CoPP advising draft Parking Management Policy consultation (Forwarded to IMAP

Council officers for information) Att 3e – Email from MAV – provision of submission to Ministerial Advisory Committee on Planning Mechanisms for

Affordable Housing

Recommendation:

That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolves to:

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

b. note the correspondence (Attachments 3a-e).

1

Elissa McElroy

From: Elissa McElroySent: Thursday, 7 November 2019 4:15 PMTo: 'shari.mcphail@dhhs.vic.gov.au'Cc: CoM - Barney Wilson (barney.wilson@melbourne.vic.gov.au); DHHS - Sherri

Bruinhout (sherri.bruinhout@dhhs.vic.gov.au)Subject: DHHS funding for the 2020 and 2022 StreetCountAttachments: Att 10a_HHSD 19 379557 Letter to CoM re streetcount.pdf

Hi Shari,  I am writing to follow up on the letter received from Sherri Bruinhout (attached) outlining the Department’s funding contribution towards undertaking the next 2 Streetcounts of people sleeping rough in Inner Melbourne.  I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Department for their support and for partnering with the Councils in this joint initiative across the 5 municipalities.  I am writing to clarify how to access this funding. As the Department’s $100,000 provision for the next 2 counts is a fixed term allocation, I presume that we need to invoice for the full sum this financial year. Could you please confirm this presumption is correct?    Also, could you please advise if I should issue the invoice now or await receipt of the Department’s Purchase Order first.    With thanks for your assistance,  Kind regards, Elissa  

Elissa McElroy  IMAP Executive Officer | Inner Melbourne Action Plan T: 8290 1110 | M: 0404 248 450 | F: 8290 1105 | emcelroy@stonnington.vic.gov.au __________________________________________________________________________________  

  Officer Location:  CITY OF STONNINGTON  PO Box 58 Malvern, Victoria 3144 www.imap.vic.gov.au       __________________________________________________________________________________  Please consider the environment before printing this email 

 

1

Elissa McElroy

From: Siobhan Robb <Siobhan.Robb@melbourne.vic.gov.au> on behalf of Michelle Fitzgerald <Michelle.Fitzgerald@melbourne.vic.gov.au>

Sent: Thursday, 21 November 2019 8:39 AMSubject: CLUE

All,

This week, the City of Melbourne (CoM) launched our Census of Land Use and Employment (CLUE) 2018 dataset, available via our CLUE reporting portal,on our Open Data Platform, and new CLUE Local Government Platform https://clue.melbourne.vic.gov.au/)

The release of the latest CLUE data highlights CoM’s ongoing commitment to insight-driven decision making across key city activities including economic development, land use and infrastructure planning, stakeholder engagement, and community programs. With our new CLUE for Local Government Platform we’ve supercharged our capability to deliver those insights, and enabled other local governments to partake in this transformative process. These key, city shaping products have been made possible by a large number of people inside and outside of CoM. In the words of Henry Ford, “Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success”! First, we would like to acknowledge and thank our IMAP Council Partners at the City of Yarra, City of Port Phillip, City of Stonnington and City of Maribyrnong. These Councils provided financial support and user needs input to ensure we designed a best practice system. With thanks to Elissa McElroy, Katy McMahon, Joy Saunders, David Walmsley, Kim Swinson, Andrew Scarlett, Eddy Boscariol, Tracey Limpens - we appreciate their interest and enthusiasm throughout this process. Secondly, the Australian Federal Government’s Smart Cities and Suburbs program made this project possible through their generous matched funding for the CLUE Local Government Platform. We sincerely thank Richard Wood and Tim Farrell from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development for their support over the last two years. The CLUE census has been running at the City of Melbourne since the 1960s, and we are fortunate to have a team dedicated to collecting, reporting and managing our rich CLUE data set. With thanks to our CLUE team members in the City Research and Insights team and Property Branch - Andrea Hughes, Christabel McCarthy, Tim Kibell, Daniel Booth, David Geary, Nick Casey, Danielle Jenner, Joanne Wandel, Tony Orso, Gail MacDonald, Richard Gilloway, Marios Mardapittas, Tracey Sullivan, Logan Duffy, Bronwyn Geddes and former team members Greg Stevens, Karly Day and Nicholas Jongebloed – who have worked throughout the year to collect this valuable data and turn it into the accessible analysis and insights. In addition to this ‘business as usual’ work, throughout the last two years these team members have worked to support the development of our new CLUE for Local Government platform - defining system requirements, participating in design sessions, and providing feedback and testing to ensure the system works well for ourselves and any other council that undertakes its own CLUE collection. A special shout out as well to Yuriy Onyshchuk, former Research and Insights team leader who instigated the CLUE for Local Government project and led it through the critical solution formulation stages.

  [External Email] This email was sent to you from outside of Council – be cautious clicking on links and opening attachments.

