Review of Proposed Community Facility and Open …...2017/11/13 · Expert Witness Statement: Review of Proposed Community Facility and Open Space Provision within Precinct 15 Altona

Review of Proposed Community Facility and Open Space

Provision within Precinct 15 Altona North (Amendment C88)

Expert Witness Statement

Version 2

Prepared by Robert Panozzo, Director ASR Research Pty Ltd

Draft Report

November 13, 2017

Expert Witness Statement: Review of Proposed Community Facility and Open Space Provision within Precinct 15 Altona North (Amendment C88)

ii | P a g e

Table of Contents

EXPERT WITNESS DETAILS ..................................................................................................................................... iii

CURRICULUM VITAE ............................................................................................................................................. vii

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Altona North Comprehensive Development Plan (June 2017) ......................................................................... 1

3. Altona North Development Contributions Plan (June 2017) ............................................................................ 5

3.1 Summary of Key Open Space & Community Facility Projects ..................................................................... 5

3.2 Shared Path and Amenity Project ............................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Community Building Projects ...................................................................................................................... 7

3.4 Sporting Reserve Projects............................................................................................................................ 7

4. Size of Proposed Altona North CDP Community Facility .................................................................................. 8

5. Size of Land for Proposed Altona North CDP Community Facility .................................................................. 11

6 The Location of the Altona North CDP Community Facility ............................................................................ 12

7 The distribution and quantum of open space within Altona North CDP. ....................................................... 12

7.1 The Quantum of Public Open Space .......................................................................................................... 12

7.2 The Distribution of Public Open Space ...................................................................................................... 13

8. The extent of the need for sports facilities generated by the proposed Altona North CDP. .......................... 14

9 Summary of Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 17


iii | P a g e

EXPERT WITNESS DETAILS

This section outlines relevant information about Robert Panozzo, Principal Consultant with Australian Social &

Recreation research Pty Ltd (“ASR” or “ASR Research”), who prepared the following expert witness report.

Personal Details

Name: Robert Panozzo

Address: Suite 7 / 321 Chapel Street, Prahran 3181

Education Qualifications

2003 -2004: Graduate Certificate in Environment and Planning – RMIT University

1986 - 88: Bachelor of Social Science (Socio-Environmental Assessment and Policy) - RMIT. Obtained degree

with distinction.

Area of Expertise

I have worked as a social researcher and planner specialising in community infrastructure assessments since

1992. My curriculum vitae, summary of experience, project information and declaration are attached.

Expertise in Preparing the Report

Robert has had over two decades of experience as a social planner of a broad range of community infrastructure

such as open space, community centres and schools. ASR Research specialises in providing advice to both

developers, local Councils and State agencies on how to most effectively and efficiently provide for the many

services and facilities local communities require to satisfy their social needs. This advice, prepared in the form

of detailed assessments, has covered many land use contexts, from the outer fringes of Melbourne in new

housing estates, to significant infill redevelopments.

I have been responsible for the preparation of numerous PSPs, largely on behalf of the Victorian Planning Authority

(formerly the Metropolitan Planning Authority), Local Government and developers. These include:


iv | P a g e

Western Metropolitan Region

• Toolern Precinct Structure Plan Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Melton North Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Taylors Hill West Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Mt Atkinson Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Rockbank Regional Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Eynesbury Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Melton Township Local Structure Plan

Northern Metropolitan Region

• Greater Beveridge Community Infrastructure Scoping Study

• Greenvale Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Lockerbie Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Lockerbie North Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Merrifield West Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Wollert – Quarry Hills Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Mernda – Doreen Growth Area Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Epping North Growth Area Community Infrastructure Assessment

South Eastern Metropolitan Region

• Clyde and Cranbourne Nth Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Botanic Ridge: Review of Community Infrastructure Requirements

In relation to education facility assessments I have most recently been involved in the preparation of the:

• Expert Witness Statement: Review of Government Secondary School Requirements within the Sunbury

South Precinct Structure Plan (August 11, 2017);

• Eynesbury Education Facility Needs Assessment (2017) for the Hyde Property Group;

• Review of Government Secondary School Requirements within the Pakenham East Precinct Structure Plan

(2017) for Parklea Pty Ltd;

• Victoria University (Melton Campus) Education Facility Needs Assessment (2017) for Victoria University; and

• Evaluation of Opening Enrolments of Recently Established Catholic Primary Schools (2015) for Catholic

Education Melbourne.


v | P a g e

I was also significantly involved with the preparation of the Planning for Community Infrastructure in Growth Area

Communities (2008), a much cited documented in the preparation of PSPs in Melbourne’s growth areas.

Instructions Which Defined the Scope of This Report

I was engaged by the Victorian Planning Authority (the “client”) to prepare a report as an expert witness for the

Panel Hearing for Amendment C88 to the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme (the Scheme).

More specifically, I have been instructed by the client to address the following:

• Size of the proposed community facility;

• Size of the land for the proposed community facility;

• Location of the community facility;

• Distribution and quantum of open space; and

• Need for sports facilities within the precinct.

Facts, Matters and Assumptions Relied Upon

In the course of my investigations I have based my assessment on:

1. Open space requirements identified in the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme;

2. The supply and type of existing community facilities and open space surrounding the Altona North

CDP area as summarised in my Review of Active Open Space & Council Community Centre Needs for

the Altona North Precinct (November, 2016) report

3. Data and recommendations presented in various Hobsons Bay strategic documents as summarised in

my Review of Active Open Space & Council Community Centre Needs for the Altona North Precinct

(November, 2016) report;

4. Dwelling and population assumptions presented in Draft Altona North Comprehensive Development

Plan (June 2017); and

5. Community facility and open space projects proposed for the Altona North CDP area by the Draft

Altona North Comprehensive Development Plan (June 2017).

Documents Taken into Account

The following documents have also been taken into account:

• Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme;


vi | P a g e

• ASR Research Pty Ltd, Review of Active Open Space & Council Community Centre Needs for the Altona

North Precinct (November, 2016);

• Victorian Planning Authority, Draft Altona North Comprehensive Development Plan (June 2017);

• Victorian Planning Authority, Draft Altona North Development Contributions Plan (June 2017);

• Population and household forecasts, 2016 to 2036, prepared by .id, the population experts (December

2016) on behalf of Hobsons Bay City Council;

• 2016 Census of Population and Housing, Australian Bureau of Statistics; and

• ASR Research Pty Ltd, Planning for Community Infrastructure in Growth Area Communities (2008).

Identity of Persons Undertaking This Work

I am solely responsible for the preparation of the report.

Summary of Opinions

A summary of opinions is provided in the attached report: “Review of Proposed Community Facility and Open

Space Provision within Precinct 15 Altona North (Amendment C88)”.

Declaration

I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and confirm that no matters of

significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

Robert Panozzo

Director

ASR Research Pty Ltd

Suite 7 / 321 Chapel Street, Prahran

Monday, 13 November 2017


vii | P a g e

CURRICULUM VITAE

This section outlines relevant information about Robert Panozzo, Principal Consultant with Australian Social &

Recreation Research Pty Ltd (“ASR” or “ASR Research”), who prepared the following expert witness report.

Personal Details

Name: Robert Panozzo

Office Address: Suite 7, 321 Chapel Street, Prahran 3181

Education Qualifications

2003 -2004: Graduate Certificate in Environment and Planning – RMIT University

1986 - 88: Bachelor of Social Science (Socio-Environmental Assessment and Policy) - RMIT. Obtained

degree with distinction.

Employment

1998 -

Director– Australian Social & Recreation Research Pty Ltd (ASR Research). ASR Research’s mission is to provide

its clients with high quality community infrastructure planning and demographic research services.

1995 - 1998

Social Planner - City of Whittlesea

1992 - 1995

Research Officer - Family Resource Centre (Whittlesea-Plenty Growth Area)

Expertise in Preparing the Expert Witness Report

Robert has had over a decade of experience as a community infrastructure planner of a broad range of

community infrastructure such as community centres, recreation reserves, parks and schools. ASR Research

specialises in providing advice to both developers and local Councils on how to most effectively and efficiently

provide for the many services and facilities local communities require to satisfy their social needs. This advice,


viii | P a g e

prepared in the form of detailed assessments, has covered many land use contexts, from the outer fringes of

Melbourne in new housing estates, to significant infill redevelopments.

I have been responsible for the preparation of numerous PSPs, largely on behalf of the Victorian Planning Authority

(formerly the Metropolitan Planning Authority and Growth Areas Authority), Local Government and developers. Each

of these reports includes an assessment of community facility and open space needs. The reports I have prepared

include those listed below and all consider both open space and community facility requirements:

Strategic Infill Sites

• 188 Turner Street Port Melbourne - Lorimer Precinct of Fishermans Bend (Chun Group, 2017)

• Fitzroy Gasworks Site Social Needs Analysis (Places Victoria, 2016)

• Ivanhoe Water Tank Site Social Needs Analysis (Places Victoria, 2017)

• 13 Hartley Street Docklands - Lorimer Precinct of Fishermans Bend (Claric Ninety Nine Pty Ltd, 2016)

• Waverley Golf Course Community Infrastructure Assessment (Intrapac, 2016)

• Keysborough Golf Course Community Infrastructure Assessment (Intrapac, 2016)

• Fitzroy Gasworks Site Social Needs Analysis (Places Victoria, 2016)

• Taylors Lakes (18-24 Robertsons Road) Social Needs Analysis (Places Victoria, 2016)

• Kingswood Golf Course (Dingley Village) Community Infrastructure Assessment (ISPT, 2015)

• 142-146 Ashley Street (Maidstone) Social Impact Assessment (FBA Imports, 2015)

• “The Orchards” (Wantirna South) Social Impact Assessment (Jenkins Family, 2015)

• Kingston Links (Rowville) Community Infrastructure Assessment (PASK Group, 2015)

• 178 Middleborough Road, Burwood East: Community Infrastructure Assessment (Australand, 2015

• Virginia Park (Bentleigh East) Community Infrastructure Assessment (Gillon Group, 2014)

• Alphington Paper Mill Community Infrastructure Assessment (Alpha Partners & Glenvill, 2013)

Western Metropolitan Region

• Toolern Precinct Structure Plan Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Melton North Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Taylors Hill West Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Mt Atkinson Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Rockbank Regional Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Eynesbury Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Melton Township Local Structure Plan

Northern Metropolitan Region


ix | P a g e

• Greater Beveridge Community Infrastructure Scoping Study

• Greenvale Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Lockerbie Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Lockerbie North Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Merrifield West Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Wollert – Quarry Hills Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Mernda – Doreen Growth Area Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Epping North Growth Area Community Infrastructure Assessment

South Eastern Metropolitan Region

• Clyde and Cranbourne Nth Community Infrastructure Assessment

• Botanic Ridge: Review of Community Infrastructure Requirements.


pg. 1

Review of Proposed Community Facility and Open Space

Provision within Precinct 15 Altona North (Amendment C88)

1. Introduction

The Victorian Planning Authority (VPA) has engaged me to prepare a report providing my opinion about the

following matters associated with the draft Altona North Comprehensive Development Plan – or “Altona North

CDP” (June 2017):

1. Whether the size of the proposed community facility within the Altona North CDP is satisfactory;

2. Whether the size of the land for the proposed community facility within Altona North CDP is

satisfactory;

3. Whether the location of the Altona North CDP community facility is satisfactory;

4. Whether the distribution and quantum of open space within Altona North CDP is satisfactory; and

5. The extent of the need for sports facilities generated by the proposed Altona North CDP.

My opinions are largely based on the report I prepared for the VPA in late 2016 entitled “Review of Active Open

Space & Council Community Centre Needs for the Altona North Precinct” (refer to Attachment 1 for a full copy

of this report) which was used by the VPA to inform the preparation of the Altona North CDP.

2. Altona North Comprehensive Development Plan (June 2017)

The Altona North Comprehensive Development Plan (“the CDP”) is a long-term plan to facilitate the

redevelopment of one of a series of historical industrial precincts identified in the Hobsons Bay Industrial Land

Management Strategy (Hobsons Bay City Council, June 2008). It describes the future layout and use of the

partially vacant precinct as a modern urban residential based community, including how and where community

and transport infrastructure are planned to support development.

The Plan, which assumes a dwelling yield of 3,000 homes, proposes:

• One community facility, with approximately a 900-square metre building footprint, located on a 0.47

hectare parcel of land;

• 8.86 hectares of public open space consisting of:


pg. 2

- 4.74 hectares of credited1 open space; and

- 4.11 hectares of uncredited2 open space.

The location of these open spaces and the community facility are shown on page 28 of the Altona North CDP

and presented below.

1 Credited Open space is defined by the Altona North CDP as that which “is set aside for parks, gardens, linear corridors, conservation bushlands, nature reserves, public squares and community gardens that are made available for passive recreation, play and unstructured physical activity including walking, cycling, hiking, revitalisation, contemplation and enjoying nature.” 2 Uncredited open space is defined by the Altona North CDP as that which “is constrained for development purposes. Includes easements for power/transmission lines, sewers, gas, waterways, drainage, retarding basins/wetlands, landfill, conservation and heritage areas. This land may be used for a range of activities (e.g. walking paths, sports fields).


pg. 3

Section 3.4 of the Altona North CDP outlines the following community facility requirements and guidelines:

Community Facility Requirements

• R26 - Community facilities must be designed to front and be directly accessed from a public street

with the majority of car parking located away from the main entry and respond appropriately to

Design for Access and Mobility Standards (AS 1428).

• R27 - The community facilities must be sited and designed to be a landmark building that terminates

the view line along The Broadway and frames the entry to the Precinct.

• R28 - Land vested in Council for open space and the community facility is to be remediated and

accompanied by statements of audit before the transfer of land.

Community Facility Guidelines

• G17 - Community facilities should be planned and designed to have the flexibility and capacity to meet

the changing needs of the community and provide for a range of uses. Consideration should be given

to shared spaces which can be used by agreement with the Council by other community service

providers and not-for-profit organisations.

• G18 - The location of key entries to community facilities should allow for safe and convenient

pedestrian and cyclist access for all ages and abilities.

• G19 - Ensure that development applies universal design and access principles where appropriate.

Section 3.5 of the Altona North CDP outlines the following open space requirements and guidelines:

Open Space Requirements

• R29 - All parks must be designed and developed to enable practical maintenance.

