Encouraging More Students to Ride to School

Yarra Council and Princes Hill Secondary College in North Carlton will work together to increase the numbers of students riding bikes to school following the adoption of a Greens motion in Council this week.

A joint working party of Council, the School and residents will be formed to redesign bike parking at the school.

This could include creating bike parking facilities on surrounding roads and creating open space and a new park on areas previously crowded with bikes.

Last year ward Councillors accepted an invitation from the school to examine the dominance of parked bikes on school infrastructure due to overcrowding of the provided bike hoops. Councillors found that bikes parked in the school were indeed a growing nuisance; for example, at least ten bikes were locked to Canteen rails designed to promote orderly student queues.

Council provided 12 new hoops which the principal recently reported were immediately used by new bike riders to the school and therefore not alleviating the bike ‘invasion’ on school property.

His view has been backed up with statistics from Bicycle Network Victoria’s Ride2School Day (March 21st) which reported 198 parked student bikes this year; a remarkable rate for a school with 800 students. In fact, Bicycle Network Victoria believes PHSC is the national leader in the highest number of students riding to school.

The implementation of this initiative will encourage an escalating bike culture at the school and will entrench PHSC as an emblematic school for bike riding in Australia. Council could then apply this model to other primary and secondary schools in Yarra to increase their bike riding rates, thereby meeting one of the objectives of Yarra’s Bicycle Strategy

Greens councillors celebrate $6.5 million on bike projects

Vic Greens leader Greg Barber joined inner Melbourne Greens councillors Cr Rohan Leppert (Melbourne), Cr Samantha Rattnam and Cr Lenka Thompson (Moreland), Cr Sam Hibbins (Stonnington), Cr Amanda Stone (Yarra), to celebrate the big investment in bicycle infrastructure in these councils.
“Local council budgets are coming out for 2013-14 and where there are Greens councillors there is money for bike projects. $6.5 million in Yarra, Darebin, Stonnington, Melbourne and Moreland alone,” said Greg Barber MLC

“Hanging out with Greens councillors is a breath of fresh air, because they know every dollar spent on active transport is also a dollar for good health, greenhouse gas reduction and smog-busting and it just makes our neighbourhoods a better place for our kids to play.”

“I wish they wrote the State Government bike budget, and if we get enough Greens in state parliament next time, they will!”

“I’m happy to announce the Greens bike policy is to match local council bike funding, dollar for dollar at state government level, up to $5 per resident per year, for councils with a bike plan,” said Mr Barber.

While Yarra’s 2013-14 budget has not yet been approved, in recent years, as a result of Greens on council, Yarra has consistently spent well above the metropolitan average on bicycle infrastructure and has the highest bicycle use of any council. We know that “if we build, they will be come”. With better, safer bike routes, reluctant cyclists will be more confident, and we can help shift reliance on the private car to a healthier mode of transport for more people. Good for people, good for the environment, good for our pockets.

Next Episode in Amcor Epic

Amcor has announced a potential buyer for the 16.5 Ha site in Alphington. The sale is conditional on changing the planning control – imposed by Planning Minister Madden in 2009 – from an IPO (Incorporated Plan Overlay) to a DPO (Development Plan Overlay).
Amcor has directly approached the Planning Minister to request this change to Yarra’s Planning Scheme, just as they did in 2008, bypassing the local planning authority, Yarra Council.
Last week, council unanimously supported a Greens motion to not support the change to a DPO or the request to demolish all heritage buildings on the site.
We voted instead to keep open the option of discussing planning controls directly with the potential developer, and Amcor, in conjunction with the community.
The Greens have two key considerations in any planning control at Amcor :
• community input
• achievement of the Design and Development Principles for the Amcor site which were developed in 2009 through an extensive consultation process with the community, experts and statutory authorities.
We want the best development on this site: high environmentally sustainable design, an affordable housing component, community facilities, great open spaces and protection of the Yarra Corridor and waterways. This vision is shared by the community.
When Minister Madden placed new planning controls on the Amcor site in 2009, an IPO with broad principles was included. These principles reflect council’s principles in general, but there are no specific requirements on building heights and setbacks, the proportion of affordable housing, proximity of buildings to the river, or the education facility which the community so strongly supports. There could be an opportunity now to negotiate with a purchaser for inclusion of some of those principles.
Council officers have advised that an alternative DPO could best produce the sustainable urban village which we are seeking.
There are valid community concerns that a change in planning controls would result in less community input into the final development plan. Action group APMAG wants to retain an IPO. The issue however is about who allows community input.
Under an IPO, the community has a say via a Planning Panel established by the Minister for Planning.
Under a DPO, the council can elect to consult with the community directly. (During consideration of the DPO at the Channel 9 site in Richmond, there was extensive community consultation over a long period of time.)
There are many other differences between the two controls; however community input can be significant in either case.
In 2009, when Minister Madden bypassed council on Amcor, he used job creation as a reason to impose an IPO, a move supported by ALP and Socialist councillors. The Greens opposed this move, instead supporting council control of this process, and therefore community input.

