While the ALP and independent Councillors remained largely silent, and the Socialists engaged in their usual agitprop, we were left once again with the task of reading the proposals properly, listening to the community, thinking through scenarios and formulating a proposal focussed squarely on good outcomes  – for the present and future community.

The local community’s key concerns about the proposed development were its height, removal of all site trees, parking and traffic. We were also concerned that the Amendment proposed only 5% of apartments to be affordable and wheelchair accessible, not 5% of total dwellings as previously agreed.

The Socialists proposed stamping our feet, throwing years of painstaking work out and starting again. This would have given the developers the perfect excuse to go to the Planning Minister arguing Council was being obstructionist and vexatious, and asking him to take over planning control of the site.

Minister Guy has suggested 20 storeys for Richmond Station, and approved a 25-storey building on a site in Maribyrnong where the Council policy was 12 storeys. All other Councillors recognised the Socialists’ proposal as irresponsible, populist nonsense, and rejected it. Crs Main and Jolly clearly want to tell people what they want to hear, even if it’s patently untrue. We are not prepared to go along with this simplistic approach, or  prioritise “popularity” ahead of the best possible outcomes for the community.

The ALP and independent Councillors, including Melba Ward Councillors Funder and Smedley, asked no questions and proposed nothing.

We proposed reducing the height of the development to a maximum of six storeys, further work seeking the retention of the 36 mature, healthy trees identified by the East Richmond Residents’ Association, closure of the Moore St access point (as requested by Moore St residents), and clarification that 5% of dwellings (not apartments) should be affordable and wheelchair accessible. Traffic and parking will be addressed by a Council traffic management plan for the whole local area. This proposal sought to address the majority of residents’ key concerns, and attracted majority support.

The Channel 9 site game is by no means over. The developers may still go to the Minister, or seek further changes when they apply for permits. Permit applications are only required to be “generally in accordance” with the development plan, and we know from bitter experience that this can have quite broad legal interpretation.

Our ALP and independent colleagues in 2009 voted to use a planning mechanism for this site that will prevent residents from taking future permit applications to VCAT. We sought at the time to use a different mechanism that would have preserved these rights, but were outvoted then because Council  had an extra ALP Councillor. Council is still the decision-maker about permits, but if there are problems with permit proposals, it will be up to Council alone to deal with them.

We Greens will continue to scrutinise every development proposal, listen to and communicate honestly with the community, and seek to devise workable, solutions, focused on future liveability and sustainability, as we have for the last three years.  If last night’s meeting was anything to go on, the other Councillors will continue to mostly leave this work to us, and the Socialists will ramp up their electoral posturing. This wasted so much time at this month’s meeting that eight of the agenda items were not even discussed.

Greens councillors have objected all along to the inappropriate redevelopment of this historic and iconic building but after careful consideration we could not agree to a Supreme Court action.

We were advised there was virtually no chance of success on legal grounds, the only basis we could appeal. Any appeal would have cost up to a hundred thousand of dollars and so we felt this would not be a responsible use of ratepayers’ money.

We received many emails and phone calls urging us to pursue an appeal, and parallels were drawn between our fight with Vicroads over Clearways, and the Port Phillip council’s final rejection of the development on the St Kilda Triangle.

They are very different cases.

Port Philip council had actually approved the St Kilda Triangle development and issued a permit. They had to pay $5million, not to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court, but to get out of an agreement they had actually made with the developer.

Yarra Council rejected the Dimmey’s proposal. We fought a case in VCAT with senior legal representatives and lost. That case has already cost a lot of money, well spent though it was.

Yarra Council challenged the extension of Clearway times in the Supreme Court because we had not been adequately consulted on these changes.  There was no process where we could have meaningful input into this decision and so a Supreme Court challenge was our way, the only way we had, of trying to change a bad decision. The Greens strongly backed that action.

The Dimmey’s proposal, on the other hand, was subject to a proper council planning process and we rejected it. It was also subject to a Heritage Victoria process – we objected on heritage grounds, but Heritage Victoria supported it. Our planning refusal was challenged at VCAT and we fought that case vigorously . We lost.

The Greens’ position has been clear and strong all along – we do not support this development. It is too large and out of character with the predominantly low rise Victoria streetscape of Swan Street. However other state-based bodies – Heritage Victoria and VCAT – have overruled us despite our legal representation. If there was a legal case still to be fought at the Supreme Court we would have. But there isn’t.