• R30 - All open spaces are to be located, designed and developed generally in accordance with the

sizes set out in Table 5.

- Where an open space is smaller than that outlined in the table, the land must be added to another

park.

- Where a proposed open space is larger than outlined in the table it may be accepted so long as it

does not result in the removal of another park allocation.

• R31 - Further to the public open space contribution required by Clause 52.01 of the Hobsons Bay

Planning Scheme, this provision sets out the amount of land to be contributed by each property in

the precinct and consequently where a cash contribution is required in lieu of land.

• For the purposes of 52.01, a local park or town/civic square is as specified in the DCP. A contribution

must be made as follows:


pg. 4

- Where public open space shown on the lot in Plan 6 and specified within the DCP is equal to 9.2%

of the lot’s NDA that land must be transferred to Council at no cost.

- Where a public open space shown on the lot in Plan 6 and specified within the DCP is equal to

9.2% or less than 9.2% of the lot’s NDA:

- the relevant land must be transferred to Council at no cost.

- a cash contribution is to be made to Council to bring the total public open space contribution to a

value equal to 9.2% of NDA.

- Where public open space shown on the land in Plan 6 and specified in the DCP is greater than 9.2%

the relevant land must be transferred to Council at no cost. In this case Council will compensate

the landowner, at a time to be agreed, for the amount of land provided in excess of 9.2% but no

greater than the difference between 9.2% and the amount of land specified in the DCP.

• R32 - Parks and open spaces must contain extensive planting of large-canopy trees that are suitable

to the urban environment, local climate and soil conditions.

• R33 - Buildings adjacent to open spaces must be located and designed to front the open space.

Development must be orientated towards open spaces, easements and other public realm to

maximise the activation and passive surveillance of these areas. These should be constructed in

accordance with one of the suggested interface cross sections at Figure 4 or 5.

• R34 - Open spaces must have a road frontage to all edges except where housing fronts open space

with a paper road, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

• R35 - Each of the local parks should act as a focal point for the neighbourhood and each must

demonstrate its distinct function and character.

• R36 - Development must be designed to avoid casting shadows on 2/3 of the public open space areas

between 11:00am and 2:00pm on 22 September.

Open Space Guidelines

• G20 - Local parks should be designed to cater for a broad range of users by providing a mix of spaces

and planting to support both structured and unstructured recreational activities and play

opportunities for all ages and abilities.

• G21 - Crime prevention through environmental design principles (CPTED) should guide the design of

open spaces and associated infrastructure.

• G22 - Design of the drainage easement should maximise the amenity value of that open space and

provide for flexible recreational opportunities.

• G23 - All public spaces should respond appropriately to the Design for Access and Mobility Standards

(AS 1428)

• G24 - The Brooklyn Terminal Station, owned by Ausnet Services easement should be gifted to

Hobson’s Bay City Council as a linear open space (uncredited) subsequent to the installation of any

undergrounding of drainage infrastructure.


pg. 5

The sizes of proposed open spaces are shown on page 30 of the Altona North CDP, and presented below.

I understand that all proposed local parks are provided through Clause 52.01 of the Hobsons Bay Planning

Scheme and no contribution for local parks are included in the Altona North Development Contributions Plan

(June 2017)3. However, the DCP levies a contribution towards the construction of a sporting reserve within or

external to the precinct4.

3. Altona North Development Contributions Plan (June 2017)

3.1 Summary of Key Open Space & Community Facility Projects

The Altona North Development Contributions Plan (“the DCP”) sets out the requirements for development

proponents to make contributions toward infrastructure required to support the development of the precinct.

The DCP is a separate document incorporated into the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme and implemented through

Schedule 2 to Clause 45.06 Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO) in the Hobsons Bay Planning

Scheme. The DCP applies to the same land area as the Altona North CDP.

There are six key community facility and open space initiatives for the Altona North CDP to be funded via the

DCP. These are

1. Construction and landscaping associated with the linear reserve located to the north of the subject

area (identified as projects SP-1 & AM-1);

2. Purchase of land for, and the construction of, the proposed community centre (identified as projects

CI-1L and CI-1C);

3 Source: Victorian Planning Authority, Altona North Development Contributions Plan (June 2017), page 32 4 Source: Victorian Planning Authority, Altona North Development Contributions Plan (June 2017), page 32


pg. 6

3. Construction and development of the sporting reserve (identified as SR-1); and

4. Construction of a sports pavilion within the proposed sports reserve (identified as SR-2).

More details on each of these is provided below. It should be noted that all but one of these projects (project

SR-2) is funded as a Development Infrastructure Levy5 (“DIL”). The construction of the sports pavilion (SR-2) is

identified as a Community Infrastructure Levy6 (“CIL”) item.

3.2 Shared Path and Amenity Project

The key shared path and amenity project in the DCP is based on the transport network and open space network

depicted in Plan 2 (note: this is an error on the Plan which should read Plan 6), comprising:

• Construction of a shared user path;

• Basic landscaping of the linear park reserve.

The shared path and amenity projects funded by the DCP as a Development Infrastructure Levy item are:

The DCP estimates the total cost of the Shared Path & Amenity Projects to be $282,730.

5 The following works, services or facilities may be funded from a development infrastructure levy:

a) Acquisition of land for: • roads • public transport corridors • drainage • public open space, and • community facilities, including, but not limited to, those listed under clause 5(f).

b) Construction of roads, including the construction of bicycle and foot paths, and traffic management and control devices. c) Construction of public transport infrastructure, including fixed rail infrastructure, railway

stations, bus stops and tram stops. d) Basic improvements to public open space, including earthworks, landscaping, fencing, seating and playground equipment. e) Drainage works. f) Buildings and works for or associated with the construction of:

• a maternal and child health care centre • a child care centre • a kindergarten, or

• any centre which provides these facilities in combination. Source: Ministerial Direction on the Preparation and Content of Development Contributions Plans (11 October 2016)

6 The DCP system enables a community infrastructure levy (CIL) to be imposed to fund projects involving the construction of community

buildings or facilities under section 46L(1)(a) of the Planning & Environment Act. The maximum amount of the CIL payable under a DCP has been increased from $900 to $1,150 for each dwelling. The amount was increased on the 13 October 2016 by a Governor in Council Order under section 46(L)(2) of the Act. The Altona North DCP identifies the total CIL costs as equating to $720.05 per dwelling (page 31)


pg. 7

3.3 Community Building Projects

The Community Building Projects funded by the DCP as a Development Infrastructure Levy item are:

The DCP estimates the total cost of Community Building Projects to be $6,515,201.

3.4 Sporting Reserve Projects

The Sporting Reserve Projects funded by the DCP as a Development Infrastructure Levy item are:

The DCP also includes one Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) project for the construction of a sports pavilion

within the proposed sports reserve as shown below.

The DCP estimates the total cost of Sporting Reserve Projects to be $5,671,333.


pg. 8

4. Size of Proposed Altona North CDP Community Facility

In my 2016 assessment I made a number of, what I consider at least, to be relevant observations about

assessing the need for community centre as part of proposals to redevelop strategic infill sites. These

included:

• As with any significantly sized in-fill development, the future development of the Altona North Precinct

affords an exceptional opportunity for two possible outcomes in relation to Council Community Centre

provision:

- Additional on-site provision within the Altona North Precinct; or

- An off-site financial contribution toward a new facility at an alternative location, or the

expansion or refurbishment of existing nearby facilities proximate to the Altona North Precinct.

• It is also important to note that the need for a new community centre is not only driven by the

anticipated additional service demands generated by the site, but also as a means of addressing

ageing and less than optimal existing facilities that may exist close to the site. This provides Council

with the potential to relocate existing services and functions from an existing nearby facility to a new

facility within the Altona North Precinct.

• Analysis of the current capacities and condition of existing nearby facilities, or the suitably of

alternative site locations for a new community centre was beyond the scope of this assessment.

However, it is recommended that the VPA continue to work closely with Hobsons Bay City Council to

discuss and confirm the relative merits of both on-site and off-site response measures.

• Although not all multipurpose community centres are identical, it is possible to describe the types of

services and functions typically incorporated into such facilities. Typically, such facilities are a

combination of a few (but rarely all) of the following services and functions:

- Kindergarten;

- Maternal & child health;

- Playgroups;

- Occasional child care;

- Long day child care;

- Community meeting spaces;

- Toy library;

- Planned Activity Groups;

- Neighbourhood houses / adult education; and

- Library.

• Multipurpose community centres can vary greatly in size depending on the services and activities to

be accommodated within it, and can typically range from 500 square metres to 2,500 square metres.


pg. 9

• Unlike public open space (both passive and active), the VPA PSP Guidelines do not specify a

quantitative measure of how many facilities should be provided either using an area based standard

(as applies to public open space) or a population based standard. Municipal Planning schemes do not

provide any guidance on this matter either.

• In the absence of specific PSP Guidelines and statutory requirements, the VPA has tended to rely on

the provision guidelines outlined in the Planning for Community Infrastructure In Growth Area

Communities (2008) report, prepared by ASR Research. While useful for outer metropolitan growth

areas where the supply of existing services and facilities is often minimal when new development

occurs, land availability is greater, and the age profile is significantly different, the provision guidelines

outlined in this report have less applicability to strategic infill sites.

• However, as outlined in this assessment, it is possible to estimate the level of demand for specific

service types likely to be generated by the subject site as the basis of discussing potential configuration

options for a future Altona North Precinct community centre.

The community centre assessment I prepared as part of my 2016 assessment used the following methodology:

1. Determining the scope of services and functions to assess as the basis for any future Altona North

Precinct facility;

2. Determining an appropriate catchment area as the basis of reviewing the existing supply of nearby

services and facilities;

3. Determining the extent to which similar services and functions are catered for in the selected

catchment area;

4. Estimating the likely demand for selected services and functions generated by the subject site;

5. Determining the extent to which existing services or facilities can cater for the demand generated by

the Altona North Precinct; and

6. Comparing Council’s current preferred Community Centre model to other models funded in

Melbourne’s growth areas.

In my 2016 assessment I concluded that:

“This assessment provides in-principle support for the provision of a Council community centre within the

Altona North Precinct. However, both the existing supply levels for many different services and activities within

the 1.5 kilometre catchment, and the projected Altona North Precinct demand estimates presented by this

assessment, suggest that the large-scale facility currently preferred by Council (i.e. 2,000 square metres of floor

area) will be difficult to support without further justifications being provided by Council and confirmation about

its position in relation to a number of existing nearby Council facilities.”


pg. 10

Given both the service specific review and review of proposed floor areas, my assessment proposed the

following alternative community centre model for the Altona North CDP which would see the facility include a

two-room Kindergarten facility and a larger flexible community meeting space area. The indicative floor area

of this revised facility model is estimated to be approximately 900 square metres (excluding all outdoor

requirements).

Revised Community Centre Model for the Altona North Precinct (Indicative Only for further discussion with

Council)

Description Unit Quantity

Foyer M2 15

Reception Desk M2 12

Community congregation area M2 50

Kindergarten rooms (2 rooms x 33 children) M2 264

Community meeting space M2 250

Meeting rooms (2 rooms) M2 24

Kitchenettes (x3) M2 24

Office M2 12

Staff room M2 20

Children's toilet M2 66

Public toilets M2 64

First aid room M2 12

Circulation, storage & services cupboards M2 100

Total indoor floor area 913

Canopy & verandah M2 40

Outdoor play space & playground M2 800

As shown below, the current Altona North DCP (June 2017) includes construction of the proposed community

centre based on the following specification located in Appendix 3 of the DCP. As can be seen this specification

reflects my recommendation for a facility approximately 900 square metres in size, and an additional 800 square

metres for outdoor play space and a playground to service early years needs. The base facility footprint, both

indoor and outdoor, is therefore approximately 1,700 to 1,800 square metres in size and represents

approximately 40% of the land area allocated for the community centre (0.47 hectares).


pg. 11

Having prepared many community infrastructure assessments for Melbourne’s growth areas most proposed

community centres are allocated between 0.4 to 0.8 hectares of land to accommodate facilities and generally

range from 800 to 1,500 square metres in size.

In my opinion the proposed size of the community centre will be satisfactory in meeting the service and activity

needs generated by the future population of the Altona North CDP area.

5. Size of Land for Proposed Altona North CDP Community Facility

The Altona North DCP allocates 0.47 hectares of land (or 4,700 square metres) as a DIL item for the purposes of

accommodating the proposed Altona North Community Centre. Land allocations not only need to accommodate

the building footprint, but also adequate car parking, and meet regulatory requirements for outdoor space for

early years services such as funded 4-year old Kindergarten programs. In my opinion this is a satisfactory level

of provisioning and, importantly, provides Hobsons Bay City Council with the opportunity to assess, in future,

the feasibility of a larger multi-storey facility accommodating services and functions beyond those identified in

Section 4 above.


pg. 12

6 The Location of the Altona North CDP Community Facility

My 2016 assessment does not include an analysis of the proposed location for the proposed community centre.

I understand from the Altona North CDP that the facility is proposed to form part of proposed Town Centre with

frontage to Blackshaws Road.

While Precinct Planning Guidelines (PSP) used in Melbourne’s outer growth areas generally encourage co-

location of such facilities with open space and schools, there are strong arguments for co-locating some

community centres within or adjacent to Town Centres. I am of the opinion that preferred location

considerations for community centres should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The high visibility of the

proposed Town Centre location presents a number of potential benefits including higher levels of service and

facility utilisation, good accessibility to public transport, retail and commercial services and the opportunity to

deliver on more intangible aspects such as enhanced ‘sense of place’ and creating an iconic architectural feature.

I am generally supportive of the proposed location of the community centre so long as the early years services

likely to be incorporated into the centre are oriented to the rear of the facility and away from Blackshaws Road

and accessible via one or more north-south road connections abutting the proposed site.

7 The distribution and quantum of open space within Altona North CDP.

7.1 The Quantum of Public Open Space

I note that the current draft of the Altona North Precinct CDP (June 2017) will lead to the creation of six credited

parks consisting of one large central park that would typically be classified as a municipal open space (i.e. larger

than 3 hectares) complimented by five other local open spaces. In addition to these six parks, two uncredited

open spaces are proposed which can legitimately be classified as having a useable public open space function.