2

Throughout the last two years we partnered with our colleagues in the City of Melbourne’s Technology Services team - Eric Oliver, Simon Weller, Megha Vashisth, Gayatri Krishnan, Saravan Selvarajan, Deepti Purandare, Vijay Desai, Poorvi Kothpalli, Annette Curnow, Jacqueline Sammons – to create a vision for a new cloud-based CLUE platform that in addition to modernising our own technology and processes, would allow any other Australian council to undertake their own CLUE. The team kept us on track in defining business requirements and technical solutions, migrating existing data and testing the developed solution - and made sure all the inputs came together at the right time. They were greatly valued for their understanding of the business and technical needs of the system. Brett Moffitt, David Hassett, John Cole, Colin Fairweather – Our CLUE platform steering committee provided the high level guidance and support we needed to see this complex project through its delivery. Liam Densley, Dani Gardner, Brent Schiller, Chris Thomas, Harry Gaitanis, Jerome Anthony, Jozsef Kepes from our suppliers Geoplex built the CLUE for local government solution to our (often complex) requirements and within a short time frame, and worked closely with us on site at CoM throughout the core development phase of the project. Our CLUE launch event on Monday 18 November was the result of work conducted from many people. Harley Alexander, Andrew Campbell, Daniel Smith, Tim Gray redeveloped the CLUE visualisation into an immersive touch enabled experience for the launch event. Thanks for both creating these visualisations as well as being on hand during the event to showcase the data. Danae Briggs and Emily Webster managed the logistics work in the background to make the event run seamlessly. Will McIntosh, Graeme Bernard assisted in the preparation and launch of the datasets onto the Open Data Platform and organisation on the day. All of the Research and Insights team who were able to assist during the launch we really want to thank you for this demonstration of teamwork. Without this help the event wouldn’t have been such a success. And our colleagues in Public Affairs and Media and the Lord Mayor’s Office – Patrick Phillips, Anthony Templeton, Lauren Chester, Cassandra Vlassis, Justine Porter-Rebein and Letitia Hatton for sharing the news of our CLUE launch with the world!

 

  

4

  

Kind regards, 

Michelle 

 

Michelle Fitzgerald | Chief Digital Officer and Director, Technology & Digital Innovation |  

City of Melbourne | Council House 2, 240 Little Collins Street, Melbourne 3000 | GPO Box 1603 Melbourne VIC 3001 M: +61 431 903 018 | T: +61 3 9658 8331 | E: michelle.fitzgerald@melbourne.vic.gov.au | www.melbourne.vic.gov.au 

 

The City of Melbourne respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land, the Boon Wurrung and Woiwurrung (Wurundjeri) peoples of the Kulin Nation and pays respect to their Elders, past and present. 

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.

1

Elissa McElroy

From: Shay McQuade <shay@myparcellocker.com>Sent: Wednesday, 16 October 2019 4:53 PMTo: Elissa McElroySubject: Recent SubmissionsAttachments: Copy of MPL Submission to DELWP - Building Better Apartments in

Neighbourhoods.doc

Hi Elissa,   Nice to chat earlier and I trust you have recovered from the “ear bending”.   We have recently made submissions to City of Melbourne’s Transport Strategy and DELWP’s review of the Better Apartment Design Guidelines in relation to the continued growth of Online Purchasing and subsequent Home Delivery numbers. We are also working with the Green Building Council on their review of the Greenstar Rating Model and with Architects Declare, a movement which currently has 650 Australian signatories who have acknowledged that their profession needs to better consider the environment and Climate Change in their practices.  The specific issues raised centre on the scale of failed or carded deliveries and the impact those failures have in terms of Resident Inconvenience, avoidable journeys which affect congestion, emissions and productivity. There is an additional impact where deliveries are re‐directed to the workplace, in turn creating additional traffic where we least need it ‐  in the inner suburbs and city.   In summary we are building a case for the inclusion of systems to facilitate 24/7 deliveries to both Residential and Commercial buildings in future Planning Approvals which would minimise the impact of these failures and reduce traffic, congestion and emissions.   I have attached a copy of the Submission to DELWP which illustrates the scale of the issue, rather than the City of Melbourne document which included some commercial terms. This will give you some of the detail to support our push.   As I said on the phone I do not expect you to do my work for me but would appreciate your advice on the best route to take ( no pun intended ) to engage with the councils in your group as this is not just a City of Melbourne issue.   Please enjoy the bed time reading and let me know if you need a more specific information to share within the group.   Kind regards,    

SHAY McQUADE Tel 0438 256541  E: shay@myparcellocker.com 

87 London Street, Bentleigh, VIC 3204 Web: myparcellocker.com 

  [External Email] This email was sent to you from outside of Council – be cautious clicking on links and opening attachments.

2

   

   

Building Better Apartments In Neighbourhoods Submission Overview This submission focuses on the inefficiency of Apartment Buildings in dealing with continued growth of home deliveries and the subsequent impacts, not only for residents but for the broader neighbourhood and the city. While much has been written about Melbourne’s Traffic Congestion and the various causes, one major contributing factor has had scant coverage despite continued high growth, yet much of the impact can be addressed immediately by coupling planning initiatives such as the Better Apartment Design Guidelines with currently available inexpensive technologies. Responsible Apartment Design reaches beyond individual dwellings and the performance of the overall building is directly responsible for a series of downstream events which adversely impact not only residents of that building but the city generally. The current failure rate for deliveries to apartment buildings is 24%. This is caused by one or more of the following ;

1 Delivery Agent cannot gain building access

2 Resident is unavailable at time of delivery

3 There is no secure place for the delivered item to be left

4 Item requires a signature on delivery These failures set in train a series of events which, apart from resident inconvenience, adds to the issues of traffic congestion, emissions and productivity.

