Streets Alive Yarra offers the following feedback regarding some of the items on the agenda for the 26th November 2024 Council Meeting.
Item 7.1 Instrument of Delegation to the Planning Decisions Committee
Streets Alive Yarra supports the Officer Recommendation, because it reflects established policy which delivers an appropriate balance between the rights of applicants and objectors, thereby enabling more people to live with us in the Yarra that we love.
Item 7.2 Governance Report – November 2024
Streets Alive Yarra supports the Officer Recommendation, specifically the retention of monthly council meetings, because the alternative (twice monthly council meetings) would add significant cost without significantly improving democracy or governance. Attending and speaking at council meetings highlights the views of a small number of mostly older residents at the expense of Yarraâs predominantly younger population. Meeting monthly is more democratic because it opens up more time for councillors to meet with people in more welcoming, less formal environments, which better suits Yarraâs diverse community. Considering councilâs Financial Sustainability Strategy, doubling the number of council meetings does not offer value for money.
Item 8.1 Notice of Motion No.19 of 2024 – New Direction for Yarra
The Operation Sandon special report describes how open and transparent council meetings are vital to council integrity, recommending that reform is needed to prohibit âen-blocâ or collective voting, where multiple agenda items are voted on at the same time, otherwise known as omnibus bills. Item 8.1 is such an âen-blocâ motion, and should not proceed.
The Governance Update (TGU) podcast from the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) discussed the “omnibus motion”:
- Tony Raunic: “I don’t like the approach…I’d much prefer these things to be moved individually, probably over the course of several council meetings…”
- Julie Reid: “some of the items are well underway…coming back from where the position was put, could be quite costly and difficult as well, so there could be some real challenges for the organisation in this approach”, “concerned about the cost and the time that’s going to need to be now spent reversing some of these decisions”
- Chris Eddy: “how are they going to handle the public comment element of this?â, “I don’t think it’s good practice to make decisions in this way. It wouldn’t even be any better if it was 35 separate notices of motion to be honest, that’s not good practice either”, “there’s got to be a better way than this”
Overall, this item should be withdrawn, broken up into separate motions, and then resubmitted at a future council meeting.
Clause 1. That Council acknowledges the community desire for change as expressed in the recent election. This motion is aimed at launching a new direction for Yarra.
The recent election did not indicate that the community desired significant change. If the Yarra For All group is a political bloc, then they only increased their number by one (Jolly, OâBrien & Glynatsis to Jolly, Harrison, Aston & Gomez) and they did not win a governing majority of at least five. Alternatively, if the Yarra For All group are actually independents, then they all took different policies to the election, and certainly do not have a 36-point mandate. Irrespective, if councillors wish to collaborate to launch a new direction for Yarra, precedent and good governance inform us that the appropriate process is via the development of a new 4-year Council Plan. The motion should be amended to remove this clause.
Clause 3: To reduce the number of objections required for a planning item to be referred to the Planning Decisions Committee from 15 to 6
Streets Alive Yarra doesnât support a change because existing policy delivers an appropriate balance between the rights of applicants and objectors, thereby enabling more people to live with us in the Yarra that we love. In addition, no new information has been presented to justify re-litigating this issue. The motion should be amended to remove this clause.
Clause 5. That from 2025, Council returns to fortnightly meetings, with two at Richmond Town Hall to be followed by two at Fitzroy Town Hall and so on
The topic of monthly versus twice monthly meetings is scheduled to be dealt with earlier in the meeting, at Item 7.2, so this appears to be an unnecessary duplication. Adding Fitzroy Town Hall to the meeting schedule would most likely require significant expenditure to bring the climate control up to modern standards, and to replicate the multi-point camera system found at Richmond Town Hall. This expenditure should be discussed and approved before changing the meeting venue. As a reference, on 14th February 2023 Council chose to defer the proposed expenditure of $2.4m to upgrade the climate control (HVAC) at Fitzroy Town Hall. Overall, in the context of Councilâs Financial Sustainability Strategy, the proposal doesnât offer value for money. The motion should be amended to remove this clause.
Clause 6 Geo-fencing for e-scooters to prevent journeys being ended on footpaths narrower than 1.5 metres
Streets Alive Yarra supports this proposal – itâs good policy which reflects Councilâs written agreement with the scooter companies. The proposal should be accompanied by a commitment to reallocate 1,000 car parking bays to e-scooter parking bays, and for the e-scooter parking bays to be spaced across the municipality so that e-scooter journeys can be ended near to the userâs destination. If that extra step isnât completed, then the viability of shared e-scooters as a transport mode becomes severely compromised. If that action has costs, then council should seek to recover those costs from the e-scooter companies.
Clause 9 Brunswick Street Oval Redevelopment
This issue is the subject of a community engagement process – there is no need for a motion for the process to be expedited because there is no evidence that the process is not being completed as fast as is practicable, and because it is already council policy to support the redevelopment. The motion should be amended to remove this clause.
Clause 11 Elizabeth Street Cycle Lane
The option for Elizabeth Street to host both dedicated bike lanes and parking on both sides was considered in 2020 and 2021, and was rightly rejected because it results in dangerously narrow bike lanes that position people biking too close to the dooring zone of the adjacent parked cars. On 18th April 2023 Council determined that the Elizabeth Street bike lanes should become permanent, and the project is now awaiting funding. Considering that the lanes form part of the state governmentâs Strategic Cycling Corridor (SCC) network, and that the RACV has recently published a new report supporting the Elizabeth Street bike lanes as part of a cycling superhighway from Box Hill to the CBD, a new report would be a waste of time and money. The motion should be amended to remove this clause.