Page 30 of the CDP presents a table (shown below) indicating that the current open space plan for the area

delivers 9.2% of the Net Developable Area (NDA) in the form of credited public open space and 8.0% of NDA as

uncredited public open space.


pg. 13

My November 2016 assessment concluded that the current quantity of public open space for the Altona North

CDP area was very satisfactory and far exceeded the public open space contribution rates of all inner and middle

ring municipalities, including Hobsons Bay, based on a review of all existing Schedules to Clause 52.01 in these

municipalities. The proposed open space is also very satisfactory given Altona North CDP’s high residential

density context and its close proximity to a large number of existing open space reserves, many of which have

an active open space function.

Public open space contribution rates in inner and middle ring municipalities across Melbourne generally range

from 2% to 8%.

Unlike councils such as the Cities of Moreland and Melbourne, Hobsons Bay (which, aside from the former Port

Phillip Woollen Mill site, does not specify a public open space rate in Clause 52.01 of its Planning Scheme) has

yet to prepare a report or reports that strategically justify public open space contribution rates that would

typically be included in the Schedule to Clause 52.01 of the Planning Scheme. Consequently, I have assumed

that the maximum public open space contribution that can typically be sought in the City of Hobsons Bay is 5%.

Compared to this rate and those of neighbouring Councils, the draft Altona North CDP’s proposed provision of

9.2% of the subject site’s NDA as credited public open space represents a very satisfactory outcome. If you then

add the uncredited public open space (8% of NDA), and, as I do, believe this land will also provide a useable and

very beneficial public open space function, the overall public open space outcome is clearly impressive.

7.2 The Distribution of Public Open Space

Determining the adequacy of the proposed distribution of public open space within the Altona North CDP is a

relatively straightforward matter.

Standard C13 of Clause 56.05-2 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme (Public open space provision objectives)

requires “local parks within 400 metres safe walking distance of at least 95 percent of all dwellings”.


pg. 14

The Altona North CDP shows a Plan (Plan 6 – Community Facilities and Open Space”) clearly indicating the 400-

metre catchment of all proposed local parks. Plan 6 is shown on the following page with the catchment areas

providing full coverage of the Altona North CDP area and well beyond into neighbouring areas.

Figure 1 – “Plan 6 Community Facilities and Open Space”: Altona North CDP

8. The extent of the need for sports facilities generated by the proposed

Altona North CDP.

Planning for the active open space needs associated with development proposals that include high density

residential, especially in inner and middle ring Melbourne, presents many challenges including:

1. The difficulty in securing the typically larger land area requirements associated with sports reserves

under the current area based public open space contribution system operating in Victorian Planning

Schemes (i.e. % of site area). In outer metropolitan growth areas where development parcels are

much larger, and residential development is of a lower density, the application of Precinct Structure

Planning Guidelines is relatively straightforward (i.e. 10% of NDA, with notionally 6% allocated for

active open space and 4% for passive open space). In contrast, strategic infill sites are generally not

large enough to secure large, multi—playing field active open space outcomes even when the public

open space contribution rate is relatively high (e.g. 8%).


pg. 15

2. There is a much greater need to understand the function, capacity and condition level of existing

active open space reserves to determine how these reserves can be better configured, upgraded or

redeveloped to cater projected demand increase for organised sport.

3. Effectively planning for the higher probability of amenity conflicts between users of sports reserves

and residents living in high density residential settings surrounding these reserves.

In my November 2016 assessment I indicated that the inclusion of a sports reserve within the Altona North CDP,

whilst possible, required further discussion between Council and the VPA confirm with Hobsons Bay the

opportunities to apply off-site development contributions from the Altona North CDP area toward the upgrade

and / or expansion of existing active open space reserves within the municipality and potentially even the

neighbouring municipality of Maribyrnong.

I identified the risk of amenity conflict (car parking, noise, lighting etc) between the users of this open space for

sporting purposes, and neighbouring residents living in a higher density context, as potentially high.

In relation to the extent of the need for sports facilities generated by the Altona North CDP my November 2016

assessment presented and reviewed a number of things including:

• An assessment of existing active open space provision against Standard C13 of Clause 56.05-2 (Public

Open Space Provision Objectives) of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme which states that the provision

of public open space should provide a network of well-distributed neighbourhood public open space

that includes…”active open space of at least 8 hectares in area within 1 kilometre of 95 percent of all

dwellings…”;

• The existing supply, function and capacity of active open space reserves generally within a 1-kilometre

radius of the CDP area;

• A review of relevant strategic documents including a number prepared by or on behalf of Hobsons

Bay City Council report entitled Precinct 15: An Analysis of Active Sports Ground Use and Capacity in

the Vicinity of Precinct 15, Altona North (September 2016); and

• The anticipated increase in demand for a variety of sports generated by the CDP area using

participation data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

My assessment identified nine existing active open space reserves were located within a 1-kilometre radius of

the Altona North CDP. My other main conclusions in that report were that:

• The demand likely to be generated by the subject site for organised sport by both children and people

aged 15 years and over is sufficient to warrant one or more mitigation measures to satisfy this

additional demand.


pg. 16

• Through the review of existing strategic documents, this assessment has clearly demonstrated that a

number of existing active open space reserves within both the key 1-kilometre catchment and the

broader sub-region could accommodate more demand for organised sport if one or more of the

following measures were implemented:

- Existing reserves can accommodate more playing fields or courts;

- More efficient timetabling of competition and training events during the course of the week;

- More lighting;

- Additional pavilion infrastructure;

- Redevelopment of existing pavilions;

- Enhancing the durability of existing grass surfaces (e.g. strengthening the grass cover,

improved drainage etc); and

- The replacement of grass playing fields with synthetic playing fields.

• Based on a review of existing strategic documents from both the City of Hobsons Bay and City of

Maribyrnong a number of potential measures have been identified to increase the capacity of existing

active open space reserves. These include (but not limited to):

- Edwards Reserve - 9 additional hours of use could be accommodated if an additional two

floodlights were constructed.

- Paisley Park - An additional 24.2 hours possible if an additional 4 floodlights were

constructed.

- AW Bonds Reserve - 10 additional hours of use could be achieved if an additional two floodlights

were constructed.

- The upgrade of Laverton Park (Altona Meadows) and construction of 3 additional playing fields

(2 full sized ovals and 1 training field)

- The City of Maribyrnong Sports Development Strategy (2015) identifies the following

potentially relevant strategies:

- Develop McIvor and Angliss Reserve precincts as hubs; and

- Investigate sites (including McIvor Reserve adjacent to the bowls club) to provide at least one

additional floodlit complex for netball consisting of three courts that are multipurpose and

linked to an AFL venue.

The current Altona North CDP (June 2017) includes a 3.15-hectare public open space approximately located in

the middle of the CDP area. While the CDP does not identify the function of this open space as a sports reserve,

the Altona North DCP suggests that the development of this open space will be for organised sport by including

contributions for the construction of a “playing surface” (project SR-1) as well as a “sports pavilion” (project SR-

2). Plan 8 of the DCP (“Sporting Reserve Projects”) indicates the 3.15-hectare open space is the location of these

two projects.


pg. 17

In my opinion this represents a reasonable outcome and compromise in relation to Hobsons Bay City Council’s

initial demands for a much larger 8-hectare reserve. My original concerns around amenity impacts could be

addressed by careful master planning of the site, consideration for what level of sport should be played there

(e.g. junior versus senior competition), the inclusion of sufficient car parking and sensitive placement of lighting.

In addition to the provision of the proposed 3.15-hectare open space and its potential use as a sports reserve, I

also believe there remains justification for the Altona North CDP to provide an off-site financial contribution

toward the improvement of existing active open space reserves as documented in the Precinct 15: An Analysis

of Active Sports Ground Use and Capacity in the Vicinity of Precinct 15, Altona North (September 2016).

9 Summary of Conclusions

My summary of conclusions are as follows:

1. The size of the proposed community facility outlined by the Altona North CDP is satisfactory and

consistent with comparable facilities provided for in other Precinct Structure Planning locations

across Melbourne;

2. The size of the land allocated for the proposed community facility (0.47 hectares) within the Altona

North CDP is satisfactory and consistent with comparable facilities provided for in other Precinct

Structure Planning locations across Melbourne;

3. I am generally supportive of the proposed location of the community centre so long as the early

years services likely to be incorporated into the centre are oriented to the rear of the facility and

away from Blackshaws Road and accessible via one or more north-south road connections abutting

the proposed site;

4. The distribution and quantum of open space within Altona North CDP is satisfactory; and

5. In relation the recreation needs generated by the Altona North CDP I believe that:

a) The proposed 3.15-hectare open space, along with DCP funding for the embellishment of the

playing surface and construction of a pavilion, represents a reasonable outcome and fair

compromise in relation to Hobsons Bay City Council’s initial demands for a much larger 8-

hectare reserve. My original concerns around amenity impacts could be addressed by careful

master planning of the site, consideration for what level of sport should be played there (e.g.

junior versus senior competition), the inclusion of sufficient car parking and sensitive

placement of lighting.

b) There also remains justification for the Altona North CDP to provide an off-site financial

contribution toward the improvement of existing active open space reserves as documented

in the Precinct 15: An Analysis of Active Sports Ground Use and Capacity in the Vicinity of

Precinct 15, Altona North (September 2016).

Attachment 1 - Review of Active Open Space & Council Community Centre Needs for the Altona

North Precinct

Review of Active Open Space &

Council Community Centre Needs for

the Altona North Precinct

Final Report

Prepared for the Victorian Planning Authority

by ASR Research Pty Ltd

November 29th, 2016

Table of Contents

1. REPORT PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................................... 3

2. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 DRAFT ALTONA NORTH COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN – URBAN STRUCTURE PLAN ......................................................... 4

2.2 COUNCIL’S PREFERRED OPEN SPACE & COMMUNITY FACILITY PROVISION NEEDS FOR THE ALTONA NORTH COMPREHENSIVE

DEVELOPMENT PLAN ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6

3. REVIEW METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 7

4. COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION, POPULATION & FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS ...................... 8

4.1 DWELLING & POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE ALTONA NORTH PRECINCT .......................................................................... 8

4.2 CURRENT POPULATION AND DWELLING ESTIMATES FOR ALTONA NORTH ................................................................................ 10

5. ASSESSMENT OF THE ALTONA NORTH PRECINCT’S ACTIVE OPEN SPACE PROVISION REQUIREMENTS ......................11

5.1 THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC OPEN SPACE CONTRIBUTIONS ............................................................................... 11

5.3 A COMPARISON OF INNER & MIDDLE RING MUNICIPALITIES ................................................................................................. 12

5.3 CURRENT & PLANNED ACTIVE OPEN SPACE PROVISION WITHIN 1 KILOMETRE OF THE SUBJECT SITE ............................................ 13

5.4 CURRENT CAPACITY OF ACTIVE OPEN SPACE RESERVES WITHIN 1 KILOMETRE OF THE SUBJECT SITE ............................................. 15

5.4 REVIEW OF OTHER RELEVANT STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS ........................................................................................................ 18

5.4.1 Hobsons Bay Open Space Plan: 2013 - 2023 ....................................................................................................... 18

5.4.2 Hobsons Bay Open Space Plan (2005) ................................................................................................................. 19

5.4.3 City of Hobsons Bay Sport and Recreation Strategy (2014) ................................................................................ 19

5.4.4 City of Maribyrnong Sports Development Strategy (2015) ................................................................................. 19

5.4.5 Western Metropolitan Region Football Facilities Strategy (2015) ...................................................................... 20

5.4.6 Laverton Park Master Plan (2010) ...................................................................................................................... 20

5.4.7 Plan Melbourne: Metropolitan Planning Strategy (2014) ................................................................................... 21

5.5 ESTIMATED DEMAND FOR INFORMAL AND ORGANISED SPORT AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES ........................................................... 23

5.5.1 Participation in sport and physical activity ......................................................................................................... 23

5.5.2 Participation in Sport and Physical Recreation, Australia, 2011-12 .................................................................... 23

5.5.3 Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Victoria, 2012 ........................................................... 24

5.5.4 Projected Sport / Physical Activity Participation Estimates for the Altona North Precinct .................................. 24

5.5.5 Implications ........................................................................................................................................................ 25

6. ASSESSMENT OF THE ALTONA NORTH PRECINCT’S COMMUNITY CENTRE REQUIREMENTS.......................................27

6.1 OVERVIEW OF THE COUNCIL COMMUNITY FACILITY ASSESSMENT PROCESS .............................................................................. 27

6.2 SCOPE OF POTENTIAL COMMUNITY CENTRE SERVICES & FUNCTIONS TO BE ASSESSED ............................................................... 29

6.3 DEFINING THE CATCHMENT AREA .................................................................................................................................... 29

6.4 AUDIT OF SIMILAR EXISTING SERVICES AND FACILITIES WITHIN 1.5 KILOMETRES OF THE SUBJECT SITE ........................................... 31

6.5 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL COMMUNITY CENTRE SERVICES AND FUNCTIONS ............................................................................... 34

6.5.1 Service and Facility Demand Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 34

6.5.2 Detailed Community Centre Analysis .................................................................................................................. 35

6.5.3 Review of Council’s Preferred Community Centre Model .................................................................................... 41

6.5.4 Proposed Revised Community Centre Model for the Altona North Precinct........................................................ 43

7. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................44

7.1 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ..................................................................................................................................................... 44

7.1.1 Proposed On-site Public Open Space Provision for the Altona North Precinct .................................................... 44

7.1.2 Off-site Public Open Space Provision .................................................................................................................. 45

7.2 COMMUNITY CENTRE PROVISION .................................................................................................................................... 47

Appendices

Review of Active Open Space & Council Community Centre Needs for the Altona North Precinct CDP

Page 2 28th November 2016

List of Tables

Table 1 - Hobsons Bay City Council Preferred Community Centre Model for Altona North Precinct............................................... 7

Table 2 – Dwelling Assumptions for the Altona North Precinct ....................................................................................................... 8

Table 3 – Anticipated Age Cohort Population Yields for the Altona North Precinct & Altona North by 2036 .................................. 9

Table 4 - Comparison of Municipal Public Open Space Contribution Rates (Schedule to Clause 52.01) ........................................ 12

Table 5 – Audit of Existing Active Open Spaces within 1 Kilometre of Subject Site ....................................................................... 15

Table 6 – Estimated No. of People Participating in Sport / Physical Activity from the Altona North Precinct: Top 12 Sports /