Current Process

1. Delivery Agent leaves a card advising of the attempted delivery,

2. Some Delivery Agents will make a second attempt to deliver

3. It is far more likely however that Delivery Agents travel to an additional

location, either a Post Office or Courier Depot, to leave the item for collection

4. The intended recipient also embarks on a return journey to retrieve their missed delivery, usually in business hours and depending on the location or size of the item will use private rather than public transport.

5. The business hours angle has a productivity impact as well with workers leaving early or arriving late in order to retrieve their carded items

Scale The Pitney Bowes Shipping Index confirms that Australia had 656 million deliveries under 20kg in 2018. This number is expected to exceed 1 billion units by 2021.

This equates to 26 deliveries per capita and is projected to double over the next 7 years.

73% of Australian households purchased online in 2018 – excluding fast food

and restaurant delivered meals.

Purchase value increased by 24.7% and volume by 20.2% over the previous year.

Purchases are far more widespread than Amazon type items and extend to

Groceries, Meal Kits and even Alcohol.

For perspective Woolworths sales in the first quarter of 2019 increased by 2.5% while their online sales grew by 10.4 % in the same period.

BWS currently have nearly 600 stores offering home delivery within 2 hours.

Australia Post’s latest report on online shopping predicts increased demand for

Express Delivery and expects same day delivery demand to go from current 2% to over 30% within 5 years.

Consumers are becoming far less tolerant about failed deliveries

According to Australia Post this demand for speed of delivery will drive growth in the number of smaller DC’s closer to customers with multiple “waves” of deliveries throughout the day, in other words more vehicles, more often. This is all good news for E-tailers and Delivery Agents but certainly not in terms of congestion, emissions and overall amenity for city residents, workers and visitors. .. Consumers are also likely to be happier, but only if deliveries are actually made in full and on time, however a recent report from Unrecommend, a site which monitors the volume of complaints across all Australian industries makes it clear that consumers are far from satisfied with Delivery Agents who occupy the top three spots in the volume of complaints table, in all cases centred on missed or so called “carded” deliveries

The example set out below shows the extent of the issue for Melbourne’s CBD and Docklands. The inclusion of age ranges highlights the number of residents in the high online purchase age range. Melbourne City Specific Data

137,000 Residents

68.4% aged between 15 and 39

83.6% under 50

At the national average of 26 items per capita the number of deliveries to Melbourne City residents is 3.562 million per annum, 68,500 per week or 13,700 per day. When the 24% carded or failed rate is factored in it means that an additional 3,288 resident journeys are made each day which are completely unnecessary and could be avoided if the items were delivered first time. This is on top of the additional trips made by the Delivery Agents to either re-deliver or re-direct to another location.

Primary Impacts

13,700 personal deliveries to the city each day

3,288 residents embark on return journeys each day to retrieve failed deliveries

Additional traffic congestion and emissions from Delivery Agents trips to depots

Increased congestion and emissions from residents’ 3,288 retrieval journeys

Secondary Impacts

Emissions, parking and congestion issues from multitude of delivery vehicles making deliveries, primarily during business hours

Productivity losses as people take time off to retrieve missed items from Post Offices or Courier Depots

Additional private vehicle traffic where city workers elect to use their own car on days where they might retrieve missed deliveries

This example highlights the scale of the impact when Apartment Buildings are not equipped to facilitate secure, first time deliveries. This submission is to encourage Planners to consider the proposition that all new Apartment Developments include an appropriate all hours delivery facility to improve convenience and security for residents, minimise unnecessary vehicle movements and subsequent congestion and emissions. 24/7 building access presents an opportunity for Delivery Agents to avoid heavy traffic, make deliveries more efficiently in terms of time, fuel usage and reduced emissions. A secure system which provides access for registered couriers and can accept deliveries which require a signature, even if the resident is not at home, would cost in the order of $20,000 for an average 250 apartment building. That equates to an almost negligible capital cost of $80 per apartment, however unless this is a Planning Requirement, most Architects or Developers will not incorporate into Apartment Building design. This is the best time to incorporate as it ensures that appropriate space and access is planned, power and data cables installed as well as proximity to the building mailboxes, since 70% of deliveries are done by Australia Post and most items under 2.5kg are delivered by the postman.