There are clearly problems with the State Planning Framework when the character of Swan Street is considered irrelevant because it is a Major Activity Centre with good public transport, and when state policy is interpreted as requiring buildings that are very large and very different from existing buildings in all Major Activity Centres. This framework allows a development such as this tower to dominate and detract from the increasingly rare and precious Victoria streetscape found in Swan Street . It’s these planning provisions that need to change if we are to prevent inappropriate developments in heritage shopping strips in the future.

First the Socialists proposed removing public seating and bicycle hoops outside the Grace Darling Hotel in Peel St, Collingwood. These were recently installed by Council  in response to repeated public requests for some seating and public spaces in Smith Street. (There are currently 20 private seats for a every public seat on footpaths in the precinct.)

The Grace Darling’s management legitimately asked for a footpath trading licence in this area, but this request did not meet our recently approved guidelines for this very situation. This didn’t stop the ALP, Socialist and independent Councillors succumbing to intense lobbying from  the hotel’s representatives and arguing that the corner needed tidying up and that the hotel should be given 24 seats in addition to their existing 16 seats on Smith St. At an earlier meeting, Cr Smedley even described as “disgraceful” the “amount of space council has taken over” …. for public space.

Secondly, the Socialists proposed removing seating and tables from a similar location outside hamburger place “Grill’d” in Brunswick Street, in order to “return some space to the public.”  While our jaws were on the floor trying to make sense of this, Cr Main argued that there was a need for public spaces along Brunswick Street for people to gather without having to pay for a seat. We agreed. A pity this argument seems to be selectively applied by the Socialists.

To cap this all off, ALP Cr Geoff Barbour moved to provide funding again, outside of the Community Grants process and contrary to a previous Council decision, for the Peel Street Pride Fair.

The organisers of the Fair were told last year that their out-of-time funding of $35,000 was a one-off and they would have to apply through the same channels as every other community group in 2011. They did apply this year but were unsuccessful.

Independent Councillor Dale Smedley has been one of the key proponents of the Fair, along with his friend and former Liberal candidate Tom McFeely, who owns the Peel Hotel in Peel St. Cr Smedley excused himself from discussions about the Fair last year because of his obvious conflict of interest, but this year he did not.

After successful lobbying of ALP and Socialist councillors, the Fair will now be funded again this year, bypassing the competitive process that every other group in Yarra has to go through, even for amounts as small as $500.

Socialist Cr Jolly tried to deflect criticism of his blatant disrespect for all those other groups by saying that in not voting for the Fair, the Greens were failing to support the GLBTIQ community. In fact we were refusing to give preferential treatment to one Councillor’s pet project. We would be surprised if the GLBTIQ community was not appalled at this lack of proper process, and the message it sends to the broader community.

The Greens support the application of fair, proper processes for the allocation of scarce public resources.

When we asked the community what they wanted in Smith Street, they said public space and seating, which we provided. We don’t blame the Grace Darling owners for trying to expand their business into this public area but there is a greater good to be considered here.

When we followed a public process to develop guidelines for trading on kerb extensions, we expected that those guidelines would be applied fairly and equally to all businesses.

When we agreed to provide extraordinary funding for the Peel Street Pride Fair in 2010 it was clear that future requests should follow the same route as everyone else.

The Socialist and ALP Councillors sent a clear message this week that for them  it doesn’t matter what the guidelines are, or what rules apply, it doesn’t matter whether there is a public consultation process or not, it’s who you know and who you can  lobby that counts.

We Greens will continue to take a principled, fair, democratic approach to the allocation of public resources.

On the one hand, a school which has been part of the Abbotsford Convent Project since its beginning in 1998, and which has been part of Abbotsford for even longer, wants to consolidate both its primary and secondary schools at the sought-after heritage listed Convent site.

On the other hand, that long fought campaign resulted in the Convent being handed back as a “gift to people of Victoria” by the state government in 2005. The interests of these people as a whole need to be considered.

The decision makers in this scenario are Heritage Victoria and the State Government. Yarra Council has been asked for an opinion on the heritage case by Heritage Victoria.

The Greens moved a motion that Council tell HV that we do not support the current proposal for 4 new classrooms and the conversion of the heritage swimming pool to a playground. This was supported by a majority of Councillors.

This proposal was arrived at by weighing up the needs of the school to expand on the Convent site against the longer term need to protect the heritage integrity of this very significant site for present and future generations.

This week’s Council meeting heard impassioned and articulate presentations from students, parents and teachers of the Steiner School, testifying to the unique, inclusive and compassionate education provided to students. There was no doubt about their testimony, nor was there any doubt about the high levels of commitment of the parents and teachers to a quality education for their children.