Four years later, the Greens continue to support whichever planning control will ultimately maximise both community input and the ability to get the best possible development.

Greens’ position on public housing master plans endorsed by Minister’s reversal

Yarra Greens councillors’ persistent calls for the preservation of open space and greater community say in the future of the Fitzroy and Richmond public housing estates has been heeded. The Minister for Housing, Wendy Lovell, has moved to defer the master planning and to request an extension of time from the Federal Government until 2016.
The Greens on Yarra Council see this is a “win” for the community and for public housing.
We have consistently opposed any net loss of open space, the development of public land with private housing, and the imposition of commercial spaces on public housing land.
The future of the estates should not be pre-determined by targets imposed from outside. The future of the estates should lie in what is best for its residents. Fitzroy and Richmond estates are relatively harmonious, vibrant and culturally rich communities. They deserve improved facilities and living conditions and there is opportunity to plan that. The local community and estate residents would like the open space to be integrated more with the surrounding residential areas. There is opportunity for that too.
The starting point for any master plan should be what is best for existing tenants and for the provision of public housing in Victoria.
We are pleased the Minister has listened to Yarra’s position and we look forward to a process which genuinely considers the needs of present and future public housing tenants as well as the surrounding community.

Mobile Food Van Guidelines: getting the balance right

Yarra’s guidelines for the operation of Mobile Food Vehicles will be reviewed following this week’s council meeting. The guidelines were introduced last year to allow popular mobile food vans to operate in appropriate locations whilst protecting residential amenity and existing food businesses.  However, no licences have been issued so far, although several keen mobile food operators have approached council. A review was clearly needed.

The Greens supported a review of the guidelines, as we understand the contribution mobile food vans make to support diverse and vibrant neighbourhoods – and they sell delicious food!

However if they are to be successful, their location has to be carefully considered.

The ALP pushed for Council to consider introducing fixed locations for van trading, which will be located closer to operating take away food businesses than the 200 metres allowed in the current guidelines.

 Following this week’s Council resolution , new guidelines will be considered that also prevent trading within 100 metres of residences and only following extensive consultation.

 The new fixed locations will be established for a four-month trial period.

 

The Greens acknowledge the wonderful conbtribution mobile food vans would make to our night life in particular in Yarra. 

But the same can also be said of our currently operating food traders in shops throughout our neighbourhoods.

 Most food traders oppose Mobile Food Vehicles as they argue that their rate-paying business is undermined by competition from van operators who don’t pay equivalent amounts to trade. Many residents complain of noise, increased traffic and litter resulting from mobile van operations.

 The current guidelines were introduced last year to encourage mobile food vans, but to regulate their use to ensure their sustainable presence in our city and protect the interests of traders and residents.

 The Greens will cautiously monitor any changes to the guidelines to ensure they get the balance of competing interests right; it’s vital this is achieved, otherwise growing resident and trader opposition to vans might mean their expulsion from Yarra.

It’s interesting to observe that the ALP has thrown off their usual cautionary, conservative approach to issues by, in this instance, loosening the guidelines that traders will see as detrimental to their business.

It is extraordinary that two weeks ago the ALP voted against Copenhagen Bike Lanes in Wellington St on the basis they wanted to ‘support traders’. This was despite the fact that an economic impact study found there was little impact on traders and that Greens’ motions ensured trader involvement in the design of the bike lanes.

 Perhaps their rush to change the mobile food van guidelines after only nine months of operation, is motivated more by their concern for their declining youth vote and not for the long-term sustainability of mobile food vans in Yarra?

 

 

 

 

 

Greens Proposals for Copenhagen Lanes on Wellington St. Get Sign Off from Council.

The first Copenhagen bike lanes in Yarra came one step closer this week after Council supported a Greens motion to commence their design for installation in Wellington St.

 The Wellington Street bike lanes, which will physically separate cyclists from cars, are proposed to extend from Johnston St to Victoria Parade.  Car parking spaces on the western side of Wellington St. will be removed.

 The new lanes will increase cyclist safety, encourage new riders and establish Wellington St as a major north-south route. Importantly, they will improve connectivity to the Albert St Copenhagen lanes and the soon-to-be-built Copenhagen lanes in La Trobe St, which will provide cycle access throughout the CBD.

 Copenhagen lanes in Wellington St have proved to be popular, but are opposed many traders who believe their businesses will be negatively impacted by loss of car park spaces.

 The Greens see Copenhagen lanes as an important infrastructure development, which promotes cycling as a safe and serious mode of sustainable transport.