Physical Activities .......................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Table 7 - Service & Facility Demand Estimate Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 34

Table 8 – Detailed Community Centre Analysis by Service Type & Function ................................................................................. 37

Table 9 - Hobsons Bay City Council Preferred Community Centre Model for the Altona North Precinct ...................................... 41

Table 10 – Clyde Precinct Structure Plan: Family Children's Centre (Level 1) ................................................................................ 42

Table 11 – Revised Community Centre Model for the Altona North Precinct (Indicative Only for further discussion with Council)

...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 43

Table 12 – Proposed Open Spaces for the Altona North Precinct.................................................................................................. 44

Table 13 – Single Year Age Profile of Households in Dwellings Four Storeys and Over in Greater Melbourne .............................. 49

Table 14 - Single Year Age Profile Altona North Age Profile in 2031 .............................................................................................. 54

Table 15 - Single Year Age Profile for the Altona North Precinct at Full Development .................................................................. 56

List of Figures

Figure 1 – The Altona North Precinct Site ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Figure 2 – draft Altona North Comprehensive Development Plan– Future Urban Structure Plan ................................................... 4

Figure 3 - Summary Land Budget - draft Altona North CDP ............................................................................................................. 5

Figure 4 – Altona North "Small Area" ............................................................................................................................................ 10

Figure 5 - Location of Active Open Spaces within the 1 kilometre Catchment of Subject Site ....................................................... 14

Figure 6 - Outdoor & Indoor Sports Located within Active Open Spaces within 1 Kilometre of Subject Site ................................. 17

Figure 7 – Laverton Park Master Plan (2010) ................................................................................................................................. 21

Figure 8 – Proposed 20-minute neighbourhoods definition .......................................................................................................... 30

Figure 9 - Proposed example 20-minute neighbourhood (1.5 kilometres) .................................................................................... 30

Figure 10 – Existing Early Years Services within 1.5 kilometres of subject site .............................................................................. 32

Figure 11 – Existing Libraries, Neighbourhood Houses, Meeting Space Venues & Planned Activity Group Venues ...................... 33

Figure 12 - Draft Open Space & Community Facility Plan .............................................................................................................. 45



1. Report Purpose

The Victorian Planning Authority (VPA) engaged ASR Research to review the open space and community facility

needs of the large infill site referred to as “Altona North Precinct” (or the “subject site”). The VPA has prepared

a draft Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) for the site which forms part of this review. The specific

objectives of the review were to:

1. Determine an appropriate quantum of open space within the precinct given its size and surrounding

context;

2. Determine whether the development of an active open reserve within the subject site is warranted,

and if so, in what form; and

3. Assess the sizing, composition, high-level cost estimates and apportionment of a proposed Council

community centre for the subject site.

The Altona North Precinct is located in Altona North and falls within the City of Hobsons Bay. As shown Figure

1 below, the site is bound by Blackshaws Road to the south, New Street to the east, Kyle Road to the west and

the Brooklyn Terminal Station and West Gate Freeway to the north.

Figure 1 – The Altona North Precinct Site



2. Background

2.2 Draft Altona North Comprehensive Development Plan – Urban Structure Plan

The draft Altona North Comprehensive Development Plan shown in Figure 2 below, prepared by the VPA,

currently shows the site as consisting of the following main features:

• Six additional parks consisting of:

- One large central open space; and

- Four smaller local open spaces.

• A linear open space corridor to the north;

• A local community facility on Blackshaws Road;

• A commercial mixed use precinct to the south;

• A local Town Centre to the south; and

• A variety of locations accommodating a mixture of medium density and high density residential

dwellings.

Figure 2 – draft Altona North Comprehensive Development Plan – Future Urban Structure Plan

Source: Victorian Planning Authority (2016)



Figure 3 below provides a summary land use budget for the subject site. The key features of this budget from

an open space and community facility perspective are as follows:

• 6.03 hectares of public open space; and

• 0.5 hectares of land for a proposed community centre;

The public open space allocation is divided into:

• 4.75 hectares of local parkland; and

• 1.28 hectares of open space for a tree reserve utilising a redundant utility easement.

Figure 3 - Summary Land Budget - draft Altona North CDP

Source: Victorian Planning Authority (2016)

HECTARES % OF TOTAL % OF NDA

TOTAL PRECINCT AREA (ha) 66.95

Transport

Western Distributor(Estimated PAO) 0.48 0.7% 0.9%

Connector Roads - Widening and Intersection Flaring 4.14 6.2% 7.5%

Non-Arterial Road - Retained existing road reserve 0.96 1.4% 1.8%

Sub-total Transport 5.58 8.3% 10.2%

Community Buildings

Local Community Facility (DCP land) 0.50 0.7% 0.9%

Sub-total Community 0.50 0.7% 0.9%

Open Space

Uncredited Open Space

Redundant Util ity Easement / Tree Reserve 1.28 1.9% 2.3%

Sub-total Uncredited Open Space 1.28 1.9% 2.3%

Credited Open Space

Local Sports Reserve (via DCP) 0.00 0.0% 0.0%

Local Park (via Cl 52.01) 4.75 7.1% 8.7%

Sub-total Credited Open Space 4.75 7.1% 8.7%

Total All Open Space 6.03 9.0% 11.0%

RESIDENTIAL - MIXED DENSITY NET DEVELOPABLE AREA - Ha 49.81 74.4%

LOCAL TOWN CENTRE NET DEVELOPABLE AREA - Ha 2.17 3.2%

COMMERCIAL/MIXED USE (EXISTING) NET DEVELOPABLE AREA - Ha 1.13 1.7%

COMMERCIAL/MIXED USE (NEW) NET DEVELOPABLE AREA - Ha 1.73 2.6%

TOTAL NET DEVELOPABLE AREA - Ha 54.84 81.9%

Residential Local Open Space (expressed as % of NDA) Hectares

LP-01 0.30

LP-02 0.40

LP-03 3.15

LP-04 0.40

LP-05 0.40

UP-01 0.10

Sub-total Credited Open Space 4.75

LP-06 1.11

LP-07 0.17

Sub-total Uncredited Open Space 1.28

DescriptionAltona North Comprehensive Development Plan

8.7%

2.0%

0.7%

% of NDA

0.3%

0.5%

0.7%

5.7%

0.7%

0.2%

2.3%



2.2 Council’s Preferred Open Space & Community Facility Provision Needs for the Altona

North Comprehensive Development Plan

Hobsons Bay City Council, in its written response to the VPA’s request for feedback on the future of the site, has

indicated its preferred position in relation to public open space and community facility needs. Council has

requested the following be provided as part of the Altona North Precinct:

Public Open Space

“A total of 11 hectares of open space is required to service the precinct. This is to be split into two

purposes; eight hectares active functional open space and three hectares of distributed passive open

space. The passive open space areas should be situated to provide relief from the anticipated higher

density urban form and can be smaller than one hectare if they provide a cohesive and desirable

space1”.

Community Facility

“A 2,000m2 facility, on 5,000m2 of land is required to cater for the future community that will settle

within the precinct. The facility is to be a flexible multi use space but is expected to have room for

meeting spaces, an early childhood focus and cater for maternal child health services and kindergarten

spaces. It is expected that the exact make up will be determined by the future community needs.

The facility is to be co-located with the neighbourhood activity centre, along a key public transport,

bicycle and pedestrian route and local open space area.”

Council’s indicative view of the services and functions the proposed community centre should include are

provided in Table 1 on the following page.

1 Note: This confidential information provided by Hobsons Bay City Council.



Table 1 - Hobsons Bay City Council Preferred Community Centre Model for Altona North Precinct

Room Area (sqm)

Reception, administration and management office including public amenities 300

Kindergarten (suitable for 33 children)* 350

Community Space 110

Maternal Child Health 200

Toy Library* 100

Long Day Care* 650

Facility circulation 240

Total 1950

* Rooms could be used for various purposes following agreed service provision

Council’s preferred open space and community facility requirements and the current draft Comprehensive

Development Plan differ in the following way:

• Council is requesting a higher quantity of public open space than what is presently shown in the VPA

Plan (approximately 4.8 hectares more); and

• Has specified 2,000 square metres of floor space for the proposed community facility, whereas the

VPA has not yet specified a figure.

3. Review Methodology

The following methodology was used to conduct the review:

1. Confirm the most recent dwelling and population yield assumptions for the subject site;

2. Confirm current and proposed active open space provision generally within a 1 kilometre catchment

of the subject site, and a 1.5-kilometre catchment for services and activities typically accommodated

within Council multipurpose community centres;

3. Compare the details of the draft Comprehensive Development Plan and Council’s open space and

community centre preferences against the standards and demand estimates selected as the basis of

assessing the adequacy or otherwise of open space provision and potential community centre

components;

4. Review policy and other strategic documents that may be relevant to the assessment of open space

and community centre planning; and

5. Provide conclusions about the extent to which the subject site should include active open space and

the proposed size, function and configuration of the community centre.



4. Community Infrastructure Provision, Population & Future

Development Assumptions

4.1 Dwelling & Population Assumptions for the Altona North Precinct

For the purposes of this assessment indicative assumptions have been made about the likely mix and number

of dwelling types for the proposed development of the Altona North Precinct. The assessment has prepared

community infrastructure demand and supply estimates based on a development scenario of 2,950 dwellings.

Table 2 below shows that of the 2,950 dwellings, 1,850 dwellings will be delivered in the form of higher density

apartment stock and 1,100 in the form of medium density townhouse stock (all of which will contain 3

bedrooms). Of the apartment dwellings, it is assumed that 40% will contain 1-bedroom, 50% 2-bedrooms, and

10% 3-bedrooms.

Table 2 – Dwelling Assumptions for the Altona North Precinct

Total Dwellings 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed

Apartments 1,850 740 925 185

Townhouses 1,100 - - 1,100

Total 2,950 740 925 1,285 Source: Victorian Planning Authority

Table 3 on the following page shows estimates of the age profile likely to be generated by the proposed

development. This age profile has been constructed using two separate methods: 1) to reflect lower density

town house stock (1,100 dwellings), and 2) higher density apartment stock (1,850 dwellings).

Method 1 relies on the City of Hobsons Bay Small Area Population Forecasts (2016 to 2036) prepared by .id on

behalf of Hobsons Bay City Council to the lower density town stock. The age profile and average household size

(2.72 person per household) for Altona North in 2031 was applied to the 1,100 town house dwellings (refer to

Appendix 1 – Table 13 for more details).

The second method was constructed using the age profile of people living in higher density dwellings (i.e. four

storeys or more) in Greater Melbourne and derived from the 2011 ABS Census based on the number of

bedrooms contained within dwellings2. This was applied to the 1,850 apartment dwellings.

2 The age profile for the high density development scenario was constructed using the “Tablebuilder” subscription service provided by the ABS. Within Tablebuilder “Basic” exists a database referred to as “2011 Census – Persons in Private Dwellings”. This database allows users to select age profile data for people living in a “flat, unit or apartment in a four or more storey block”, and by the number of bedrooms in



Unlike outer urban growth area Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) locations, where ASR Research has typically applied

a forecast age profile (usually prepared by .id on behalf of Council and widely available on municipal websites)

at some future point in time (e.g. 2021, 2026 or 2031) to the PSP location, infill or brownfield locations require

a different approach if they are to more accurately reflect the likely future age profile.

The available evidence from the 2011 ABS Census of Population and Housing shows that the age profile of people

living in higher density apartment stock (say four storeys and over) is significantly different from the

conventional “middle ring” or outer suburban age profile, particularly when the number of bedrooms a dwelling

contains is also taken into consideration (refer to Appendix 1 – Table 14 for more details).

Table 3 below therefore represents the combined population profile using the two methods, and estimates that

the proposed development will yield a population of approximately 6,300 people. Also included in the table is

the forecast population (and specific age cohort populations) for the Altona North small area by 2036. The age

cohorts shown are those most likely to generate the most significant demand impacts on various forms of

community infrastructure (refer to Appendix 1 – Table 15 for a full single year age profile).

Table 3 – Anticipated Age Cohort Population Yields for the Altona North Precinct & Altona North by 2036

Age Cohort Community infrastructure types the age cohort is relevant to Subject Site Altona North

0-3 MCH, Playgroups 273 1,213

4 4 Year Old Kindergarten 61 303

0-4 Long Day Child Care & Occasional Child Care 334 1,516

5-11 Primary School enrolments, out of school hours care 374 1,995

5-14 Participation in organised children's sport 514 2,741

15+ Participation in organised youth & adult sport 5,420 15,951

15-24 Participation in higher education (youth & young adult) 1,047 2,211

25+ Participation in higher education (older adults) 4,373 13,740

12-17 Secondary School enrolments 282 1,426

70+ Residential & home based aged care services 556 2,454

0 to 64 years Home and community care services (younger clients) 5,516 16,977

65+ years Home and community care services (older clients) 753 3,231

Total Population 6,268 20,208

Dwellings 2,950 7,694

these dwellings. The Greater Melbourne geography was selected in order to provider a broader reflection of the likely age profile of people living in high density dwellings.



4.2 Current Population and Dwelling Estimates for Altona North

Based on population and household forecasts prepared by .id on behalf of Hobsons Bay City Council, the

geographic area defined as Altona North (refer to Figure 4 below), currently has a population of approximately

12,700 and contains 4,900 dwellings.

Figure 4 – Altona North "Small Area"

Source: Population and household forecasts, 2011 to 2036, prepared by .id, the population experts, February 2015



5. Assessment of the Altona North Precinct’s Active Open Space

Provision Requirements

5.1 The Statutory Framework for Public Open Space Contributions

The public open space outcomes for the Altona North precinct need to be understood in terms of the current

statutory mechanisms that apply to public open space contributions in inner and middle ring Melbourne

councils.

Unlike Melbourne’s outer growth municipalities where Precinct Structure Planning guidelines in relation to open

space provision apply, inner and middle ring councils rely almost exclusively on municipal planning schemes to

secure, either in the form of land or as a cash contribution, public open space contributions. In this respect the

Schedule to Clause 52.01 (Public Open Space Contributions) is the principal statutory means of obtaining public

open space contributions.

If no rate is specified in the Schedule to Clause 52.01 councils have the right to seek up to 5% open space

contribution from non-exempt subdivision proponents.