However, Council was not being asked to make a decision about the value of the school or whether or not it should be at the Convent. We were asked for our position on the heritage merits of a new building on this intact 19^th century former monastic complex, and we agreed we did not support it.

As Greens we are disappointed that our position has been portrayed as demonstrating a lack of support for the school. As a Council we have tried to assist the school to find alternate sites and ultimately that is a decision for the school. Our role was to provide advice on a current proposal on a site of state significance in the interests of the community as a whole.

A Greens motion proposed relocating the childcare centre and seeking state government assistance to do so.  We are committed to building a 92-place childcare centre, preferably in the Abbotsford-Collingwood area, however the Lourdes site is not an appropriate location.

Despite the fact that Council has never formally investigated alternative sites, the ALP, Socialist and Independent councillors combined to defeat the Greens motion, which effectively forces the centre into the Convent precinct despite strong misgivings and opposition from stakeholders and community members.

The Abbotsford Convent Foundation had earlier addressed Council requesting the relocation of the childcare centre.

In balancing the needs of the community with the benefits of proceeding immediately with a childcare centre in a problematic location, the Greens judged that we have the capacity to meet childcare needs in the municipality to enable a short delay in finding a better location. Meanwhile we could not put further pressure on the unsafe situation in St Heliers Street and place one million annual visitors to this precinct at risk.

St Heliers Street is the entry road to a thriving, dynamic arts and culture precinct in a beautiful setting, but there are serious traffic flow issues, which must be resolved. Peak times see some risky and sometimes illegal driving manoeuvres around the current Early Learning Centre. Add to this parents driving to drop children at the Steiner School, employees driving to park in the car park, teenagers walking to school, parents crossing roads with pre-schoolers in a constrained area and no way through. It’s an explosive mix.

Placing a large childcare centre in this mix and adding up to 200 extra car trips per day in peak times is foolish.

It also prevents Council from ever realising the potential for St Heliers Street to become a pedestrian and bicycle thoroughfare – safe, welcoming and landscaped for all to enjoy.

This is not a good site for a new childcare centre. It’s next to a car park and an existing child care centre and is situated on the edge of its catchment area, increasing the pressure on parents to drive.  Child drop-offs will be a nightmare for parents and other precinct users.

The Greens believe that this decision will create divisions in the community and resentment against Council.

A more sensible approach would be to create a beautiful car-free shared zone in St Heliers Street and a relocated childcare centre situated in a community which appreciates its location. This would be a win-win outcome.

While the Port Phillip Council wrote a very general letter about this in April, YCAN requested a quite specific letter, as a low carbon price, high compensation to polluting industries and weak complementary measures (as per the CPRS) would be at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive. That’s why Greens Senator Christine Milne dubbed the CPRS the Continue Polluting Regardless Scheme.

The Greens proposed a letter supporting a meaningful price on greenhouse gas emissions, coupled with strong incentives for investment in both renewable energy and energy-efficiency. The letter pointed out the fact that transitioning our energy generation from coal to gas will cost about $40 a tonne, and transitioning to renewable energy will cost $70 a tonne. No specific carbon price was sought, as the letter said that the final price will depend what complementary measures are put in place.

The letter also urged MPCCC members to:

• Provide rebates and financial assistance for low income households,
• Adopt a long-term, economy-wide emissions target and a plan to implement it,
• Ensure new power plants reduce net emissions and assist in the transition to renewable,
• Invest in a just transition to less polluting industries for workers in places like the La Trobe Valley,
• Invest the remainder of the revenue generated in renewable energy generation,
• Introduce a gross feed-in tariff, to pay a guaranteed price for all forms of renewable energy,
• Initiate a mass roll-out of energy-efficiency measures, in partnership with interested local governments,
• Shift investment from roads to rail freight, walking, cycling and public transport,
• End the logging of old-growth forests and broadscale native vegetation clearing
• Minimise administrative complexity and build in flexibility to the carbon price mechanism, to take account of inflation, technological change and the climate science.

A YCAN representative spoke to the meeting urging support for the letter and providing information about a local survey they have done showing strong support for a carbon price.

The Socialist Councillors spoke and voted against the motion because it did not include a re-nationalisation of the the electricity industry, and because they believe putting a price on carbon just gives capitalists another market to gamble on.

The ALP Councillors and Councillor Smedley voted against the motion, so it was lost. Neither the Socialists nor the ALP proposed any alternative letter, so no letter will be sent. Cr Josh Funder then sought to have the “defeated” letter sent to our local Federal MP Adam Bandt, asking him whether it is his position on climate change. Mr Bandt’s position on climate change is clearly stated on the Greens website , but since Cr Funder was unaware of it and sought clarification, we voted for this motion.

