Home | Councillors | Action Plans | Achievements

Development sensitive to residents and local business

unChain Port Phillip will deliver a healthy, community-driven local government. Our action plans are underpinned by the interplay of preserving what is good, protecting what is vulnerable, and progressing what will lead to a sustainable and beneficial future for the citizens of Port Phillip.

Greater communication and trust is needed between the community and the staff and Councillors of the City of Port Phillip.

While recognising the constraints of Victorian planning policies and laws, the aim of unChain Port Phillip is to preserve, protect and progress the physical environment of the City, whether built or open space.

Unaligned to any political party, our new team of Councillors will provide a fresh start, a new direction and strong leadership for sensitive development of our City.

This document covers the following matters:
  • Entertainment precincts and alcohol problems
  • Effective Planning Controls and Processes
  • Resolutions
    • The St Kilda Triangle
    • Albert Park Skate Park
    • South Melbourne Town Hall
  • Future developments
    • The St Kilda Harbour
    • Carlisle Street
    • St Kilda Junction
  • Reviews
    • South Melbourne Market
    • The Esplanade Sunday Market
    • St Kilda Festival Sunday
    • Parking

Entertainment Precincts and Alcohol Problems

Entertainment is an important part of the heritage of Port Phillip and a significant component of its economic base. Nevertheless it is important to consider the council policy towards nightclubs and alcohol. The current council seems content to see Port Phillip become a ‘party-zone’.

It is clearly difficult to control the problems created by nightclub precincts. Why would the Port Phillip Council want to reproduce the disaster of King Street, Chapel Street and now Queen Street? We’re already seeing issues of alcohol-fuelled violence in St Kilda and in South Melbourne. Do we want nightclub-party zones encroaching further into our communities?

People are clearly concerned about alcohol-fuelled violence and anti-social behaviour in the ‘entertainment precincts’ flourishing in the CBD and inner Melbourne locations. Control measures such as the 2 am lockout have had limited, if any, success. There is substantial expert evidence that creation of a new nightclub precinct at the Triangle site and approval of proposed nightclubs in Carlisle Street will produce major social problems. Let us quickly look at some of this.

Concerned about Melbourne’s binge drinking violence, the architect of our modernised drinking laws, Professor Nieuwenhuysen, said ‘the rise of nightclubs on such scale and in such close proximity and concentration is the antithesis of my (Review) … (which) included an explicit condemnation of the beer barns … binge drinking is heavily associated with the large nightclubs in the city … authorities must carefully study and consider the wisdom of allowing such large scale premises to operate … (there is also) strong anecdotal evidence that the large all-night establishments are a mecca for the distribution, sale and consumption of illegal drugs’.

The most accessible research in Victoria on the problems of nightclub precincts can be found in the 2006 report of the Drugs and Prevention Committee of the Victorian Parliament. The Inquiry found that ‘A high density of licensed venues concentrated in one area can lead to problems other than simply the agreeable nature of the district. Assaults, violence and other forms of crime are not insignificant factors’. The Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA), the Australian Drug Foundation, the National Drug Research Institute and VicHealth all support a reduction in the density of liquor outlets.

Not all licensed premises create the same level of problems. Professor Nieuwenhuysen says ‘the pity for Melbourne is that the success of European-style premises in the past 20 year is being tainted, indeed drowned, by a minority’s bedevilling, tragic violence and mayhem’. Research has established that the consumption of alcohol in restaurants and social clubs doesn’t generate as many alcohol-related problems as the consumption of alcohol in pubs, hotels, nightclubs and bars. The Inquiry into Strategies to Reduce Harmful Alcohol Consumption concluded that ‘a street that has a high density of licensed cafes and restaurants, such as Brunswick Street in Melbourne, may produce less alcohol-related harm (particularly violence) than a street with three or four nightclubs or hotels’.