Clause 52.01 recognises the power of councils to obtain open space contributions under the Subdivision Act,

and provides a mechanism for councils to amend the provisions to suit local circumstances. Councils are

effectively immune from challenge to the contribution if a Clause 52.01 Schedule is incorporated into the

Planning Scheme and applied appropriately.

This is a powerful tool because it enables a council to set its own contribution rates, subject to strategic

justification. The percent contribution can be tailored to meet the specific needs of areas and sub-areas. Details

of liability and use can be more clearly defined to suit local conditions3.

Aside from a 5% public open space contribution requirement for “All land in the area covered by Schedule 1 to

the Development Contributions Plan Overlay at Clause 45.06 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme, referred to

as the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill”, the Schedule to Clause 52.01 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme does

not specify a rate applicable to the Altona North precinct.

3 SGS Planning and Economics, Public Open Space Contributions and Subdivision: Moreland City Council (2008)



Unlike councils such as the Cities of Moreland and Melbourne, Hobsons Bay has yet to prepare a report or

reports that strategically justify public open space contribution rates that would typically be included in the

Schedule to Clause 52.01 (aside from the former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site).

This type of report justifies the basis for the Schedule and rates, and provides funds administration advice. The

Schedule is then incorporated in a Planning Scheme via Planning Scheme Amendment, and is therefore

consistent with the standard provisions of Clause 52.01.

A review of relevant literature reveals that planning appeal cases highlight the importance of councils adopting

a Schedule to Clause 52.01 to collect and manage open space contributions from subdivisions4. An open space

levy tool is provided in the Victorian Planning Provisions for that purpose and there is generally no valid reason

for not establishing a Schedule.

Councils rely on open space contributions to implement their respective municipal open space strategies (i.e.

MOSS). This assessment notes that while there appears to be a Hobsons Bay Open Space Strategy: 2013 – 2023

available from Council’s website, a full and detailed report appears not to be available. Confirmation about the

status of Hobsons Bay’s MOSS is required and its intentions in relation to the future use of the Schedule to Clause

52.01.

5.3 A Comparison of Inner & Middle Ring Municipalities

This assessment compares the Hobsons Bay Schedule to Clause 52.01 with the Schedules of eight other

comparable municipalities across inner and middle ring Melbourne. A summary of these Schedules is shown in

Table 4 below.

Table 4 - Comparison of Municipal Public Open Space Contribution Rates (Schedule to Clause 52.01)

Council Schedule to Clause 52.01

Hobsons Bay 5% All land in the area covered by Schedule 1 to the Development Contributions Plan Overlay at Clause 45.06 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme, referred to as the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill. No other rate specified for any other part of the municipality.

Maribyrnong For subdivisions of 10 lots or greater:

5.7 per cent where provided as a percentage of the site value of the land

5.7 per cent or greater to the satisfaction of Council where provided as land

Melbourne Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area – 8%

Depending on the location within the City of Melbourne: - 7.06 per cent of land or land value - 5 per cent of land or land value

4 SGS Planning and Economics, Public Open Space Contributions and Subdivision: Moreland City Council (2008)



Council Schedule to Clause 52.01

- Areas exempt from Clause 52.01

Moonee Valley For subdivisions of greater than 10 lots:

5 per cent where provided as a percentage of the site value of the land

5 per cent or greater subject to negotiation of the density and layout of the development where provided as land

Port Phillip Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area – 8%

All other land in the municipality – 5%

Yarra Land or buildings intended to be used for residential purposes – 4.5%

Stonnington Any subdivision in the suburb of Glen Iris, Malvern, Malvern East, Toorak and Kooyong (other than a subdivision specifically referred to in this schedule) – 5%

Any subdivision in the suburb of Armadale, Prahran, Windsor and South Yarra (other than a subdivision specifically referred to in this schedule) – 8%

Any subdivision of land situated at 590 Orrong Road & 4 Osment Street, Armadale (being Lot 1 TP 85387F, Vol 10279, Folio 503, Lot 1 TP079481Y, Vol 10279, Folio 505, Lot 1 TP079463B, Folio 500, Lot 1 TP085381T, Vol 10279, Folio 504, Lot 1 TP085377J, Vol 10279, Folio 497, Lot 1 TP079479K, Vol 10279, Folio 501 and Lot 1 TP805167, Vol 9917, Folio 065( (“the Land”) – 8%, comprising 5.5% cash contribution together with those areas of the Land that are shown on an endorsed plan under Permit 0725/11 as being accessible to the public and which are developed (or are to be developed) in accordance with those plans, the provision of which shall be deemed to satisfy the balance of the public open space requirement for the purpose of this clause, even if those areas remain in private ownership.

Darebin The subdivision of land that creates:

1 additional lot None specified

2 additional lots 2%



5 or more additional lots 5%

Moreland Location as defined by Plan 1:

1. Brunswick East / North Fitzroy 5.7%

2. Brunswick 6.3%

3. Brunswick West 2.5%

4. Coburg 6.8%

5. Pascoe Vale South 3.4%

6. Coburg North 4.3%

7. Pascoe Vale 3.7%

8. Oak Park 3.1%

9. Fawkner 5.7%

10. Hadfield 4.3%

11. Glenroy 6.5%

12. Gowanbrae / Tullamarine 4.7%

As shown above, the contribution rates vary greatly depending on the setting. The table suggests that a rate in

the range of 2% to 8% is generally used in inner and middle ring municipalities in Melbourne.

5.3 Current & Planned Active Open Space Provision Within 1 Kilometre of the Subject Site

Figure 5 on the following page shows the location of existing active open space reserves within a 1 kilometre

catchment of the subject site. The 1 kilometre catchment is relevant for active open space planning as Clause

56 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme (Residential Subdivision) and Clause 56.05-2 (Public Open Space

Provision Objectives) state that:

“Active open space of at least 8 hectares in area within 1 kilometre of 95 percent of all dwellings…”



Figure 5 - Location of Active Open Spaces within the 1 kilometre Catchment of Subject Site



5.4 Current Capacity of Active Open Space Reserves Within 1 Kilometre of the Subject Site

Based largely on a confidential Hobsons Bay Council prepared report entitled Precinct 15: An Analysis of Active

Sports Ground Use and Capacity in the Vicinity of Precinct 15, Altona North (September 2016), the current

capacities of existing active open space spaces within the 1 kilometre catchment were able to be documented

(it should be note that Council report assesses a larger number of active open spaces beyond this catchment).

Table 5 below summarises the current sports accommodated within each reserve and the extent of spare

capacity available at each (in both the summer and winter seasons).

Table 5 – Audit of Existing Active Open Spaces within 1 Kilometre of Subject Site

Name of Active Open Space Sports Accommodated Current Capacity Assessment

(Summer) Current Capacity Assessment

(Winter)

Edwards Reserve 1 playing field for soccer and cricket Nil

Ground is showing signs of overuse. Three additional hours of use could be accommodated if an additional two floodlights were constructed.

McIvor Reserve5

1 lawn bowls facility 2 hockey pitches 2 ARF ovals in winter 6 cricket fields in summer 1 baseball field

Based on an optimum use of 20 hours per week, seven of the eight playing fields are not overused.

Based on an optimum use of 20 hours per week, five of the eight playing fields are not overused.

Angliss Reserve6 7 4 Lacrosse fields in winter 2 cricket ovals in summer

Based on an optimum use of 20 hours per week, two ovals are not overused.

Based on an optimum use of 20 hours per week, two ovals are not overused.

Paisley Park (Excluding Golf Course & Miniature Railway land) –

4 Lacrosse fields 3 soccer fields 1 lawn bowls facility

Soccer venue only suitable for winter use

9 additional hours of use possible under current configuration. An additional 24.2 hours possible if an additional 4 floodlights were constructed

AW Bonds Reserve 1 playing field for cricket and soccer

Friday evening timeslot for 5-12 year olds available

Six additional hours of use possible under current configuration. 10 additional hours of use could be achieved if an additional two floodlights were constructed.

Loft Reserve 1 playing field for cricket and rugby union

Friday evening and Saturday morning timeslots for 5-8year olds available Sunday afternoon timeslot for low grade senior turf wicket competition available

Venue large enough to meet the needs for projected growth in rugby union participation in Hobsons Bay

AW Langshaw Reserve 1 playing field for cricket and Rugby

Saturday morning timeslot for 5-8 year olds available Nil

5 Capacity data derived from City of Maribyrnong Sustainable Surfaces Feasibility Study (May 2012) 6 Capacity data derived from City of Maribyrnong Sustainable Surfaces Feasibility Study (May 2012) 7 Note: The West Gate Freeway is a barrier that reduces the walkability to this reserve. However, there is an existing road link and the VPA

proposes to build a link trail from the Altona North Precinct to connect to the Federation Trail north of the Freeway.



Name of Active Open Space Sports Accommodated Current Capacity Assessment

(Summer) Current Capacity Assessment

(Winter)

Brooklyn Reserve Tennis – 4 courts Available. Courts currently hired to local clubs

Available. Courts currently hired to local clubs

The main conclusions of the Precinct 15: An Analysis of Active Sports Ground Use and Capacity in the Vicinity of

Precinct 15, Altona North report are:

Based on maintaining the status quo the number of registered club participants (in winter sports) is

expected to increase to 5,469 (+1,154) by 2036 (+496 football, +486 soccer, +278 other).

The total potential usage capacity of the 41 sports grounds used for winter sports is estimated to be

between 451 to 615 hours per week.

The estimated the actual usage of all sports grounds in the catchment area is 457.6 hours per week

during the winter season.

There are 18 reserves used in the winter season. 5 reserves are currently being overused. 10 reserves

are unable to sustain additional use or opportunities for additional use are poor / limited. 3 reserves

(16%) have the capacity to sustain additional use.

There is insufficient capacity to cater for the projected increase in football participation within the

catchment area.

There may be sufficient capacity to cater for the projected increase in soccer participation within the

catchment area, however significant investment in additional floodlighting is required to meet this

demand. Should participation in soccer increase beyond existing penetration rates (for example

female participation increased from 7% to the state average of 17%) then there would be insufficient

capacity.

There is sufficient capacity to grow lacrosse, rugby league and rugby union participation within the

catchment area.

Although Table 5 above clearly identifies the capacity for some of the listed active open spaces to cater for more

organised sport the report recommends that the Altona North Precinct should include provision for an 8-hectare

active open space (allowing for a two oval multi-purpose outdoor sports ground venue). The report states that

‘his equates to 11.94% of the developable area of the Altona North Precinct (67 hectares)’. In addition to this

active open space reserve the report also recommends additional passive open space to achieve a diverse and

fit for purpose network of active and passive open space in the Altona North Precinct. Figure 6 shows the

structured sports currently accommodated within each of these active open space reserves.



Figure 6 - Outdoor & Indoor Sports Located within Active Open Spaces within 1 Kilometre of Subject Site



5.4 Review of Other Relevant Strategic Documents

5.4.1 Hobsons Bay Open Space Plan: 2013 - 2023

The report identifies the main issues for the Hobsons Bay’s open space network as follows:

• Hobsons Bay has a good amount of open space compared to other Melbourne municipalities,

however equitable distribution, accessibility and quality of parks is variable.

• Some neighbourhoods, such as Altona Meadows, are poorly provided for in terms of distribution and

quality of parks.

• Many parks lack basic needs, such as shade, accessible seating and paths.

• There is a high standard of provision for some sports and outdoor activities however there is a need

to provide recreation opportunities for a greater diversity of users and for growth in particular sports.

• The OSP highlights the need to continue to protect and enhance local native flora and fauna habitat

and to continue working with the community, particularly the ‘Friends of Parks Groups’, to manage

and improve these areas.

• Many people are unaware of the number and diversity of parks in Hobsons Bay and how to get to

them.

Key priorities of the Plan include the following:

Contribute to a sense of well being

• Link Brooklyn and Duane Reserves, using the Federation Trail reservation

• Implement improvements to Paisley Park, to cater for a broader cross-section of the community

Provide a diversity of landscape and recreational experiences

• Introduce a major program of shade tree planting in parks

• Provide one accessible, high quality park in each neighbourhood for social / family recreation. These

parks will include seating and picnic area (some may include barbeques), shade trees and play space.

They will be maintained as the “oasis” for the surrounding community.

The key parks will be:

• McCormack Park (Laverton)

• Newport Lakes Reserve (Newport West)

• Homestead Run (Seabrook)

• Cherry Lake (Altona Industrial)



• McLean Reserve & Edwards Reserve (Spotwood/South Kingsville)

• Community Centre Reserve (Altona Meadows)

• Long Reserve (Williamstown North)

• Paisley Park (Altona North)

• Logan Reserve (Altona)

• Brooklyn Reserve (Brooklyn)

• Williamstown Beach & Hatt Reserve (Williamstown)

• Armstrong Reserve (Newport East)

Provide a linked system of public open space

• Work with the State Government to accelerate construction of the Federation Trail which will run

from Westgate Bridge to Werribee, linking to the Coastal Trail, Kororoit Creek Trail and Skeleton Creek

Trail.

5.4.2 Hobsons Bay Open Space Plan (2005)

Although superseded by the Hobsons Bay Open Space Strategy (2013 – 2023), this preceding municipal open

space plan identified a number of priorities for Altona North including the following:

“Plan for an additional social family recreation opportunity if a new residential area is created north

of Blackshaws Road (Kyle Rd). Ensure the interface with industry is addressed in design.

Supplement open space in the block of residential between Millers Road and Kyle Rd Nth of Blackshaws

Rd where opportunities arise.” (page 139)

5.4.3 City of Hobsons Bay Sport and Recreation Strategy (2014)

This Strategy states that “with growing participation in some sports (e.g. soccer) there is a need to consider

refurbishment of sports grounds, synthetic surfaces and lighting to ensure optimal use of infrastructure without

overuse” (page 13).

5.4.4 City of Maribyrnong Sports Development Strategy (2015)

Relevant priorities from this Strategy include:

• Develop McIvor and Angliss Reserve precincts as hubs; and



• Investigate sites (including McIvor Reserve adjacent to the bowls club) to provide at least one

additional floodlit complex for netball consisting of three courts that are multipurpose and linked to

an AFL venue.