The Greens believe that the positions adopted by the Socialist Party and the ALP on this issue effectively, and sadly, diminish Yarra Council’s ability to advocate to other levels of government for strong action against climate change.YCAN’s advocacy for climate action has been obstructed by the Socialists inserting unrealistic ideological pre-conditions for their support, and an important opportunity to build community support on this vital issue has been lost. The Greens Councillors will continue to encourage community activism against climate change and support the work of YCAN.

A number of groups requested additional funding for specific projects, three of which were able to be accommodated in the final draft:

• $3000 for the Yarra Bike Fleet
• $20,000 sponsorship of Bicycle Victoria’s Bike Futures Conference and associated Yarra-based cycling events
• $5000 plus in kind support for the South Sudanese community’s independence celebrations

Requests for CCTV in Victoria St, a small park in Richmond Terrace, traffic calming in Richmond, the Link Community newsletter and additional swimming coaches at Yarra’s pools will be the subject of further investigation or consideration in the coming year.

The pensioner rates rebate was increased to $130, and while Community Housing Associations are no longer eligible for a rates waiver, a $130 rebate will apply to their properties, which we hope will help encourage them to keep building affordable housing in Yarra. We agreed to withdraw the proposed $105 outdoor heater fee because of the level of concern expressed about it by traders, but Council will continue to work to minimise the use of these heaters.

In moving the budget, Greens Councillor Amanda Stone added a mechanism to set up this year’s $100,000 transport campaign, and moved to approach the state government for funding assistance in implementing our multi-million dollar Bicycle Strategy.

The two ALP Councillors voted against the budget  on grounds of dissatisfaction with the amount of money being set aside for the Indoor Sporting Facility, despite only two submissions being received supporting this facility, and six submissions expressing concern at the proposal to slash other initiatives to fund this future facility. The adopted budget includes $700,000 extra for the Indoor Sporting Facility, bringing the total in reserve for this to $3.1 million, following on from the decision last month not to sell Loughnan Hall.

One Socialist Councillor was absent from the meeting, and the other voted against the budget as usual. Thank goodness the independents understand that Council cannot continue to pay its staff, deliver services and maintain infrastructure without a budget.

While we would always like to see more money for Greens priorities, we believe in working collaboratively with our colleagues and the community to get the best possible outcome, and that this budget will continue to build Yarra’s community connectedness, sustainability, diversity and prosperity.

Yarra is home to world class drug and alcohol treatment services. We are working with these, the police and state government to provide a coordinated approach to the problem of illegal drug use and trafficking in Richmond.

The police and Victoria Street traders asked council to install CCTV cameras, which would cost about $1 million, in Victoria Street, to provide evidence to help police catch drug dealers and traffickers. While this is an appealing idea, there is no clear evidence that it reduces crime. Where CCTV cameras have been used, they are demonstrably effective in detecting burglaries and other minor offences – not drug dealing. There is also evidence that they drive illegal activity, such as drug dealing, into nearby streets. Residents in streets near Victoria Street do not need further illegal and anti-social activity on their door steps.

CCTV cameras are therefore not a “quick fix”. However, they may be part of the package of approaches needed, and so the Greens motion called for further information on their effectiveness and implementation before considering them again in 6 months.

The Greens also moved to enhance the things Council does to improve public safety, to re-state the long standing council support for supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) and to call on the state government to support the trial of a SIF in Yarra.

We did so because 10 years of studies of the SIF in Sydney have shown strong, scientifically based evidence that the facility removed a lot of drug taking and anti-social behaviour from the streets, as well as saving lives. A SIF acknowledges that drug addicts will take drugs – the police acknowledge this – and takes this behaviour out of the public realm, into a health facility where treatments can be offered. Drug addicts are not being offered any treatments in the places they currently shoot up, our laneways, car parks and stairwells.

We acknowledge that restaurant and business owners in Victoria Street have had enough. Residents in nearby streets should not have to tolerate the sorts of behaviour they have put up with for years. But we have to adopt measures that we know will work. Residents need strategies for dealing with anti-social behaviours. Those addicted to drugs need treatment. Those selling or trafficking illegal drugs are committing a crime and should be dealt with by the police. As a Council, we can address the first two of these, and the Greens motion was aimed at those things the Council can influence.

We heard from local residents, passionate about keeping public assets in public hands, and the Greek Elderly Citizens Group who has been using the hall for more than 3 decades.