unChain Port Phillip believes that council must vigorously use its powers to protect local residents. For example, residents in the vicinity of the Barkly Hotel can testify about the dramatic impact on their lives in living in a new party zone and the inadequate protection they have received from Council. Residents in the vicinity of the St Kilda Festival Sunday ‘street party’ are similarly exposed to hundreds of thousands of drinkers at their doorstep, emboldened to party until they drop by the ‘party central’ tag and alcohol sponsorship of the Festival. Local businesses could also impacted as can be seen by the decision of Crown Casino to expel nightclubs from its entertainment complex, and Chadstone to do likewise from its shopping mall We face a threat that controls on clubs in the city and Chapel Street will see them increasingly re-locate into Port Phillip. The whole of our municipality must not be allowed to degenerate into a party-zone with its accompanying massive social problems. Two immediate issues for the Council are the proposed nightclubs at the St Kilda Triangle and in Carlisle Street.

The St Kilda Foreshore Urban Design Framework promised an entertainment and cultural precinct at the St Kilda Triangle. unChain St Kilda opposes the excessive focus on alcohol in the Babcock and Brown Citta’s Triangle Plan. The approved Development plan in August 2008 has four nightclubs with a capacity of 3000 patrons and the tavern of 900 patrons amongst a further 5,300 seat licensed restaurant and bar complex. unChain Port Phillip believes that the nightclub precinct is grossly excessive. This iconic site and this local community deserve better.

In Carlisle Street there is a proposal for a large nightclub in the old Red Rooster building and most residents and traders are rightly concerned.

The Council must respond to community concerns that Port Phillip is threatened to turn into one giant ‘party zone’. It must use its planning powers, its advocacy powers and its enforcement powers to protect its ratepayers and residents. The Council must work more closely with the Victoria Police and the Liquor Licensing Commission to reduce alcohol problems. In particular, the Council should look to employ someone with valuable experience , say a former police officer, expert in this area to control licensed premises and to reduce alcohol-related crimes in Port Phillip. This is a strategy that has been successful in other municipalities. This community needs inclusion, a new direction and a fresh start to controlling alcohol-related problems.

Effective Planning Controls and Processes

A common experience of residents across our municipality is that planning policies are being pushed to the limit to approve developments very much in conflict with their neighbourhood’s character. They quote examples of Council officer recommendation to approve breaches of height limits and/or complete demolition of heritage buildings or features to give developers what they want, on the spurious grounds of ‘for the sake of the quality of the design’. These recommendations are often simply rubber stamped by Councillors without consideration to the havoc it will wreak on its neighbours or a proper scrutiny of how planning laws are interpreted.

Many residents in our City have increasing dismay that our planning rules can permit such poor, inappropriate decisions to the detriment of our diverse urban fabric and history. They come away with increasing mistrust and amplified feelings of helplessness.

The important point that was highlighted in the Triangle saga was the way planning guidelines could be manipulated by officers to fit the desired outcome. Of most concern was that officers could so easily dismiss the promises made by Councillors to the community in the Urban Development Framework as merely ‘aspirational’.

unChain Port Phillip will:
  • undertake a thorough review of all the current planning policies and their interpretations;
  • commit to apply Melbourne 2030 sensitively and to not use it as an excuse to support rampant destruction of our suburbs character and strip our streets of residential amenity;
  • provide an open discussion for all citizens on what is a desirable level of development
  • challenge the Developer-Council-VCAT nexus by being a strong advocate for community consensus about the sort of new development that is acceptable;
  • ensure that in a scenario where Council is both the proponent and the planning authority, Councillors who sit on the tender selection committee are excluded from voting on the approval or otherwise of the development plan;
  • ensure new developments in the City do not adversely impact local business and residents;
  • improve the planning knowledge of Councillors to help them make informed decisions by commissioning independent planning advice and expert views, especially on major projects; and
  • instigate better accountability mechanism to monitor the decisions and recommendations of officers.

This fresh approach to planning combined with firm leadership will guide the resolution of existing issues, on the St Kilda Triangle, South Melbourne Town Hall and Albert Park Skate Park.

Resolutions

The St Kilda Triangle

In August 2008 the Council gave final approval to the Babcock Brown-Citta Plan for the St Kilda Triangle. The Council ignored the voice of more than 8000 people who wrote submissions or signed petitions opposing the proposal.