5.4.5 Western Metropolitan Region Football Facilities Strategy (2015)

This Strategy provides the principles and strategic framework to support the future development, governance

and growth of football throughout the Western Metropolitan Region. It provides key regional strategic

directions and recommendations, as well as identifying key objectives and actions for AFL Victoria and

participating Leagues and municipalities. Importantly, this is a Football Facilities Strategy and relates to facility

provision, which is driven by participation, clubs and volunteer capacity. Whilst this is a football facilities

strategy, consideration of participation, clubs and volunteer capacity has been included.

The “critical” priorities identified by the Strategy include:

Project partners to prioritise change room upgrades for application to SRV Grants Programs, based

on current provision and existing and projected female participation to cater for unisex use

Project partners work collaboratively to bring facilities with no or low lighting up to minimum

standards based on facility usage.

Project partners work collaboratively to identify alternate funding streams to support infrastructure

renewal.

Project partners work on key regional facility priorities including umpire training venue, finals venues

and State level training facilities.

AFL Victoria and LGA’s prioritise umpire amenity upgrades to those facilities in poor condition.

Hobsons Bay City Council engage with football and other stakeholders during the development of a

master plan for W.L.J. Crofts Reserve in 2016-17.

5.4.6 Laverton Park Master Plan (2010)

The Laverton Park Master Plan (2021) is reviewed here as part of this assessment to illustrate that Council has

previously identified a strategy to increase the number of sporting fields within the municipality. The Master

Plan provides a guide to the future development of facilities and amenities in the reserve including the

establishment of three additional playing fields (which have not yet been constructed) as shown in the Master

Plan illustration in Figure 7 on the following page.



Figure 7 – Laverton Park Master Plan (2010)

5.4.7 Plan Melbourne: Metropolitan Planning Strategy (2014)

Plan Melbourne is the Victorian Government’s vision for the city to 2050. The Plan includes initiatives to provide

new neighbourhood parks and open space, as outlined below. These initiatives are important and relevant to

the issue for proposed active open space within the Wallan area for the following reasons:

It signals the need to fund for sub-regional / regional cultural and sporting facilities from multiple

sources including State Government, Local Government and development.

Recognition that there is a need to work with government agencies (e.g. Department of Education &

Early Childhood) to prepare shared-use plans of open space and recreation facilities for all

government schools.

Initiative 4.5.2 - Provide new neighbourhood parks and open space

As our city grows and we accommodate more people, we will need to increase the quantity of public

open space and of leisure, recreation and sporting facilities.

3 proposed new playing fields



Melbourne has a long legacy of open-space planning. Many local governments have prepared open-

space strategies. Precinct structure plans in growth areas identify where local parks and sports

grounds will be located. However, there is scope to explore more innovative ways of increasing local

open space at the neighbourhood level and funding its ongoing maintenance. Redevelopment of urban

renewal precincts and of surplus under-utilised government land will provide opportunities to plan for

new open space.

In some areas, practical solutions (such as using school grounds out of school hours) will also help add

to the availability and accessibility of public open space and of sport and recreation facilities.

In the short term

Encourage local governments, in consultation with their communities, to explore new ways of

increasing open space in their municipalities. Department of Transport, Planning and Local

Infrastructure (Planning)

Use the new standard development contributions system to provide greater certainty in the

provision of local open space in Melbourne’s growth areas. Department of Transport, Planning and

Local Infrastructure (Planning)

Investigate options for a pocket park fund - to be used in established areas to fill identified local

open space gaps - including the potential to utilise the new standard development contributions

levy. Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (Planning)

Identify possible new regional open space and recommended funding. Funding could include a

combination of standard development contribution plan levies and the metropolitan improvement

fund. Metropolitan Planning Authority (now the Victorian Planning Authority)

Work with government agencies to prepare shared-use plans of open space and recreation

facilities for all government schools. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development

Identify possible new regional open space and recommended funding. Funding could include a

combination of standard development contribution plan levies and the metropolitan improvement

fund. Metropolitan Planning Authority (now the Victorian Planning Authority)

Initiative 4.6.3 - Fund subregional cultural and sporting facilities

One of the benefits of Melbourne’s growth is its increasing capacity to develop and sustain

significant subregional cultural and sporting facilities. New developments – such as the Darebin

International Sports Centre, Monash Gallery of Art, Casey Fields sports complex and the Cranbourne

Botanic Gardens – highlight this trend.



At the subregional level, redevelopment of larger urban renewal precincts and surplus under-utilised

government land will provide opportunities to plan for regionally significant cultural and sporting

facilities.

Where future opportunities arise, we will work with local governments – through the new

metropolitan subregion arrangements – and with other stakeholders to coordinate the delivery of

these regional-level facilities.

In the short term

Allow for a contribution towards the cost of regionally significant cultural and sporting facilities

as part of the new standard development contributions levy to be introduced in urban renewal

precincts and growth areas. Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure

(Planning)

5.5 Estimated Demand for Informal and Organised Sport and Physical Activities

5.5.1 Participation in sport and physical activity

Understanding the extent to which the development of the Altona North Precinct will increase the demand for

informal and organised sport and physical activities and how, in turn, this may impact on existing and proposed

open space provision was a key focus of this assessment.

The following two major data sources were used to calculate the demand estimates likely to be generated by

development of the Altona North Precinct. These were:

1. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Participation in Sport and Physical Recreation, Australia,

2011-12; and

2. The ABS Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Victoria, 2012.

5.5.2 Participation in Sport and Physical Recreation, Australia, 2011-12

This publication presents results from the Australian Bureau of Statistics' (ABS) national Participation in Sport

and Physical Recreation Survey, conducted from July 2011 to June 2012 using the ABS Multipurpose Household



Survey (MPHS). The survey collected data about the characteristics of people aged 15 years and over who

participated in sport and physical recreation activities as players, competitors and in other physically active roles.

Involvements in non-playing roles such as coaches, umpires and club officials were excluded from the data. The

survey also collected data about the type of activities participated in, the frequency of participation, whether it

was organised by a club, association or some other organisation and the facilities used.

In 2012, amongst people aged 15 and over in Victoria, the most popular activities are walking for exercise, fitness

/ gym activity, cycling, jogging / running, swimming and golf. In terms of the major organised sports that most

directly impact on Council’s provision of sporting infrastructure, particularly outdoor infrastructure, the most

popular sports were Tennis, Netball, Basketball, Australian Rules Football (ARF), Cricket and Football (soccer).

There is a wide range of facilities available to people who participate in sport and physical recreation. Not all are

purpose built such as ovals, tennis courts and gymnasiums. Parks, beaches and walking trails also often used for

exercise and physical activity. Those who participated in sport and physical recreation were asked whether they

had used any of six selected facilities in the 12 months before interview. Parks and reserves were used by the

most people (40%), followed by indoor sports and fitness centres (37%).

5.5.3 Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Victoria, 2012

This publication contains results from the 2012 Survey of Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure

Activities, conducted throughout Australia in April 2012 as a supplement to the Australian Bureau of Statistics'

(ABS) monthly Labour Force Survey (LFS). Information about the participation of children aged 5 to 14 years in

cultural, sporting and other leisure activities is provided. Details on children's use of the Internet and mobile

phones are also presented.

Amongst children participating in organised sports in Victoria the most popular activities are swimming,

Australian Rules Football, Basketball, Tennis, Netball and Soccer.

5.5.4 Projected Sport / Physical Activity Participation Estimates for the Altona North Precinct

Applying the Victorian rates of participation for both people aged 15 and over, and children 5 to 14 years to the

anticipated Altona North Precinct population profile produces the following estimates of the number of people

theoretically particpating in different forms of sports and informal physical activity.



Table 6 – Estimated No. of People Participating in Sport / Physical Activity from the Altona North Precinct: Top 12 Sports

/ Physical Activities

Estimated Municipal Population: People aged 15

+

Estimated Municipal Population: People aged 5

to 14 years Total Population: People

aged 5 +

Total involved in organised sport / physical activity 1,518 336 1,854

Sport / Activity

Walking for exercise 1,317 Not available 1,317

Fitness/Gym 954 Not available 954

Cycling/BMXing 477 331 808

Jogging/Running 423 Not available 423

Swimming/Diving 417 100 517

Golf 249 Not available 249

Tennis (indoor and outdoor) 228 53 281

Netball (indoor and outdoor) 190 41 231

Basketball (indoor and outdoor) 173 71 245

Australian Rules football 108 80 188

Cricket (outdoor) 108 25 133

Soccer (outdoor) 103 38 141

5.5.5 Implications

The implications of these demand estimates on open space provision include:

While the available evidence suggests that children aged 5 to 14 primarily participate in physical

activity through structured activities, more than 50% of participation by people aged 15 years and

over is via unstructured activities. Investment, whether that be derived from developer contributions

or Council, needs to reflect this key difference and direct resources to informal and unstructured

environments as much as sporting reserves and other structured recreation facilities. This can be

achieved by increasing investment in initiatives such as walking, cycling and running tracks, outdoor

gym equipment located in parks, better lighting and quality urban design.

The demand likely to be generated by the Altona North Precinct for organised sport by both children

and people aged 15 years and over is sufficient to warrant one or more mitigation measures to satisfy

this additional demand.



The most significant organised participation sports appear likely to be Tennis, Basketball8, Australian

Rules Football, Netball9, Soccer and Cricket. Golf is generally not included in discussions associated

with active open space provision because of its disproportionately large land area requirements.

8 Much of the projected basketball demand would best be met within existing or future indoor stadiums.

9 Much of the projected netball demand would best be met within existing or future indoor stadiums.



6. Assessment of the Altona North Precinct’s Community

Centre Requirements

6.1 Overview of the Council Community Facility Assessment Process

As with any significantly sized in-fill development, the future development of the Altona North Precinct affords

an exceptional opportunity for two possible outcomes in relation to Council Community Centre provision:

1. Additional on-site provision within the Altona North Precinct; or

2. An off-site financial contribution toward a new facility at an alternative location, or the expansion or

refurbishment of existing nearby facilities proximate to the Altona North Precinct.

It is also important to note that the need for a new community centre is not only driven by the anticipated

additional service demands generated by the site, but also as a means of addressing ageing and less than optimal

existing facilities that may exist close to the site. This provides Council with the potential to relocate existing

services and functions from an existing nearby facility to a new facility within the Altona North Precinct.

Analysis of the current capacities and condition of existing nearby facilities, or the suitably of alternative site

locations for a new community centre was beyond the scope of this assessment. However, it is recommended

that the VPA continue to work closely with Hobsons Bay City Council to discuss and confirm the relative merits

of both on-site and off-site response measures.

Given this, the following assessment has been prepared assuming an on-site provision scenario.

Although not all multipurpose community centres are identical, it is possible to describe the types of services

and functions typically incorporated into such facilities. Typically, such facilities are a combination of a few (but

rarely all) of the following services and functions:

Kindergarten;

Maternal & child health;

Playgroups;

Occasional child care;

Long day child care;

Community meeting spaces;



Toy library;

Planned Activity Groups;

Neighbourhood houses / adult education; and

Library.

Multipurpose community centres can vary greatly in size depending on the services and activities to be

accommodated within it, and can typically range from 500 square metres to 2,500 square metres.

Unlike public open space (both passive and active), the VPA PSP Guidelines do not specify a quantitative measure

of how many facilities should be provided either using an area based standard (as applies to public open space)

or a population based standard. Municipal Planning schemes do not provide any guidance on this matter either.

In the absence of specific PSP Guidelines and statutory requirements, the VPA has tended to rely on the provision

guidelines outlined in the Planning for Community Infrastructure In Growth Area Communities (2008) report,

prepared by ASR Research. While useful for outer metropolitan growth areas where the supply of existing

services and facilities is often minimal when new development occurs, land availability is greater, and the age

profile is significantly different, the provision guidelines outlined in this report have less applicability to strategic

infill sites.

However, as outlined in this assessment, it is possible to estimate the level of demand for specific service types

likely to be generated by the subject site as the basis of discussing potential configuration options for a future

Altona North Precinct community centre.

The community centre assessment methodology presented in this report is based on:

1. Determining the scope of services and functions to assess as the basis for any future Altona North

Precinct facility;

2. Determining an appropriate catchment area as the basis of reviewing the existing supply of nearby

services and facilities;

3. Determining the extent to which similar services and functions are catered for in the selected

catchment area;

4. Estimating the likely demand for selected services and functions generated by the subject site;

5. Determining the extent to which existing services or facilities can cater for the demand generated by

the Altona North Precinct; and

6. Comparing Council’s current preferred Community Centre model to other models funded in

Melbourne’s growth areas.



6.2 Scope of Potential Community Centre Services & Functions to be Assessed

Hobsons Bay City Council has indicated that a number of services and functions should be included in a

community centre established within the Altona North Precinct, largely focused on early years service provision

(i.e. for children aged 0 to 6 years) and flexible community meeting space. The specific services and functions

identified are:

Community Space;

Kindergarten;

Maternal Child Health;

Long Day Care; and

Toy Library.

However, the potential range of services and functions that could be included in a Council community centre

has been broadened in this assessment to include:

Playgroups;

Occasional child care;

Neighbourhood Houses / Adult Education;

Planned Activity Groups; and

Libraries.

6.3 Defining the Catchment Area

This assessment uses a 1.5-kilometre radial catchment around the subject site as the basis of reviewing the

existing supply of a variety of services and facilities. The 1.5 kilometre catchment is based on Plan Melbourne’s

proposal to establish “20-minute neighbourhoods”.

According to the Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper there is broad support for the concept outlined in

Plan Melbourne 2014 of the “20-minute neighbourhood”. However, the Discussion Paper suggests an improved

definition of what this concept means for the upcoming Plan Melbourne 2016. It states that “based on

international definitions (for example see the Portland Plan, City of Portland, Oregon), a 20-minute

neighbourhood is broadly accepted as one where active walking enables access to local services (social,

recreational, retail)” (pages 15 to 17). It goes on to state the following:



The 20-minute neighbourhood concept requires urban planning and design ideas that promote

walkable neighbourhoods (and rollable ones for those unable to walk) and better access to local

services for daily needs. As the MAC (2015) report notes, this requires moderately higher densities in

neighbourhoods to support viable local services.

In this discussion paper, 20-minute neighbourhoods are defined as “the ability to meet your everyday

(non-work) needs locally, primarily within a 20-minute walk”.