The proposal to sell the hall was endorsed in July 2010 without opposition from any councillors. The public consultation process is important in hearing from the community about any such proposal. We heard that last night.

The Greens support keeping public assets in public hands, especially in a municipality that is growing at the rate of Yarra, but using them to the maximum community benefit.

Loughnan Hall is a 1950s brick building in Coppin St Richmond, which is used by Greek and Italian senior citizens two or three times a week; for the rest of the week is usually vacant. It is about five minutes’ walk from Hosie St, another community hall used by a small group of senior citizens, an art group and the Yarra U3A, but again often not used. The U3A will soon move to another venue in Collingwood. Both halls are a stone’s throw from Richmond Town Hall. All 3 facilities could be used more effectively.

Loughnan Hall has seen better days. It has only a small domestic kitchen and no wheelchair-accessible toilets. Council has been discussing ways Hosie St could be upgraded to meet both the Loughnan Hall and Hosie St groups’ needs and provide them all with high-quality accommodation. This proposal to sell Loughnan Hall was to provide funds to build other infrastructure for which there is high demand. It is of course, not the only option.

The agenda for last night’s Council meeting contained some but not all the submissions received from the community about the proposed sale of Loughnan Hall. This meant we did not have the full picture on feedback from the people who had taken the time to write to us on this important matter.

The recommendation at the meeting was to accept the submissions, in order to consider them properly and come to an informed decision next month. Predictably, the Socialist Councillors proposed abandoning the sale, and keeping the hall “for community use”, but offered no solution to the obvious problem that the community is not currently using either hall fully (and both are in need of upgrading) while other parts of Richmond lack community halls, and there is high demand for other types of community facilities.

We Greens are very concerned that the Greek Seniors are very distressed and opposed to the proposal to move them to Hosie St. We acknowledge and share resident desires to retain useful public buildings in public hands. But we also wish to ensure these buildings are in top shape and used to the greatest community benefit.

We therefore voted against the knee-jerk proposal to abandon the sale this month. If we abandon the sale without an accompanying proposal for how to use both halls more fully, they will continue to lie empty for most of the week, and there will inevitably be another proposal in a couple of years’ time to sell one or both.

We need a proper, well thought-through and lasting solution that makes best use of Council assets, and provides our senior citizens groups with proper facilities. What we don’t need is posturing and populism.

One, proposed by the ALP’s  Josh Funder just a day earlier,  slashed nearly a million dollars of community-based projects, identified as needs throughout the year, reduced the rate income increase to 4.5% (in real terms saving each household about $4 per year)  and placed the extra money into a Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF).

The other was proposed by Greens councillor Amanda Stone, based on the deliberations of Councillors over the past 4 months, and staff recommendations, plus putting an extra $150,000 into the CIF, in an attempt to achieve consensus on the budget.

Socialist party councillors slammed the ALP proposal, describing it as neo-Liberal (which they do every year), and voted against it. They also  rejected the Greens alternative because it wasn’t formed around Socialist principles. They did not propose a alternative budget, and have indicated they will not support the draft budget in its final form. This is their track record.

The Greens’ proposed draft budget, which attracted the support of the independent Councillors and is now on on public exhibition, accommodated everyone’s priorities and will keep implementing our progressive Council Plan.

The draft budget continues to scale back Yarra’s relatively high rates in a manageable way, with a rate increase of about 3.5% or $47 per year for the average household, or 4.9% in total income. It includes:

·         another $30 million for capital works, building the libraries, swimming pools and other infrastructure our booming population will need. It maintains our $1.4 billion dollars worth of existing infrastructure in good condition.

·        an extra $1 million set aside for the proposed indoor sporting facility, and an expected total $4 million in the CIF by June next year.

·         a number of new initiatives such as a campaign for public transport, upgrades to the Council property at 49 Tudor St Richmond, a  Significant Tree register, ongoing work on our Heritage Gaps study, support for the Princes Hill Community Centre, outreach workers to assist our newly arrived African communities and a Community Gardens Facilitator.

It’s a good budget which will see the Council debt free by mid next year, deliver over $35 million of new buildings and facilities for the community into the future, and deliver most of the actions in the Council Plan – not common in local government.

We will be seeking community feedback over the next month before finalising the budget in June.

With the Socialist Party indicating they will not vote for the budget, the Greens will have to negotiate with the ALP and the independents on its final content. If we don’t do that, Council won’t have a budget, and won’t be able to keep paying its staff, running services or building and maintaining infrastructure.

We look forward to the day the Socialists decide to take some responsibility for the initiatives they want included in the budget, and actually sign off on it along with their colleagues.