In 2002 the Foreshore Urban Development Plan had promised us a cultural and entertainment precinct. Instead Council approved a 99-year lease for:
  • a massive beachside shopping mall with close to 47,300 sq of metres Gross Lettable Area (an industry measure consistently defined to include all commercial leases). This is bigger than mid range regional centres such as Altona Gate (28,652 sqm), Brimbak Central (39,505 sqm) and Westfield Geelong (35,866 sqm) and just a little smaller than Forest Hill Chase (62,881sqm);
  • a cluster of four nightclubs with capacity of 3000 patrons, a tavern with 900 capacity and other alcohol dependent venues (as part of the 43,700 sqm);
  • Loss of the panoramic views of the St Kilda foreshore from the Upper Esplanade footpaths and road; and
  • A development that compromises the significant heritage architecture of the Palais theatre.

The position of unChain Port Phillip is that the Triangle should be developed primarily for cultural, entertainment, recreational and open space uses as promised in the UDF. This is not the appropriate site for a massive commercial project. At most the UDF envisaged a mix of uses including some retailing that is complementary to the core entertainment and cultural outcomes. This is a wasted opportunity for one of the most important sites in Melbourne. The Triangle should have been a centre of real significance in the creative life of Melbourne, a place of seaside fun for young and old, and an outstanding model of sustainable development.

We commissioned a report from Professor Roz Hansen on whether the Development Plan complies with the UDF (available at www.unchainstkilda.org). Hansen Partnership is a leading planning consultancy, with a particular expertise in St Kilda. Professor Hansen herself was the project manager for the St Kilda Foreshore and Environs Strategy, the Port Phillip Review of Height and Development Controls, and a member of the consultant team who undertook the 20th Century Architectural Study for St Kilda.

Professor Hansens’s conclusion about the shopping mall is damning. She states:
‘In our opinion there has been a ‘manipulation’ of policy intent by some parties, including the developer for the Triangle site, to justify the substantial retail floorspace component and yet there is very little, if any policy support, especially at the local level, to justify 25,000 sq.m of retail on this strategically significant site. Based on our assessment of the relevant planning policies contained in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme we are of the opinion that there is no substantive support in the existing planning policy framework for an activity centre for retail uses of this scale and nature on the St Kilda Triangle Site’.


Professor Hansens’s conclusion about the nightclub precinct is equally damning. The UDF did not envisage a nightclub precinct. She says
‘the intent of the planning scheme as it relates to the Triangle site is not to over provide for licensed premises. The site should be a family friendly place with a mix of uses which are complementary to the site’s foreshore, beach locale and enjoyment of culture and entertainment without the social problems associated with drunkenness’.


A Select Committee of Parliament investigated the Triangle process and has recommended reconsideration of the project to better meet community expectations. It found that the St Kilda Triangle development process establishes a dangerous precedent for the development of public land in any suburb or regional town in Victoria in a number of ways because of the combination of: the social and heritage significance of the site; the unique process involving the passing of the St Kilda Triangle Act, which confers virtually all responsibility for the site from the State Government to the Port Phillip Council; the multiple, conflicting roles of the Council as proponent, planning authority and committee of management; the lack of transparency in the tender process; the removal of third party appeal rights; and the commercialisation of public land.

The Committee also recommended that the Victorian Ombudsman investigate the probity of the St Kilda Triangle development processes that were followed by the State Government and the Port Phillip Council.

The Committee also recommended that the State Government allocate sufficient public funds to restore and refurbish the heritage Palais Theatre, to decontaminate the site, and to ensure that any development on the St. Kilda Triangle site is primarily for cultural, entertainment, recreation and public open space as promised to the community. unChain Port Phillip supports these recommendations but unfortunately the Council and the government appear to have ignored them.

In these circumstances, what is to be done? UnChain St Kilda Inc has launched legal proceedings to quash the approved Development Plan for the Triangle. This will be heard by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in February 2009. The grounds of the challenge are that:
  • There was a denial of natural justice;
  • There was a failure to comply with the requirements of the Planning Scheme; and
  • The Council acted unreasonably in approving the Development Plan

What will unChain Port Phillip candidates do once elected? First unChain Port Phillip Councilors will take a close look at the Development Agreement and immediately release ALL non commercial-in-confidence clauses for public scrutiny. The rest depends on the outcome of the legal challenge and the impact of the financial crisis on the viability of the Babcock Brown-Citta proposal.