 However, we do not want to harm business and our motion establishes a trader’s working party to be involved in the design process.  In fact, an economic impact assessment by Essential Economics Pty Ltd, found that most businesses are unlikely to be negatively impacted.

 This did not stop the ALP and Independent Cr Vlahogiannis from also opposing the Copenhagen lanes.  They argued that vibra -lines recently established in Langridge St would be sufficient. Unfortunately for them, the officer’s report stated that vibra-lines were inappropriate for Wellington St, and due to residents complaints, had been partially removed from Langridge St.

 The ALP’s desire to be seen as pro-business should not over-ride sensible infrastructure development that increases road safety for cyclists.

 The Greens believe we have the balance right – we support Copenhagen lanes and have taken measures to mitigate any negative impacts on traders.

 And on the same night…..

 

 The Greens Launch Another Bike Infrastructure Project for Brunswick St and St Georges Rd.

Council supported a Greens motion to establish a joint Council and Community Working Party to plan for improved cyclist safety and pedestrian amenity in Brunswick St and St Georges Rd.

 The working party will consist of residents, traders, bike riders and stakeholder groups who will be asked to provide a vision for the road.

 The working party was established following a report to Council that outlined a number of possible short and long-term improvements costing more than $1m over several years.

 The Greens proposed that the short- term improvements be considered in this year’s budget and that the more complex infrastructure improvements be considered by the working party.

 The Greens believe this is a historic opportunity to plan for improving the street, which is shortly to have new tram stops installed, a re-sheeting of the road surface and which has ongoing pressure from increasing numbers of cyclists and pedestrians.  Unlike Wellington St., here Copenhagen Lanes or the removal of car park spaces are not proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

Public Housing – Who Pays?

Housing – along with food and clothing -is a basic human need.

Yet there are thousands of homeless on any one night in Melbourne.  Public housing waiting lists continue to grow, and with almost no new public housing built in the past decade, available places go to those most in need. As a result, large numbers of those who would be eligible for public housing are missing out.

Yarra is home to the largest concentration of public housing in Victoria – mostly in the high rise towers in Collingwood, Fitzroy and Richmond. Built in the 1960s, these 22 storey towers house large numbers of people in apartments which are small, but have natural light, and are set in green, landscaped surroundings. These green landscapes help to keep the apartments cool in summer when temperatures inside can be intolerable. They also provide a meeting place for residents, a place to play for children, for communal and cultural celebrations, to grow fresh food in community gardens, for sports facilities and a sense of identity for the residents of these small villages. In Fitzroy the open space along Gertrude Street is an important gathering place in aboriginal cultural history.

The state government plan to build new housing on the open spaces at Richmond and Fitzroy has raised concerns among the local community and anxiety for public housing tenants. While details are still sketchy and the design brief has not been publicly released, it seems that new private housing and commercial premises will be built on the green open space and there will be no new public housing.

The Greens position on this proposal is clear:

-          We oppose any net loss of green open space at these estates

-          We oppose the sell-off of this public asset

-          We believe there should be more public housing

-          We support the Yarra Energy Foundation proposal to retrofit the apartments making them more energy efficient and comfortable.

 

We have taken the lead on Yarra Council to:

-oppose net loss of green open space

-survey residents around the estates about their views and

-ask the minister to release the design brief immediately

-demand a more open and transparent master planning process

- develop a council-developed alternative vision for the housing estates

 

Private developments on this open space would:

- Remove play and recreation areas for young people

-Remove the range of places residents can gather and socialise

-Remove the area available for large community festivals and celebrations

-Remove the cooling effect of green space and replace it with increased urban heat island effect from more hard surfaces

-Hand over a public asset to private developers

 

The rationale for this move is not clear.

A state government review of the provision of social housing in Victoria is underway but there are no recommendations as yet. This proposal seems to “jump the gun” with a solution, before identifying the problem.

Some statements have implied that there are social problems at the estates which would be solved by introducing a “mix” of new private housing.

There is no evidence of either a social problem to be solved, or that introducing new private housing improves life for public housing tenants. Fitzroy and Richmond are relatively affluent suburbs outside the estates. Introducing more relatively expensive housing onto the estates would do nothing to increase the diversity of housing available or guarantee a social “mix”.

There have also been statements about the need for public housing to “pay its way”. We don’t hear such statements made about public health or public education, public libraries, public parks, all paid for or subsidised by state or local governments because of the public good they provide.

With something as basic to human health and well-being as safe, secure housing, why would we expect public housing to be cost neutral? It’s the state’s responsibility to ensure housing, like food, is available to all.

If the sale of public housing land is to help balance the state budget, we ask why it is the state’s most vulnerable citizens who need to pay that price?