My Parcel Locker is an Australian business which has developed a range of Intelligent Parcel Lockers and a Bluetooth Proximity Access System to facilitate secure deliveries for Residential and Commercial Buildings. These are accessible to all registered Couriers, including Australia Post and Startrack and can accommodate items which require a signature on delivery, effectively minimising the carded rate and subsequent unnecessary journeys by Delivery Agents and Residents. Coupled with our Proximity Access System, Registered Delivery Agents can access areas of buildings 24/7 to deliver items for residents / tenants which are securely held for retrieval by the resident at their convenience. The intended recipient receives an automatic text message advising of their delivery, with a QR code. When the QR code is scanned at the kiosk the specific door containing their delivered item will pop open. Every step in the process is logged electronically and inbuilt CC TV cameras capture footage of both Deposit and Retrieval of every item. Importantly these systems facilitate 24/7 delivery and retrieval, are available right now and can play a significant part in managing what many refer to as the “difficult last mile” in the delivery process but more correctly is the last 50 metres. These systems are manufactured in Australia and all security and address protocols, including the Signature Required function were developed in collaboration with Australia Post. Obviously My Parcel Locker has a vested interest in the proposed outcome, however there are alternatives in the market which may not be as sophisticated but nonetheless provide a level of competition. This business was not established to address traffic congestion or emissions but in the course of our work with Architects, Developers, Building Managers and local Councils we have uncovered the unexpected scale of these issues, driven by continued growth in home delivery.

Alternative Technologies There is no doubt that Drones and Robotic Vehicles have a part to play in specific applications but in comparison to the effective delivery model described above there are key differences in effectiveness, ease of application, cost and timeframes for implementation. Ignoring any Regulatory hurdles for the moment, the single biggest issue facing Drone deliveries to multi residential buildings is simply that the resident has to be available to receive the delivery. This is no different to current practice which has generated high carded rates. This is not as simple as delivering a Burrito to a backyard in Brunswick where the customer can scan the horizon for his eagerly awaited snack. Instead deliveries from online purchases cover a vast range of sizes, shapes and weights, potentially delivered by an equally diverse range of agents and unless buildings have special landing pads or docking stations for ground robots where items can be automatically taken inside buildings, stored securely in an area accessible to residents and individually matched to the intended recipient, their application for general parcel delivery is limited. Such infrastructure on and inside buildings would be expensive and require significant collaboration between Architects, Developers, Building Managers, Delivery Agents and Technology providers to ensure functionality across thousands of buildings. Two recent examples of hype versus fact can be found in the Uber Elevates promotion of a restaurant delivered meal to a San Diego and the Australia Post 2017 trial of a ground robot at New Farm in Brisbane. In the Uber case the drone delivered the meal, not to the resident directly, but to an Uber Eats operator at a nearby location. Uber Eats then completed the final stage of the delivery. In the New Farm trial there were 100 items delivered over a 4 week period with the robot averaging 1.4 kilometres travel per item. The resident also had to be available to engage with the robot in the street outside their building.

Suggested Way Forward This document has tabled the numbers around current and projected online purchases and deliveries, the impacts of current practices on traffic congestion and outlined the capability of My Parcel Locker’s systems to facilitate secure deliveries by all Delivery Agents to Apartment Buildings. This capability can extend the hours in which deliveries can be made, minimise the current carded delivery numbers, in turn removing vehicles from busier traffic periods leading to a significant reduction in delivery related congestion and emissions. In order to maximise the benefits provided by this technology in Apartment Buildings we recommend the following to DELWP. Ensure future Planning Approvals for both Multi Residential and Commercial Buildings include adequate provision for 24/7 deliveries. This will ensure that Developers and Architects design appropriate access for Delivery Agents to specific areas of buildings and facilitate off peak deliveries. This will also reduce the current rates of re-directed deliveries, most of which are re-routed towards the city centre where jobs outstrip residents by close to 3 to 1, leading to less traffic, congestion and emissions. My Parcel Locker Management welcome the opportunity to discuss this proposal and any aspect of the delivery and building access process. Kind regards, SHAY McQUADE Tel 0438 256541 E: shay@myparcellocker.com 87 London Street, Bentleigh, VIC 3204 Web: myparcellocker.com

References Australia Post Online Shopping Report 2019 Pitney Bowes Shipping Index 2018 University of NSW Strata Data Report 2018 City of Melbourne Transport Strategy Unrecommend – Complaint Register 2019 Infrastructure Victoria

\

1

Elissa McElroy

From: Parking Policy <parkingpolicy@portphillip.vic.gov.au>Sent: Friday, 11 October 2019 12:19 PMTo: Elissa McElroyCc: Kathleen KempSubject: Have Your Say on the City of Port Phillip draft Parking Management Policy

Dear IMAP,   

We wanted to let you know that the City of Port Phillip draft Parking Management Policy was recently released to the community for a four week consultation period.  

The draft Policy has been informed by more than four years of consultation with the community and this next stage of engagement is a critical step to test the proposed changes, which include:

Area‐based Residential Parking Areas to create fairer access to parking for residents.  Demand responsive time controls and paid parking areas designed to maximise turnover and 

increase carparking availability.  Tiered pricing for Resident Parking Permits to promote the use of existing off‐street parking 

resources and further manage demand across the City.  Reduction in resident permits according to availability of off‐street parking to encourage use of off‐

street parking.  Change to a single‐use voucher system for visitor and foreshore permits to allow flexibility for 

residents.  A more streamlined and flexible range of available Parking Permit types. 

Please visit haveyoursay.portphillip.vic.gov.au to view the draft Policy, see reports of previous community engagement and all policy documents including benchmarking with other Councils and to complete the survey.

We would welcome any feedback or thoughts on our draft Parking Management Policy, please provide any feedback by 3rd November 2019.