There are three broad possibilities for the future. First that the legal challenge fails and the developer wants to proceed with the Approved Development Plan. Second that the legal challenge succeeds but the developer has contractual rights under the Development Agreement to submit a revised Development Plan. The third possibility is that the developer is forced to abandon the project and the Council has a clean slate to start afresh. One thing is clear, Council cannot simply ignore any legal rights of Babcock-Brown-Citta, exposing the community to millions of dollars in damages.

If the legal challenge to the current development plan fails, and Babcock-Brown-Citta wants to proceed with the project, we will make every effort to work with it within the terms of the development agreement and other legal requirements. The situation where the current Councillors will not even make public the legal Agreement they signed with the Triangle developer on our behalf makes it difficult to answer the question in more detail without knowing what they have secretly committed us to. We can only commit, in this situation, to negotiating with the developers to try to secure the best possible outcome for the community and to ensure that each subsequent planning permit is scrutinised thoroughly and the full planning constraints imposed to meet community interests, not stretched to fit exponential growth and further commercial gains.

The second possibility is that the legal challenge is successful in quashing the Development Plan but the developer has contractual rights under the Development Agreement to submit a revised Plan. As long as Babcock Brown-Citta has the right to develop the land, we will offer to work with the it on a new plan, with transparent processes and total public involvement, to deliver a truly visionary and innovative proposal that is socially and economically inclusive, environmentally sustainable into the future, sensitively designed to respect the site, its heritage and history and based on a long-term business model firmly grounded in culture, the arts, and popular and diverse entertainment. The starting point will be the St Kilda Foreshore Urban Development Framework with its promise of a cultural and entertainment precinct and preservation of important views. We will not allow a trade off where the panoramic views or the Palais are compromised. We will ensure the intent of the guidelines is met. We will also vigorously lobby the State government to provide funding for the restoration of the Palais (with funding possibly coming from the sale of development rights for St Kilda Junction).

The third possibility is that the developer is forced by the legal challenge or financial conditions to abandon the Triangle project. The Council could then start afresh, but with a new approach and process. The starting point again would be the St Kilda Foreshore Urban Development Framework. We are often asked what we would propose on the Triangle site. However, it is not up to us; but up to the community. The vision prepared by unChain St Kilda ( http://www.unchainstkilda.org/vision.html) is put forward as an example for public consideration.

A problem with the Triangle is that the self-funding model did not work to deliver a development of the scale and cultural uses expected by the community. We will approach the State Government to fund the Palais (as mentioned above) and/or we will pursue the option of a private theatre operator refurbishing the Palais Theatre in exchange for a 99 years lease for the theatre. This would relieve pressures to commercialise the remainder of the Triangle. This would allow a more modest development in accordance with the promises in the Urban Design Framework for a cultural and entertainment precinct and preservation of important views.

The process should involve an architectural competition to deliver the vision of the UDF, with all entries displayed for public input. The community will be invited to help choose the winning design. This could be done by a referendum – at little cost if it were sent out with the Rates notices. This design would then be the subject of the tender, calling for developers to deliver the community’s winning vision.

Albert Park Skate Park

This is another issue where the current Council has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the wishes of local residents, businesses and the community and has compromised its stewardship of our public parkland.

There were 368 objectors to the proposed site during the Council planning process, and 250 objectors have joined as parties to an appeal at VCAT. Objectors include the St Kilda Park Primary School, St Kilda Sports Club, Parks Community Association, Save Albert Park, Port Phillip EcoCentre, St Kilda EarthCare, St Kilda Cricket Club, St Kilda Historical Society, Fitzroy Street Traders Association, Australian Institute of Management, residents and businesses. Objectors have already taken the issue to the Supreme Court where Port Phillip Council was found to have failed to follow a fair and proper process.