It does not promote a major shift to working locally, as many people will continue to be employed in

higher-order centres. However, providing a range of services and facilities in 20-minute

neighbourhoods will create and support more local job opportunities, including home-based work.

Figure 8 below shows the proposed 20-minute neighbourhoods definition highlighted in the Discussion Paper.

Figure 8 – Proposed 20-minute neighbourhoods definition

Source: Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper (2015)

Figure 9 below shows the proposed example of a 20-minute neighbourhood (approximately 1.5 kilometres) and

the range of activities that can be reached in the 20-minute walk area of residential premises including, sporting

grounds and parks, schools, childcare, cafes and restaurants and services.

Figure 9 - Proposed example 20-minute neighbourhood (1.5 kilometres)

Source: Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper (2015)



6.4 Audit of Similar Existing Services and Facilities within 1.5 kilometres of the subject site

The existing services and facilities that exist within 1.5 kilometres of the subject site are presented on two

maps on the following pages

Figure 10 shows the locations of existing early years services such as kindergarten, maternal and child health,

long day care, Toy Libraries, playgroups venues and occasional child care.

Figure 11 shows the locations of existing community space, Neighbourhood Houses, planned activity group

facilities and libraries.

The existing supply levels are referred to in more detail in 6.5.2 of this report.



Figure 10 – Existing Early Years Services within 1.5 kilometres of subject site



Figure 11 – Existing Libraries, Neighbourhood Houses, Meeting Space Venues & Planned Activity Group Venues



6.5 Analysis of Potential Community Centre Services and Functions

This section provides a multi-layered analysis of each specific service and function that could potentially be

incorporated within a Council Community Facility for the Altona North Precinct.

The analysis is based on:

The dwelling and population assumptions for the Altona North Precinct presented in Section 4.1 of

this report;

The application of the precinct population assumptions to a variety of demand estimates for each

service or function (refer to Appendix 1 for detailed demand estimates); and

Assessing whether the demand estimate justifies the inclusion of the service or function within a

new Altona North Precinct facility given the catchment analysis of existing services and facilities.

6.5.1 Service and Facility Demand Assumptions

Table 7 below outlines the following service and facility demand estimate assumptions used by this

assessment and the source of these assumptions.

Table 7 - Service & Facility Demand Estimate Assumptions

Service Description of Demand Assumption Source of Assumption

3 year old kindergarten

Assumes 1 session of 3-year old Kindergarten per week for every 31 children aged 3 years

Hobsons Bay three year old Kindergartens brochure (February 2016) & Council’s Population Forecast estimate for 2016

4 year old kindergarten

Assumes 100% participation rate by four year olds in a 4-year old funded Kindergarten program &

62% of these enrolments attending a sessional Kindergarten facility

State Government Policy to ensure 100% of 4 year olds participate in a four-year-old funded Kindergarten program

Victorian Child and Adolescent Monitoring System (VCAMS) - Percentage of four year old kindergarten enrolments in a long day care or integrated children’s services setting (38%) – Hobsons Bay

MCH sessions Assumes 1 session of MCH per week for every 13 children age 0 years City of Hobsons Bay Community Facilities Review (2006)

Playgroup sessions

Assumes 1 playgroup session per week for every 32 children aged 0-3 years

Playgroups Victoria website directory for Hobsons Bay (2016) & Council’s Population Forecast estimate for 2016

Long Day Child Care Assumes 234.2 long day child care places per 100 children aged 0-4 years

Melbourne Metropolitan Community Infrastructure Assessment: Local and Subregional Rates of Provision, Victorian Planning Authority 2015 (Hobsons Bay data)

Occasional Child Care Assumes 29.7 occasional child care places per 100 children aged 0-4 years


Toy Library

Assumes 1 Toy Library facility per 3,000 children (approximately) aged 0 to 4 years

Based on the current Hobsons Bay Toy Library facility provision ratio (2016) & Council’s Population Forecast estimate for 2016



Service Description of Demand Assumption Source of Assumption

Community meeting space

Assumes a community meeting space with capacity to accommodate 135 people (@ 2 sqm per person)

Derived from the City of Hobsons Bay venue for hire information (http://www.hobsonsbay.vic.gov.au/Arts-Leisure/Venues/Community-Venues-for-Hire). Calculation based on average person capacity of each venue (where identified). Excludes Williamstown Town Hall

Planned activity groups (PAG)

Assumes 3.09% of persons aged 65 years and over utilising Planned Activity Group program & 0.16% of persons aged 0 to 64 years utilising Planned Activity Groups

Assumes 1 PAG per 4,500 people (approximately) aged 70 years and over

Victorian HACC fact sheet 2012-13 (utilisation data for Planned Activity Groups)

Based on the current Hobsons Bay PAG facility provision ratio (2016) & Council’s Population Forecast estimate for 2016

Neighbourhood Houses

Assumes provision of 1 Neighbourhood House per 9,000 people

Based on the current Hobsons Bay Neighbourhood House provision ratio (2016) & Council’s Population Forecast estimate for 2016

Library Assumes 5.6 libraries per 100,000 people


6.5.2 Detailed Community Centre Analysis

Table 8 on the following pages provides a detailed community centre assessment by service type and function

based on the population and demand assumptions presented previously in this report.

In summary, the key findings of the assessment are:

Kindergarten (3 & 4-year old funded programs) - Although the Altona North Precinct is unlikely to

generate sufficient demand to justify a two-room facility in its own right, there is merit in

establishing a new Kindergarten facility within the Precinct, especially if Council wants to relocate an

existing nearby facility.

Occasional Child Care - Given the small demand generated by the Altona North Precinct and close

proximity of occasional child care at both Bayfit and South Kingsville Community Centre, no

additional provision is recommended.

Long Day Child Care - Given the significant supply of existing long day child care within the 1.5-

kilometre catchment, and evidence of existing vacancies within most of these facilities, this

assessment does not recommend the inclusion of a long day child care service within an Altona

North Precinct facility. The only exception to this would be if Council wanted to relocate an existing

service to the facility.

Maternal & Child Health - Given that there are three existing MCH facilities within the 1.5-kilometre

catchment, there appears no strong grounds for additional MCH provision within the Altona North

Precinct, other than if Council wishes to relocate one of the existing services.

http://www.hobsonsbay.vic.gov.au/Arts-Leisure/Venues/Community-Venues-for-Hire

http://www.hobsonsbay.vic.gov.au/Arts-Leisure/Venues/Community-Venues-for-Hire



Toy Library - Given that there are only two Toy Library facilities in the municipality and one of these

(the Newport Branch) is located within the 1.5-kilometre catchment, no additional Toy Library

facility is recommended for the Altona North Precinct.

Community meeting space - Community meeting space is a difficult function to quantify demand

for. However, this assessment has reviewed the currently available community facilities advertised

on Council’s website (as venues for hire) and calculated that the average person capacity of these

facilities if 135. Assuming 2 square metres of floor space per person a new facility established

within Precinct should contain approximately 250 to 300 square metres of flexible floor space.

Planned Activity Groups - Given that there are only two PAG facilities in the municipality and one of

these (the Altona North PAG) is located within the 1.5-kilometre catchment, no additional PAG

facility is recommended for the Altona North Precinct.

Neighbourhood Houses - Given that there are three Neigbourhood House facilities within the 1.5-

kilometre catchment no additional Neighbourhood House provision is recommended for the Altona

North Precinct.

Libraries - Given that there are two Library facilities within the 1.5-kilometre catchment no

additional library facility provision is recommended for the Altona North Precinct.



Table 8 – Detailed Community Centre Analysis by Service Type & Function

Room

Current supply within 1.5 kilometres of the subject site

Precinct Demand Estimate Implications for Facility Provision

Implications for Cost Apportionment

4-year old funded kindergarten

4 existing sessional Kindergarten facilities – South Kingsville Preschool, Altona Gate North Kindergarten, Altona North Early Childhood Centre and Newport Gardens Early Years Centre Kindergarten

61 funded 4-year old enrolments

23 enrolments within Long Day Child Care

To be provided within a private or not-for-profit Long Day Child Care Centre. Long Day Child Care is not recommended to be included within the proposed Altona North Precinct community centre.

Not applicable

38 sessional enrolments

Although the Altona North Precinct is unlikely to generate sufficient demand to justify a two-room facility in its own right, there is merit establishing a new Kindergarten facility within the Precinct if existing nearby Kindergartens are confirmed to be at full capacity, or if Council wants to relocate an existing nearby facility.

Assuming one Kindergarten room licenced for 33 places (which has the capacity to provide for 66 children per week), this demand represents 58% of the utilisation of 1 Kindergarten room.

Consult with Council to confirm current capacity levels of existing nearby Kindergartens and whether it wishes to relocate an existing Kindergarten facility to the Altona North Precinct.

58% of one 33 placed Kindergarten room.

3-year old kindergarten

3 existing sessional Kindergarten facilities – South Kingsville Preschool, Altona North Early Childhood Centre and

2 sessions per week

Utilises the same kindergarten room used by the funded 4-year old program

Not applicable, incorporated into the 4-year old room assessed above.



Room




Newport Gardens Early Years Centre Kindergarten

Occasional Child Care 2 facilities – Bayfit Leisure Centre and South Kingsville Community Centre

8 places Given the small demand generated by the Altona North Precinct and close proximity of occasional child care at both Bayfit and South Kingsville Community Centre, no additional provision is recommended.

Not applicable

Long Day Care 4 existing Long Day Child Care centres - Bright Steps Educational Child Care& Kindergarten (South Kingsville), Bright Steps Educational Child Care & Kindergarten (Altona North), Early Learners, One Tree Altona North Children’s Service and Newport Gardens Early Years Centre

78 places The first key issue to resolve is whether Council is committed to the establishment of a new Council operated Long Day Child Care centre given that most municipalities have decided not to expand their role in this sector

In relation vacancies at the four existing Long Day Child Care facilities within 1.5 kilometres: - Bright Steps Educational Child Care & Kindergarten (Altona North) -

has vacancies every day of the week for every age cohort - Early Learners - has vacancies every day of the week except for 0-24

moths age cohort (no vacancies Tuesday, Thursday, Friday) and 25-35 months age cohort (no vacancies Tuesday and Thursday)

- One Tree Altona North Children’s Service – has limited vacancies for 0-24 months (Monday only) and 36 months and over (Monday, Wednesday & Friday)

- Newport Gardens Early Years Centre (no vacancies) - Bright Steps Educational Childcare and Kindergarten (South

Kingsville) – has vacancies every day of the week except for 0-24 months (no vacancies from Tuesday to Friday) and 25 to 35 months (no vacancies Wednesday)

Given the significant supply of existing long day child care within the 1.5-kilometre catchment, and evidence of existing vacancies within most of these facilities, this assessment does not recommend the inclusion of a long day child care service within an Altona North Precinct facility. The only exception to this would be if Council wanted to relocate an existing service to the facility.

This assessment does not recommend the inclusion of Long Day Child Care within an Altona North Precinct community centre. However, if included the total number of places to be created can be divided by the demand estimate to provide an apportionment cost (e.g. 78 places of a 90 place facility represents a 87% apportionment).

Maternal Child Health 3 MCH facilities – South Kingsville, Altona North and Newport Gardens

5.7 MCH sessions per week (1

Given that there are three existing MCH facilities within the 1.5-kilometre catchment, there appears no strong grounds for additional

57% of one MCH consulting room



Room




consulting room typically has a capacity of 10 sessions per week).

MCH provision within the Altona North Precinct, other than if Council wishes to relocate one of the existing services.

Need to confirm with Council whether additional MCH sessions can be delivered from existing MCH centres.

Consult with Council to confirm if it wishes to relocate existing MCH facilities to an Altona North Precinct facility.

Toy Library 1 Toy library – Hobsons Bay Toy Library (Newport Branch)

0.1 Toy Library facilities

Given that there are only two Toy Library facilities in the municipality and one of these (the Newport Branch) is located within the 1.5-kilometre catchment, no additional Toy Library facility is recommended for the Altona North Precinct.

Consult with Council to confirm it does not wish to relocate existing Newport Toy Library to the Altona North Precinct.

Even if a Toy Library were to be established within a new community centre established within the Altona North Precinct this type of service can utilise flexible community meeting space and need not be a dedicated component.

Not applicable

Community Space There are 4 community facilities that offer community meeting space for hire – South Kingsville Community Centre, Walker Close Community Centre, Spotswood Community House and Brooklyn Community House

Community meeting space sufficient to accommodate 135 people

Community meeting space is a difficult function to quantify demand for. However, this assessment has reviewed the currently available community facilities advertised on Council’s website (as venues for hire) and calculated that the average person capacity of these facilities is 135.

Assuming 2 square metres of floor space per person a new facility established within Precinct should contain approximately 250 to 300 square metres of flexible floor space.

100% apportionment to the Altona North Precinct.

Planned Activity Group (PAG) facilities

1 PAG facility – Altona North Planned Activity Group

0.1 PAG facilities

Given that there are only two PAG facilities in the municipality and one of these (the Altona North PAG) is located within the 1.5-kilometre catchment, no additional PAG facility is recommended for the Altona North Precinct.

Consult with Council to confirm it does not wish to relocate existing Altona North PAG service to the Altona North Precinct.

Not applicable



Room




Neighbourhood Houses

3 Neighbourhood Houses – South Kingsville Community Centre, Walker Close Community Centre &

0.7 Neighbourhood Houses

No additional Neighbourhood House provision is recommended given the more than adequate supply within the local catchment.

Consult with Council to confirm it does not wish to relocate existing Neighbourhood House facilities to the Altona North Precinct.

Not applicable

Library 2 libraries – Altona North and Yarraville

0.35 Library facilities

No additional Library provision is recommended given the more than adequate supply within the local catchment.

Consult with Council to confirm it does not wish to relocate existing library facilities to the Altona North Precinct.

Not applicable



6.5.3 Review of Council’s Preferred Community Centre Model

Council’s indicative view of the services and functions the proposed community centre should include are

provided in Table 9 below. Council is currently of the view the facility should have a floor area consisting 1,950

square metres and accommodate kindergarten, community meeting space, maternal & child health, a toy library

and long day child care.