Do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.   Thanks, Nellie   Draft Parking Management Policy Team https://haveyoursay.portphillip.vic.gov.au/ 8563 7662 

 

  [External Email] This email was sent to you from outside of Council – be cautious clicking on links and opening attachments.

2

     

    

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

Ministerial Advisory Committee on

Planning Mechanisms for

Affordable Housing

Submission

October 2019

MAV Submission Affordable Housing MAC

© Copyright Municipal Association of Victoria, 2019. The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) is the owner of the copyright in the publication MAV Submission Affordable Housing MAC. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the Municipal Association of Victoria. The MAV does not guarantee the accuracy of this document's contents if retrieved from sources other than its official websites or directly from a MAV employee. The MAV can provide this publication in an alternative format upon request, including large print, Braille and audio. The MAV is the statutory peak body for local government in Victoria. The MAV would like to acknowledge the contribution of those who provided their comments and advice during this project. The MAV contact officer for any questions about this submission is Emlyn Breese, Senior Adviser – Planning and Environment. Email ebreese@mav.asn.au While this paper aims to broadly reflect the views of local government in Victoria, it does not purport to reflect the exact views of individual councils.

MAV Submission Affordable Housing MAC

Table of contents

1 Executive summary ............................................................................................................. 4

2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6

3 Efficacy of current planning policy settings and mechanisms .............................................. 7

1.1. What has worked well .................................................................................................. 7

1.2. The scale and distribution of affordable housing need ................................................. 7

1.3. The supply of affordable housing likely to be realised .................................................. 7

1.4. Challenges under the current framework ..................................................................... 8

4 Alternative models and options ........................................................................................... 9

4.1 Value sharing ............................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Density bonus .............................................................................................................10

4.3 Reducing the risk ........................................................................................................11

4.4 Other models ..............................................................................................................11

5 Implementing the models ...................................................................................................12

6 Recommendations .............................................................................................................13

4 MAV Submission Affordable Housing MAC: October 2019

1 Executive summary

The MAV welcomes the opportunity to make a submission on behalf of Victorian councils. This submission responds directly to the Committee’s request for the MAV to provide feedback and advice on parts 4a, 4b and 4c of the Committee’s Terms of Reference.

The MAV recognises the significant time constraints of the Committee, however we encourage you to contact councils that have benefitted from the DELWP Voluntary Affordable Housing Agreements grant funding program. They have been documenting the challenges and opportunities of the current framework.

The impact of decreasing housing affordability, and the growing need for affordable housing, are both significant issues for local government. The introduction into the Planning and Environment Act (1987) of a definition for affordable housing was a significant step in differentiating between housing affordability and affordable housing – two terms that are often conflated.

Numerous councils are undertaking strategic analysis to identify the current and future need for affordable housing within their municipal area. The picture of cumulative impact is bleak. Demand for affordable housing outstrips supply in inner, middle, and outer ring councils, in regional cities, and in rural towns and the gap between supply and demand is growing.

Under the current policy settings, the planning system cannot halt the growing gap between supply of and demand for affordable housing, and only a small number of affordable housing dwellings are being delivered.

There is considerable difficulty in negotiating an affordable housing contribution. This requires resources from council, developers, and often from community housing organisations, with no guarantee that there will actually be an increase the affordable housing stock. The efforts of councils and community housing organisations could be better spent assisting DELWP to develop a robust, transparent, and consistent mechanism and process to facilitate the provision of affordable housing.

Alternative models for using the planning system to deliver affordable housing contributions are:

• Value sharing – A mechanism in the planning system can be created to share with the community some of the value that is created when land is rezoned or a planning permit is issued, and that shared value can result in the provision of affordable housing.

• Density bonus – A planning provision could be created that provided an opportunity for additional site density (an increased floor area ratio) if a sufficient affordable housing contribution is made.

• Reducing the risk – One model to secure an affordable housing contribution would be implement mechanisms that help de-risk a project, for example by removing third party appeal rights. Detailed consideration of the impact on councils and local communities of this approach should be undertaken before pursuing this option.

5 MAV Submission Affordable Housing MAC: October 2019

• Other models – In addition to planning mechanisms, other models for increasing

affordable housing should be pursued including the use of government land.

Each of the models above could be implemented through the creation of Victorian Planning Provisions for Affordable Housing. Any provisions should be developed to provide certainty and consistency, while allowing flexibility to enable councils to respond to the specific needs of their community.

The provisions should clearly set out the way in which the affordable housing contribution will be calculated, allowing developers to work out and build the cost into their development feasibility and enabling planners to calculate the affordable housing contribution.

It should also articulate who pays for the affordable housing – moving beyond a discussion about number of dwellings to certainty about the quantum of the overall affordable housing contribution.

Based on a review of the current planning policy settings and mechanisms, plus an assessment of alternative options, the MAV recommends that:

1. A suite of Affordable Housing Planning Provisions is created that can be used by councils to seek affordable housing contributions for example:

a. Affordable Housing Planning Policy Framework (distinct from housing affordability PPF), and

b. Affordable Housing Overaly, with the ability to create a Schedule to the Overlay

2. The Provisions include mandatory (rather than discretionary) requirements so that there is certainty and clarity for landowners, developers, and planners.