Objectors have argued that the Albert Park site is much too close to the St Kilda Park Primary School. The school has collected considerable evidence that introducing a skate park so close to the school is contrary to the safe and nurturing environment they seek to provide for their students. The mainly adolescent males who frequent skate parks are considerably older than primary school children, and are not considered a good influence at that age. It is not considered desirable the skate park should be so close to the school and its younger pupils.

Council has wasted ratepayers’ money fighting objectors in the Supreme Court, where it lost and now must pay costs, and is set to waste more money by pushing for an early re-hearing at VCAT, before the election.

unChain Port Phillip will stand firmly behind its Environmental Action Plan to work ‘to elevate the priority within Council of maintaining and improving our parks and gardens and will not allow our open space to be lost to development and commercial activity’. The objective of the Environmental Action Plan is to draw a line on further alienation of public parks so as not to squander the inheritance left by our forebears for every passing fad. Our City cannot afford to continue to lose a bit of park here or a bit of park there.

unChain Port Phillip will support moving the proposed St Kilda Skate Park and Urban Plaza from Albert Park Reserve Fitzroy Street to a more appropriate site. We will consult with key stakeholders to seek an alternative venue closer to the foreshore, as envisaged in the St Kilda Foreshore Urban Design Framework. Many prominent beach promenades host a skate park. The home of skating, Venice Beach, has a skate park, there’s a successful skate park at Bondi Beach in Sydney, and a new skate park is currently under construction at the Geelong waterfront.

South Melbourne Town Hall

The South Melbourne Town Hall is a prime community asset. Built in 1880, it is on the Victorian Heritage Register. After the amalgamation of the three councils in 1994, a 21-year rent-free lease was granted to the Australian National Academy of Music a national centre for performance excellence for classical musicians. South Melbourne Town Hall is one of very few Town Halls in Victoria owned by its Community on Freehold and the lease initiated a continuing controversy about the exclusion of the community from their Town Hall. There was a Town Hall reference panel but it was frustrated by its lack of effectiveness. The situation may now have fundamentally changed because the National Academy of Music has had their Federal funding withdrawn which probably means they must vacate the Town Hall. The new Council will have to make a fresh start on the South Melbourne Town Hall, one that serves the needs of the local South Melbourne community and the wider society. A starting point will be to re-invigorate the Town Hall Reference Panel.

Future Developments

The St Kilda Harbour

The St Kilda harbour is a unique asset with potential for improvements to serve the local and wider community. The harbour has been associated with marine and recreational activities since the construction of the first pier in the 1850s. Parks Victoria, the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the City of Port Phillip have prepared a concept plan for redevelopment of the St Kilda Harbour precinct. unChain St Kilda has made a submission to Parks Victoria on the proposal (see www.unchainstkilda.org).

There are many admirable features in the Harbour proposal. In the past 40 years, numerous schemes have been proposed for the development of the St Kilda harbour by various authorities. None were implemented because of unresolved technical and environmental questions, doubts about financial viability and concerns that there were significant amenity issues for the general public. The current proposal appears significantly superior to these earlier schemes. Potentially there could be a win-win-win solution with significant net benefits for the public, the environment and the boating community.

While we congratulate Parks Victoria on its initiative in the design of this proposal, we think it needs to make an unequivocal case that a marina any bigger than the current one is in the public interest. Without strong demand being demonstrated for the public aspects of this proposal, unChain St Kilda would be opposed to a PPP development of such a large marina and boat repair facility for private gain. We are also concerned about the reduction in the number of swing boat moorings. A major concern is the destruction of the present uninterrupted views. The proposal includes a 8000 sq m. hardstand – extending perhaps 140 metres into the existing harbour. This represents a massive visual intrusion that will interrupt and spoil the visual sweep of the beach towards Port Melbourne. This proposed boat repair and storage yard is undesirable from an urban design point of view and could be relocated to the St Kilda marina.

The current proposal has too many unanswered questions and unresolved issues. Nevertheless there is potential to resolve these issues and to put forward to state government a proposal that has broad community support. We note that the current proposal has had substantial input from the Port Phillip Council and the RMYS with some input from Earthcare St Kilda. It is time to bring in additional stakeholders. It is suggested that Parks Victoria could establish a working group to consider submissions and develop a preferred option and some alternatives from which the government and the community could choose.