Clause 12 Coppin Street bicycle treatments
This issue is currently the subject of a community engagement process and further traffic monitoring data is being collected – there is no need for a motion to request a report that will in any case be prepared as part of the normal process, especially when the data collection is not yet complete. An option to remove trial infrastructure, including describing the costs for that option, is a standard part of a trial process. In addition, the clause claims that the pop-up creates âtraffic bottlenecksâ at the intersection of Coppin Street and Bridge Road, both north and south of the intersection, which simply isnât true, as that intersection retains the same number of vehicle lanes as before the pop-up was installed. As such, the clause is a waste of time and money, and the motion should be amended to remove it.
Clause 14 Separated waste charge
Extensive reporting on this issue is available from past council meetings, including why itâs good policy to separate the waste charges (for both household bins and municipal bins), why itâs good policy to pick up yellow bins each fortnight, and why itâs good policy to retain the fortnightly pickup of red bins in the Abbotsford Alternate Collections Area. Considering councilâs Financial Sustainability Strategy, and the AtticusNow report (which supported the separation of waste charges), re-litigating this issue would be a waste of time and money. The motion should be amended to remove this clause.
Clause 15 Charlotte Street Park
Council unanimously determined to proceed with the Charlotte Street Park on 18th June 2024, Council determined to continue with the planning process (to discontinue the road) on 13th August 2024, and Council rejected a rescission motion on 10th September 2024. These decisions were made with the support of the community, including those who live on Charlotte Street and the wider community who use Richmond Library.
In addition, Clause 15.(d)(i) should not rely on the Charlotte Street Park being cancelled, and should be undertaken as a separate additional project. We reject the premise that the community must choose between one park or another. Indeed, Yarraâs Open Space Strategy requires a pipeline of new park proposals to be developed, consulted on and approved, in order to enable construction of at least one new park per year.
Considering that the issue has been considered and determined multiple times, and that the proposal complies with multiple local and state government policies, re-litigating this issue would be a waste of time and money. The motion should be amended to remove this clause.
Clauses 17 & 18 Angled Parking
Council consulted extensively as part of the development of the Transport Strategy (which includes an intent to remove angled parking on bike corridors) and the Transport Action Plan (which doesnât include any actions to remove angled parking). The justification for the intent is clear – because angled parking (on a residential street where people biking share the lane with people driving) imposes a significantly higher safety risk to people biking, than does parallel parking. In addition, it is already council policy to consult whenever significant changes to a street are proposed, which would include changes to parking design. Considering that the Transport Strategy reflects best practice, and that the Transport Action Plan doesnât include any proposals to remove angled parking, re-litigating this issue would be a waste of time and money. The motion should be amended to remove this clause.
Clauses 22 & 23 Advisory Committees
Advisory Committees are one form of community engagement, but they do not act to collect feedback from a significant number of people in our community. They are a relic of an older, pre-digital, form of community engagement. Considering councilâs Financial Sustainability Strategy, it would be more cost efficient, and effective, to replace most Advisory Committees with a single, larger, Community Panel, supported by more, faster, smaller surveys conducted via Your Say Yarra, or via a City of Yarra smartphone app. The motion should be amended to either remove those clauses, or to initiate a broader review of councilâs community engagement.
Clause 27 Flood Overlay
Flood mapping is an important issue for Streets Alive Yarra because flooding on our streets impacts on how people are able to move around our city, and how streets are designed to cope. The state government flood enquiry report explained the urgent need to update flood mapping statewide, and to use this as a basis for revisions to planning schemes, such as via Special Building Overlays (SBOs). These overlays inform prospective property purchasers or developers of the need to take likely flood levels into consideration when planning new buildings, and thus minimise the likelihood of future flood damage. Deferring the issue would be acting contrary to state government policy and failing to inform property owners of flood risk could expose Council to a legal case. Instead of deferring the issue, which would be bad policy and bad governance, council should instead act to adopt the flood overlay. The motion should be amended to remove this clause.
Clause 28 Parking
Council is already in the process of developing a new Kerbside and Parking Management Strategy, which will also consider the pricing of parking. Streets Alive Yarra strongly supports the development of a new strategy, which will include community consultation. Asking for a report on a subset of parking issues isnât good governance because it disrupts the overall policy development process. In addition, proposals to make parking free (either free for 1-hour at parking meters, or free for the first eligible permit) are the opposite of best practice, which is to use pricing to manage demand so as to improve peopleâs ability to access properties and services. The motion should be amended to remove this clause.
Clause 34 Climate Action
Council adopted its second Climate Emergency Plan on 9th July 2024, and reporting arrangements are in place. In addition, Councillors can ask questions on specific details at any council meeting. This clause does not add value and the motion should be amended to remove it.
Clauses 35 & 36 Sportsgrounds Fees and Charges
We note that Council consulted extensively as part of the development of its policy regarding fees and charges for sportsgrounds, and no new evidence has been presented to justify any change. This is an important issue for Streets Alive Yarra because it relates to the use of public space, and the trade-offs that must be considered when setting fees and charges. For example, if council wishes to support physical activity to support peopleâs mental and physical health, then it is important to acknowledge that organised sport is only one form of physical activity – the alternative is non-organised physical activity such as walking or biking, which can be included in everyday life such as getting to school, work, or the shops. If Council has extra budget available, e.g. to pause fees or increase subsidies for sportsgrounds, then Council can support the physical and mental health of many more people, and support many more person-hours of physical activity, by instead allocating those funds toward infrastructure to support safe walking and biking. The motion should be amended to remove those clauses.
Published 24th November 2024