3. The Provisions provide for land, dwelling, and/or cash affordable housing contributions and allows councils to specify the preferred form the contribution will take.

4. If the affordable housing contribution is to be delivered through the sale of dwellings, the Provisions clearly set out who will pay for the affordable housing (and at what discount) to provide certainty about the quantum of the affordable housing contribution.

5. That any requirements in the Provisions that set out the time for which a property will remain affordable housing, take into account the financial impact on the end owner of the affordable housing so that it does not create a burden on the community housing sector.

6. The State Government maximise the delivery of affordable housing on their existing land assets.

6 MAV Submission Affordable Housing MAC: October 2019

2 Introduction

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) is the peak representative and advocacy body for Victoria's 79 councils. The MAV was formed in 1879 and the Municipal Association Act 1907 appointed the MAV the official voice of local government in Victoria.

Today, the MAV is a driving and influential force behind a strong and strategically positioned local government sector. Our role is to represent and advocate the interests of local government; raise the sector's profile; ensure its long-term security; facilitate effective networks; support councillors; provide policy and strategic advice; capacity building programs; and insurance services to local government.

The MAV commends the Minister for establishing the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Planning Mechanisms for Affordable Housing and welcomes the opportunity to make a submission on behalf of Victorian councils.

The impact of decreasing housing affordability, and the growing need for affordable housing, are both significant issues for local government – the level of government closest to the community.

Ensuring there is sufficient access to safe, secure, appropriate, and affordable housing for all members of a community, whether as a social or an economic driver, helps to create better communities, reduces the demand for health services, and underpins the prosperity of cities and regions.

The MAV recognises the significant time constraints of the Committee, however we urge you to take the opportunity to speak to individual councils. While our submission conveys the key matters raised by Victorian councils, the Committee would gain much by directly engaging with the councils that have firsthand experience of implementing the current planning mechanisms and a deep understanding of the needs of their communities.

Affordable housing has featured prominently both in discussions and in resolutions at MAV State Councils over recent years. Most recently, at its May 2019 meeting, the MAV State Council resolved that we “Advocate for mandatory controls in planning schemes, in the form of inclusionary zoning, to require affordable housing contributions as part of private development.”

The following submission responds directly to the Committee’s request for the MAV to provide feedback and advice on parts 4a, 4b and 4c of the Committee’s Terms of Reference.

7 MAV Submission Affordable Housing MAC: October 2019

3 Efficacy of current planning policy settings and mechanisms

For an overview of the efficacy of the current planning policy setting and mechanisms we encourage you to contact councils that have benefitted from the DELWP Voluntary Affordable Housing Agreements grant funding program. They have been documenting the challenges and opportunities of the current framework. Moreland and Darebin Councils have made their evaluation report publicly available and it provides a very useful overview and assessment including live case studies (click here).

1.1. What has worked well The introduction into the Planning and Environment Act (1987) (the Act) of a definition for affordable housing, (and the associated Order in Council, and the Ministerial Notice) was a significant step in differentiating between housing affordability and affordable housing – two terms often conflated by people in the development and local government sectors.

Having a definition in the Act is helping land use planners make the essential distinction between lower cost housing (delivered through housing diversity, increased supply, more efficient construction methods, lower utility costs) and affordable housing (which has an appropriate allocation and eligibility process).

1.2. The scale and distribution of affordable housing need Numerous councils are undertaking strategic analysis to identify the current and future need for affordable housing within their municipal area. The picture of cumulative impact is bleak. Demand for affordable housing outstrips supply in inner, middle, and outer ring councils, in regional cities, and in rural towns and the gap between supply and demand is growing.

Preliminary analysis undertaken for the City of Melbourne indicates that across the whole of metropolitan Melbourne, there is a current shortfall of 182,260 affordable housing dwellings. By 2036, that shortfall is forecast to grow to 289,062 dwellings. This reflects an increase in demand for social and affordable housing by 106,802 households over the next 20 years.

Municipal-specific needs analysis for affordable housing is being done in the absence of statewide analysis of current and future affordable housing need and in the absence of a consistent methodology for quantifying affordable housing need. In the same way that Plan Melbourne projects and forecasts economic growth and housing by region, there is need for a holistic and regional understanding of current and future affordable housing need.

1.3. The supply of affordable housing likely to be realised Plan Melbourne and Homes for Victorians both acknowledge that the planning system can contribute to the supply of social and affordable housing in Victoria, however both caution that the planning system alone cannot address the existing shortfall of affordable housing.

To ensure the supply of affordable housing better meets the demand, all three tiers of government, working with the private and not for profits will need to play a role. While planning mechanisms are essential sectors, the scale of the problem will require a multi-faceted approach and a suite of mechanisms at each level of government. Preliminary modelling for the City of Melbourne suggests that even a 10% mandatory inclusionary

8 MAV Submission Affordable Housing MAC: October 2019

zoning requirement is likely to only deliver approximately 20% of the affordable housing required to meet the demand.

Under the current policy settings, the planning system cannot halt the growing gap between supply of and demand for affordable housing, and only a small number of affordable housing dwellings are being delivered. The reasons for this are set out below.