Carlisle Street

The sensitive redevelopment of Carlisle Street will be one of the most important items on the agenda of the next Council. Carlisle Street is identified as a 'major activity centre' in the State Government's Melbourne 2030 Strategy which means it is expected to accommodate a broader mix of activities (shops, services, community facilities and housing) and maximise the use of public transport.

Council has prepared a draft Activity Centre Structure Plan, a draft Urban Design Framework and a draft Neighborhood Character Statements. Some of the key proposals are:
  • renewal of the Coles and Safeway Supermarket and Car Park Sites - incorporating upgraded supermarket facilities, additional retail shops, basement car parking and new housing opportunities;
  • Balaclava Walk (Station) Project - proposing a new public space and combined transport interchange on Carlisle Street, improved visibility and safety of the station entry, extension of active retail / commercial edges along Balaclava Walk, and the redevelopment of the ‘station’ car park for Community Housing.;
  • St Kilda Children’s and Family ‘Hub’ Project - renewal of existing facilities to provide integrated care, education and health services to children and their families.
  • Civic Hub Project - Renewal and improved integration of the St Kilda Town Hall, St Kilda Library and associated Public Plaza;
  • Development of a ‘Strategic Business Plan’ for the Carlisle Street Retail Strip - to assist in managing an optimal ‘retail mix’, and to support ‘independent’ traders and specialty retailing;
  • Creation of a ‘Shared Zone’ in Camden Street - where traffic speed is reduced, pedestrian movement is given priority and new planting contributes to the ‘greening’ of the centre; and
  • On-ground Pedestrian Improvement Projects - to make the centre safer and more comfortable for walking. These include a new pedestrian crossing opposite the station, raised platform tram stops, pedestrian ‘way finding’ signage, ‘threshold treatments’ along Carlisle Street which give pedestrians priority over cars, and reduced speed limits.

In the detailed planning for Carlisle Street it is critical that Council genuinely consults the wider community. The process must not be captured by a handful of Councillors, senior officers and investment bankers as happened with the St Kilda Triangle.

St Kilda Junction

There is nothing wrong with a shopping mall – in the appropriate site. The St Kilda Triangle is not the appropriate site for a massive commercial project, but the St Kilda Junction could be. We could take a lesson from Sydney, which built Bondi’s commercial hub at Bondi Junction, not at Bondi Beach.

A fundamental redevelopment of the Junction could enable transport planners to solve the problems of Melbourne’s worst road intersections. Furthermore redevelopment of the Junction will contribute to the evolution of Port Phillip as a creative, flourishing community.

If there is a need for a massive shopping mall (and this will need thorough investigation), unChain Port Phillip would explore the desirability and feasibility of a significant commercial development above and below the St Kilda Junction, in keeping with the Melbourne 2030 vision for intensifying commercial and residential developments around transport hubs. Five tram routes, two bus routes and two major highways cross the Junction.

We envisage this area could easily accommodate a shopping complex with a high-rise residential, office or hotel tower. The final outcome would be guided by extensive community consultation and input.

We will work with the community to develop a concrete plan to beautify the Junction and to turn it into a people focussed precinct.

Regardless of any development proposals or beautifications plans, unChain Port Phillip will work immediately with local and state traffic planners to seek solutions to the current traffic and safety issues around the Junction.

Reviews

The South Melbourne Market

The South Melbourne Market is one of Melbourne's most popular markets. It hosts a huge range of stalls including fruit & vegetables, meat, fish, delicatessens, cafes, clothing, footwear and giftwear. It has operated since 1867. Nearly 1.9 million shoppers visit the market each year. The market is operationally self-funding but it requires significant capital expenditures to maintain and improve its services.

There is a current Council program to transform the market from a ‘local’ destination to a more vibrant and modern market to attract new shoppers. unChain Port Phillip believes this must be done carefully and sensitively. unChain Port Phillip supports the Draft Strategic Business Plan’s vision to position the Market as Melbourne’s most authentic community market. The South Melbourne Market should continue to provide a range of services and products that enables socio-economically disadvantaged groups to shop at the Market. It should retain a heritage ambience and encourage ‘old fashioned values’ where shoppers feel they are recognized as people and not simply as a source of profit. Development of the market should enhance the community’s sense of belonging: a sense of the market being a local meeting place for eating and shopping, a place that is big enough to offer a diverse range of products and services but small enough to remain friendly. Future development of the Market must also demonstrate responsible environmental practices, especially in recycling, waste controls and energy conservation.

Two important issues have emerged in recent months. One was the increased costs for stall holders: we must ensure that the ‘improvements’ to the market do not affect its role as a community market. The market must not become an up-market, expensive plaza. The second issue is that Council must take care that developments around the market do not adversely impact on its viability.

The Esplanade Sunday Market

If the Triangle does proceeds it will threaten the Sunday market on the Upper Esplanade as it is proposed to extend the underground shopping levels out under the footpath and part of the roadway. unChain Port Phillip would like to see this something-for-every-one, low-key tourist attraction retained; it’s part of the real St Kilda. It’s ironic that the current Council proposes to build a mega shopping mall that no one wants, but are not at all interested in the fate of this small popular market.

St Kilda Festival Sunday

Many younger people and some traders like the St Kilda Festival Sunday event. Many other people have suggested to us that the St Kilda Festival should be discontinued. They claim the Festival causes major inconvenience for local residents with noise, crowds and streets blocked to traffic and alcohol-fuelled problems. Many traders dislike the disruption to their businesses. The Festival Sunday imposes a considerable cost to ratepayers and the council. There are direct costs in the provision of bands and entertainment, extra police and the costs of cleaning up. More significantly there are indirect costs as many council officers do little else in the months leading up to the Festival. Perhaps our rates could be better spent?

St Kilda doesn’t need to be promoted and the Council should be more concerned about the amenity of local residents than visitors. St Kilda foreshore already offers visitors a range of recreational opportunities and passive enjoyment of the beach, parks and water, as well as the plethora of cafes in close proximity.

We would be very interested to hear what residents think about this issue.

If elected, unChain Port Phillip will immediately establish a residents and traders forum to seek their advice, ideas and suggestions on how to improve, or change, the set up of this year’s Festival Sunday to mitigate some of the immediate problems.

In the longer terms, unChain Port Phillip will review the benefits and costs of the Festival Sunday, in its current form, review the full program of events and seek ideas for alternatives, including removing all alcohol sponsorship.

unChain Port Philip will open debate on alternatives to the community, including proposals to rotate the Festival Sunday between St Kilda, Port Melbourne and South Melbourne foreshores or to create a number of smaller festivals across the municipality.

Parking

The whole parking situation in Port Phillip needs to be reviewed. The Council income from parking fees and fines is approximately $22 million dollars each year. Some of this is for parking permits but most is from parking fines. This revenue underpins the Council budget and is one of the few methods the city has to charge non-residents for their use of the public assets that we ratepayers must maintain (beaches, restaurant strips etc ).

The purpose of having parking permits is to allow people without off street parking to park in front of their houses or flats. Some of these spaces are mainly used at nights and weekends and are mostly empty during the day. If we are elected we propose to review all the parking rules with a view that where parking availability and usage patterns permit, all Port Phillip residents should be permitted to park in permit zones freely on week days between 10am and 4pm.

The review should also include the form of "special permits" which seem to be issued to construction workers on developments. When workers park around the development there is almost no parking left in the vicinity for residents. Traders also lose business because customers can't get access. Construction often means roads blocked by concrete mixers, cranes etc, with no warning given to residents or traders. The review will therefore include requirement for notice to be given to parties affected by temporary road closures and special parking permits.

Conclusion

Inclusion and Participation

unChain Port Phillip is committed to achieving more open, honest and accountable running of the Council. The mistakes made in the St Kilda Triangle must not be repeated in future major developments. The culture of secrecy and belittling community concerns must not continue. In the next term of Council, these lessons must be learned for a successful development of the Carlisle St activity centre, the St Kilda harbour, the St Kilda Junction and effective controls on alcohol-fuelled problems.