1.4. Challenges under the current framework The current framework relies on developers voluntarily agreeing to make an affordable housing contribution. The current planning policy settings and mechanisms have resulted in several challenges namely:

• A significant investment of staff resources from councils, developers, and community housing organisations is being used to try and negotiate affordable housing contributions, without the certainty of any affordable housing outcome. The negotiations can be lengthy and complex which causes delays.

• The policy setting has resulted in considerable focus on the quantum of affordable housing being sought with insufficient focus on who pays for the affordable housing. An agreement that requires 5% of dwellings to be affordable housing, but does not say if those properties are to be gifted (100% discount), or sold at a discount rate, or at full market value to a registered housing agency does not provide the developer, council, or a community housing organisation with certainty about the obligations and outcomes.

• Lack of certainty and clarity for developers about the size of an affordable housing

contribution meaning they cannot factor in the cost of an affordable housing contribution when they are preparing their development feasibility prior to purchasing a site. When deciding how much to offer for a site, a developer has to gamble on whether other bidders for a piece of land will or won’t factor in the cost of an affordable housing contribution.

• Without being able to factor in the cost of affordable housing, developers require

trade-offs or incentives in order for their development to be financially feasible while providing an affordable housing contribution. The incentives that a council can offer (e.g. reduce car parking requirements, reduced setbacks) are small in value compared to the cost of providing an affordable housing contribution.

• There is significant inequity in the distribution of the cost of affordable housing

contributions. Due to the staff time and complexity of negotiations and trade-offs, most councils will only seek an affordable housing contribution for large developments (more than 20 dwellings). This means that smaller infill developments are not shouldering their share of the cost of affordable housing contributions.

9 MAV Submission Affordable Housing MAC: October 2019

• Because smaller infill developments (up to 20 dwellings) are not making an affordable housing contribution, there are significant lost opportunities in municipalities where infill development accounts for a large portion of new housing supply.

• There is uncertainty across the planning sector about how and where to include

provisions for an affordable housing contribution when considering a planning scheme amendment to rezone land. A Section 173 agreement does not provide the transparency that planning provisions do.

There is considerable difficulty in negotiating an affordable housing contribution, requiring resources from council, developers, and often from community housing organisations, with no guarantee that there will actually be an increase the affordable housing stock. The efforts of councils and community housing organisations could be better spent assisting DELWP to develop a robust, transparent, and consistent mechanism and process to apply, rather than negotiating for each individual development as it arises.

While the amendments to the Act provide a starting point for the delivery of affordable housing through planning mechanisms, there is a dependence on the success of negotiated outcomes. Without a mechanism to mandate the provision of affordable housing (including being clear on who pays for it), all of the positive changes made by State Government lack strength to deliver even a small portion of the affordable housing required to meet the demand in Victoria.

4 Alternative models and options

4.1 Value sharing One model for using the planning system to contribute to affordable housing is designed around the reality that the zoning (rezoning) of land, and/or the issuing of a planning permit creates value for the landowner/developer. A mechanism in the planning system can be implemented to share with the community some of that uplift in value in the form of an affordable housing contribution.

This is similar to the mechanisms that already exist for seeking public open space contributions, development contributions, or infrastructure levies. In those cases, there is a clearer nexus between the new development and the resulting additional demand on infrastructure and public assets that will result, but the principle is the same.

The mechanisms would create a requirement for an affordable housing contribution as part of a:

• Planning scheme amendment to rezone land • Development where a planning permit is required • Precinct Structure Plan

10 MAV Submission Affordable Housing MAC: October 2019

The benefit of this approach is that it responds to proposed changes to the use and development of land and seeks to share the value created through the planning system. It can be applied to developments of any scale, allowing for a more equitable distribution of affordable housing contributions.

Concerns are sometimes raised that a requirement for an affordable housing contribution will simply raise the cost of other housing. In practice, rather than the cost being borne by the developer or future homeowner, the cost will actually flow back through to the landowner they would see a reduced land value for a site with the requirement for an affordable housing contribution vs. the land value of a comparable site without the requirement.

A constraint of this approach is where land has already been purchased at an increased price in anticipation of creating value through a planning scheme amendment or obtaining a planning permit. In such instances, it may be financially unfeasible to continue with the development.

For the value-share approach to be robust, transparent, and effective the requirements would need to be mandatory rather than voluntary. It should be applied to proposals that have a residential component. The affordable housing contribution could be in the form of land, dwellings, or cash. The ability to require cash contributions would be particularly important for small-scale developments where it is not feasible to provide an affordable housing dwelling.

4.2 Density bonus A planning provision could be created that provided an opportunity for additional site density (an increased floor area ratio) if a sufficient affordable housing contribution is made. This is the approach in SEPP 70 in NSW which provides the mechanism for councils to develop schemes and levy developer contributions for affordable housing. This is also the approach adopted in Fisherman’s Bend (GC81) and Melbourne Central City (C270).

The benefit of this approach is that it provides the option for the developer to opt in or opt out, and so may garner less resistance from the development sector.

For the approach to be robust, transparent, and effective the requirements would need to set out who will pay for the affordable housing and the extent to which the developer will be expected to discount to affordable housing. Any discount will need to be set at a level that makes it financially viable for a community housing organisation to purchase it.

There are two key constraints of this approach. The first is that it is difficult to determine how much, if any, affordable housing will be delivered as it relies on the developer opting in. The other constraint is that the approach relies on setting the base floor ratio at a point that is less than what the site and surrounds can accommodate. This may result in underdevelopment of the site (if a developer chooses not to opt in) which is an inefficient outcome. Alternatively, if the base floor ratio is set at a point that reflects the maximum that the site and surrounds can accommodate, then if a developer opts in an overdevelopment of the site will occur with the resulting detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood.

11 MAV Submission Affordable Housing MAC: October 2019

4.3 Reducing the risk The development sector, as with any enterprise, requires a certain return on the investment they make. The greater the risk in making the investment, the greater the return they require to cover that risk. One model to secure an affordable housing contribution would be to implement mechanisms that help de-risk a project in exchange for an affordable housing contribution. The risk could be reduced by:

• Exemptions from notification • Removing 3rd party appeal rights • Providing for a faster permit system • Exemptions from permit requirements (e.g. VPP 52.22 Community Care

Accommodation)

It should be noted that several of our member councils raised concerns that implementing this approach may lead to community backlash and further stigmatization of affordable housing. It could also result in a reduction in the quality of built form, urban design, and internal amenity of the dwellings. Detailed consideration of the impact on councils and local communities of this approach should be undertaken before pursing this option.

The benefit of this approach is that it may allow for streamlining and cost savings for community housing associations that are undertaking their own developments.

There may be resourcing costs to councils if they are required to make a decision on applications more quickly, and in responding to community enquiries.

The constraint of this approach is in finding the balance between encouraging developments that include a minimum affordable housing contribution, and having the opportunity to assess and determine the appropriateness of other elements of the proposal (parking, built form, etc.).

For the approach to be robust, transparent, and effective the requirements would need to set out the minimum affordable housing contribution that would need to form part of a development, and processes would need to be put in place for determining whether the proposal met the requirements.

4.4 Other models The planning system alone cannot deliver the amount of affordable housing required to meet the significant unmet demand for affordable housing in Victoria. In addition to planning mechanisms other models for increasing affordable housing should be pursued including:

• Requiring affordable housing as part of the development of any State Government land. Opportunities include: Development Victoria projects, developments associated with level crossing removal projects, air-rights over at-grade commuter and other carparks, other government land.

12 MAV Submission Affordable Housing MAC: October 2019

• Ongoing and certain funding streams for the construction of affordable housing enabling community housing associations to create a pipeline of development, rather than operating in a stop start and reactive environment.

• Strategies involving long term leases on government land could assist to increase

affordable housing supply, in particular a program that favours ‘BOOT’ (Build-own-operate-transfer) schemes.

• Redevelopment of existing public housing, respecting councils’ role as Responsible

Authority. • Counter-cyclical stimulus through direct investment in affordable housing by the

State or Federal governments to help even out the downturns in the construction and property sectors.

5 Implementing the models

Each of the models above could be implemented through the creation of Victorian Planning Provisions for Affordable Housing. Any provisions should meet the following criteria:

• Provide certainty and consistency, while allowing some flexibility to enable councils to respond to the specific needs of their community – an Overlay and Schedule to the Overlay could achieve this

• Clearly set out the way in which the affordable housing contribution will be calculated, allowing developers to work out and build the cost into their development feasibility and enabling planners to calculate the affordable housing contribution

• Articulate who pays for the affordable housing – moving beyond a discussion about

number of dwellings to certainty about the quantum of the overall affordable housing contribution.

Other aspects that will also need to be in place are:

• A process to collect and distribute cash-in-lieu contributions, noting councils’ preference for contributions that come from their community to be invested within their community

• Mechanisms to secure the benefit of the affordable housing in the community, recognising that a requirement for a specific building to remain used as affordable housing in perpetuity will make management of that property unfeasible for any asset owner who will need to ability to divest of assets (and reinvest in other assets) as part of their long term asset management strategy

13 MAV Submission Affordable Housing MAC: October 2019

6 Recommendations

Based on a review of the current planning policy settings and mechanisms, plus an assessment of alternative options, the MAV recommends that:

1. A suite of Affordable Housing Planning Provisions is created that can be used by councils to seek affordable housing contributions for example:

a. Affordable Housing Planning Policy Framework (distinct from housing affordability PPF), and

b. Affordable Housing Overaly, with the ability to create a Schedule to the Overlay

2. The Provisions include mandatory (rather than discretionary) requirements so that there is certainty and clarity for landowners, developers, and planners.

3. The Provisions provide for land, dwelling, and/or cash affordable housing contributions and allows councils to specify the preferred form the contribution will take.

4. If the affordable housing contribution is to be delivered through the sale of dwellings, the Provisions clearly set out who will pay for the affordable housing (and at what discount) to provide certainty about the quantum of the affordable housing contribution.

5. That any requirements in the Provisions that set out the time for which a property will remain affordable housing, take into account the financial impact on the end owner of the affordable housing so that it does not create a burden on the community housing sector.

6. The State Government maximise the delivery of affordable housing on their existing land assets.