Table 9 - Hobsons Bay City Council Preferred Community Centre Model for the Altona North Precinct

Room Area (sqm)

Reception, administration and management office including public amenities 300

Kindergarten (suitable for 33 children)* 350

Community Space 110

Maternal Child Health 200

Toy Library* 100

Long Day Care* 650

Facility circulation 240

Total 1,950

* Rooms could be used for various purposes following agreed service provision

Given the analysis of specific services and functions provided in the previous section of this report (Section 6.5.2)

there are a number of components which appear difficult to justify without further consultation with Council.

These include:

The inclusion of long day child care;

The inclusion of a Toy Library; and

The inclusion of an MCH service.

Additional analysis of the proposed floor area sizes for each of Council’s preferred uses also appear difficult to

justify. To provide some comparison Table 10 on the following page shows a proposed Family Children’s Centre

contained within the Clyde Precinct Structure Plan (refer to Appendix 2 for more details). Many of the

comparable components vary significantly from Council’s preferred model.



Table 10 – Clyde Precinct Structure Plan: Family Children's Centre (Level 1)


Foyer M2 15




MCH rooms (2 rooms) M2 44

MCH waiting room M2 12

Multi-purpose space M2 80



Office M2 12

Staff room M2 20







Source: Prowse Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd, Clyde Precinct Structure Plan Cost Study, March 2014

In summary, this assessment concludes the following in relation to Council’s floor size estimates for its preferred

community centre model:

The reception, administration and public amenities component of Council’s preferred model

appears comparable to the Clyde Family Children’s Centre;

The MCH component of Council’s preferred model far exceeds the Clyde Family Children’s Centre by

approximately 150 square metres;

The Kindergarten facility is approximately 90 square metres larger than the Clyde Family Children’s

Centre.

While the Toy Library does not form part of the Clyde Family Children’s Centre this is a type of

service which can and does operate from flexible community meeting space. As such, even if it

were to be provided it would utilise the community meeting space and not the 100 square metres

indicated



The community meeting space allocated within both Council’s preferred model and the Clyde Family

Children’s Centre is minimal and this assessment recommends increasing it to 250 to 300 square

metres.

Given that this assessment does not recommend the inclusion of long day child care, 650 square

metres of Council’s preferred model would not be provided.

6.5.4 Proposed Revised Community Centre Model for the Altona North Precinct

Given both the service specific review and review of proposed floor areas, this assessment proposes the

following alternative community centre model for the Altona North Precinct (Table 11) which would see the

facility include a two-room Kindergarten facility and a larger flexible community meeting space area. The

indicative floor area of this revised facility model is estimated to be approximately 900 square metres (excluding

all outdoor requirements).

Table 11 – Revised Community Centre Model for the Altona North Precinct (Indicative Only for further

discussion with Council)


Foyer M2 15




Community meeting space M2 250



Office M2 12

Staff room M2 20





Total indoor floor area 913





7. Conclusions & Recommendations

Based on the analysis provided in the previous sections of this report the following conclusions and

recommendations are presented.

7.1 Public Open Space

7.1.1 Proposed On-site Public Open Space Provision for the Altona North Precinct

This assessment concludes that the current quantity of public open space for the Altona North Precinct is very

satisfactory and far exceeds the public open space contribution rates of all inner and middle ring municipalities,

including Hobsons Bay, based on a review of all existing Schedules to Clause 52.01 in these municipalities. The

proposed open space is also very satisfactory given Altona North Precinct’s high residential density context and

its close proximity to a large number of existing open space reserves, many of which have an active open space

function.

The draft Altona North Precinct CDP will lead to the creation of five additional parks consisting of one large

central park that would typically be classified as a municipal open space (i.e. larger than 3 hectares)

complimented by five other local open spaces. In addition to these parks, two important linear open spaces are

proposed and can legitimately be classified as public open space. The size and classification of each open space

is shown in Table 12 below.

Table 12 – Proposed Open Spaces for the Altona North Precinct

Residential Local Open Space Hectares Classification of Park

LP-01 0.30 Local

LP-02 0.40 Local

LP-03 3.15 Municipal

LP-04 0.40 Local

LP-05 0.40 Local

UP-01 0.10 Local

Sub-total Credited Open Space 4.75 8.7%

LP-06 1.11 Linear open space link

LP-07 0.17 Linear open space link

Sub-total Uncredited Open Space 1.28 2.3%

The size, dimensions and distribution of the proposed new parks appear to be generally consistent with the

planning for new open spaces in Melbourne’s inner and middle ring municipalities and planning scheme

requirements. The location of each these proposed open spaces is shown in the Figure 12 on the following page.



Figure 12 - Draft Open Space & Community Facility Plan

Source: Victorian Planning Authority

The potential use of the larger proposed central open space (LP-03) as an active open space catering for

organised sport, whilst possible, requires more discussion between the VPA and Council. The risk of amenity

conflicts between users of this open space for sporting purposes and neighbouring residents living in a higher

density context is potentially high. Before a decision about the function of this larger park is made, the VPA is

encouraged to discuss and confirm with Hobsons Bay the opportunities to apply off-site development

contributions from the Altona North Precinct toward the upgrade and / or expansion of existing active open

space reserves within the municipality and potentially even the neighbouring municipality of Maribyrnong.

7.1.2 Off-site Public Open Space Provision

Given the scale of development proposed for the subject site (2,950 new dwellings and a potential population

of approximately 6,300) this assessment concludes that the development will generate sufficient demand to

justify a financial contribution toward existing open space assets within the surrounding catchment. This

contribution is best directed toward measures that improve the capacity of existing reserves to cater for

additional informal recreation demand and for structured sport.

In relation to informal recreation, this can be achieved by increasing investment in initiatives such as walking

and running tracks, outdoor gym equipment located in parks, better lighting and quality urban design.



The demand likely to be generated by the subject site for organised sport by both children and people aged 15

years and over is sufficient to warrant one or more mitigation measures to satisfy this additional demand.

Through the review of existing strategic documents, this assessment has clearly demonstrated that a number of

existing active open space reserves within both the key 1 kilometre catchment and the broader sub-region could

accommodate more demand for organised sport if one or more of the following measures were implemented:

• Existing reserves can accommodate more playing fields or courts;

• More efficient timetabling of competition and training events during the course of the week;

• More lighting;

• Additional pavilion infrastructure;

• Redevelopment of existing pavilions;

• Enhancing the durability of existing grass surfaces (e.g. strengthening the grass cover, improved

drainage etc); and

• The replacement of grass playing fields with synthetic playing fields.

Based on a review of existing strategic documents from both the City of Hobsons Bay and City of Maribyrnong a

number of potential measures have been identified to increase the capacity of existing active open space

reserves. These include (but not limited to):

Edwards Reserve - 9 additional hours of use could be accommodated if an additional two floodlights

were constructed.

Paisley Park - An additional 24.2 hours possible if an additional 4 floodlights were constructed.

AW Bonds Reserve - 10 additional hours of use could be achieved if an additional two floodlights were

constructed.

The upgrade of Laverton Park (Altona Meadows) and construction of 3 additional playing fields (2 full

sized ovals and 1 training field)

The City of Maribyrnong Sports Development Strategy (2015) identifies the following potentially

relevant strategies:

- Develop McIvor and Angliss Reserve precincts as hubs; and

- Investigate sites (including McIvor Reserve adjacent to the bowls club) to provide at least one

additional floodlit complex for netball consisting of three courts that are multipurpose and

linked to an AFL venue.

This assessment recommends that the most appropriate measures be further discussed with the City of Hobsons

Bay and the City of Maribyrnong.



7.2 Community Centre Provision

This assessment provides in-principle support for the provision of a Council community centre within the Altona

North Precinct. However, both the existing supply levels for many different services and activities within the 1.5

kilometre catchment, and the projected Altona North Precinct demand estimates presented by this assessment,

suggest that the large-scale facility currently preferred by Council (i.e. 2,000 square metres of floor area) will be

difficult to support without further justifications being provided by Council and confirmation about its position

in relation to a number of existing nearby Council facilities.



Appendices



Appendix 1 – Age Profile Assumptions

1.1 High Density Age Profile Assumptions (four storeys and over)

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics: 2011 Census of Population & Housing (using ABS' Tablebuilder

program)

Table 13 – Single Year Age Profile of Households in Dwellings Four Storeys and Over in Greater Melbourne

None (includes

bedsitters) 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

0 years 5 0% 123 1% 539 1% 204 1% 3 0%

1 year 8 0% 87 0% 428 1% 197 1% 8 1%

2 years 15 0% 68 0% 383 1% 195 1% 7 1%

3 years 5 0% 49 0% 307 1% 201 1% 9 1%

4 years 11 0% 29 0% 272 1% 200 1% 3 0%

5 years 5 0% 22 0% 220 0% 199 1% 4 0%

6 years 7 0% 17 0% 194 0% 212 1% 6 1%

7 years 3 0% 7 0% 171 0% 197 1% 3 0%

8 years 3 0% 13 0% 173 0% 196 1% 4 0%

9 years 4 0% 11 0% 133 0% 206 1% 3 0%

10 years 4 0% 5 0% 112 0% 200 1% 11 1%

11 years 0 0% 10 0% 126 0% 182 1% 5 1%

12 years 3 0% 11 0% 120 0% 191 1% 11 1%

13 years 3 0% 12 0% 131 0% 176 1% 11 1%

14 years 0 0% 16 0% 149 0% 205 1% 9 1%

15 years 5 0% 5 0% 127 0% 201 1% 14 2%

16 years 8 0% 26 0% 160 0% 208 1% 13 1%

17 years 19 1% 72 0% 260 1% 271 1% 11 1%

18 years 90 3% 271 1% 583 1% 323 2% 24 3%

19 years 133 4% 469 2% 982 2% 409 2% 25 3%

20 years 199 7% 644 3% 1367 3% 550 3% 36 4%

21 years 224 7% 826 4% 1668 3% 604 3% 39 4%

22 years 195 6% 906 4% 1844 4% 707 4% 34 4%



None (includes


Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

23 years 195 6% 916 4% 1791 4% 636 3% 35 4%

24 years 152 5% 910 4% 1814 4% 599 3% 27 3%

25 years 146 5% 997 4% 1929 4% 548 3% 29 3%

26 years 140 5% 1184 5% 1983 4% 540 3% 29 3%

27 years 119 4% 1283 6% 2012 4% 524 3% 19 2%

28 years 110 4% 1196 5% 1927 4% 443 2% 21 2%

29 years 99 3% 1161 5% 1849 4% 361 2% 27 3%

30 years 108 4% 1044 5% 1751 4% 366 2% 17 2%

31 years 79 3% 854 4% 1606 3% 339 2% 14 2%

32 years 77 3% 793 3% 1364 3% 264 1% 8 1%

33 years 68 2% 677 3% 1177 2% 247 1% 5 1%

34 years 42 1% 564 2% 1083 2% 248 1% 9 1%

35 years 31 1% 488 2% 944 2% 228 1% 6 1%

36 years 22 1% 434 2% 840 2% 223 1% 10 1%

37 years 34 1% 340 2% 784 2% 241 1% 9 1%

38 years 22 1% 326 1% 664 1% 238 1% 3 0%

39 years 35 1% 310 1% 658 1% 199 1% 7 1%

40 years 28 1% 271 1% 638 1% 243 1% 10 1%

41 years 23 1% 251 1% 538 1% 215 1% 9 1%

42 years 16 1% 209 1% 535 1% 208 1% 13 1%

43 years 13 0% 182 1% 496 1% 212 1% 9 1%

44 years 9 0% 143 1% 441 1% 206 1% 11 1%

45 years 14 0% 165 1% 439 1% 207 1% 7 1%

46 years 11 0% 178 1% 436 1% 210 1% 16 2%

47 years 20 1% 175 1% 416 1% 218 1% 12 1%

48 years 19 1% 125 1% 434 1% 223 1% 10 1%

49 years 13 0% 132 1% 427 1% 205 1% 6 1%

50 years 9 0% 170 1% 414 1% 211 1% 14 2%

51 years 14 0% 145 1% 367 1% 220 1% 15 2%

52 years 14 0% 141 1% 403 1% 215 1% 4 0%

53 years 12 0% 121 1% 420 1% 216 1% 7 1%

54 years 13 0% 143 1% 401 1% 215 1% 21 2%



None (includes


Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

55 years 12 0% 117 1% 406 1% 225 1% 8 1%

56 years 28 1% 122 1% 396 1% 206 1% 7 1%

57 years 15 0% 141 1% 390 1% 203 1% 7 1%

58 years 20 1% 132 1% 339 1% 194 1% 13 1%

59 years 8 0% 107 0% 392 1% 212 1% 11 1%

60 years 19 1% 126 1% 372 1% 233 1% 11 1%

61 years 13 0% 133 1% 333 1% 206 1% 10 1%

62 years 19 1% 105 0% 309 1% 199 1% 21 2%

63 years 21 1% 95 0% 317 1% 175 1% 9 1%

64 years 17 1% 123 1% 350 1% 206 1% 12 1%

65 years 9 0% 111 0% 296 1% 176 1% 7 1%

66 years 10 0% 94 0% 255 1% 165 1% 8 1%

67 years 11 0% 108 0% 224 0% 157 1% 11 1%

68 years 12 0% 73 0% 203 0% 102 1% 5 1%

69 years 11 0% 83 0% 201 0% 124 1% 3 0%

70 years 13 0% 75 0% 201 0% 107 1% 5 1%

71 years 6 0% 82 0% 183 0% 110 1% 3 0%

72 years 10 0% 61 0% 165 0% 108 1% 3 0%

73 years 14 0% 69 0% 175 0% 94 0% 3 0%

74 years 11 0% 80 0% 193 0% 78 0% 4 0%

75 years 14 0% 72 0% 166 0% 86 0% 0 0%

76 years 7 0% 71 0% 158 0% 75 0% 0 0%

77 years 5 0% 72 0% 141 0% 71 0% 4 0%

78 years 6 0% 74 0% 126 0% 66 0% 0 0%

79 years 11 0% 69 0% 148 0% 44 0% 0 0%

80 years 13 0% 71 0% 146 0% 55 0% 0 0%

81 years 10 0% 67 0% 163 0% 60 0% 0 0%

82 years 8 0% 59 0% 131 0% 52 0% 0 0%

83 years 4 0% 53 0% 116 0% 47 0% 3 0%

84 years 0 0% 58 0% 118 0% 33 0% 3 0%

85 years 0 0% 48 0% 99 0% 30 0% 0 0%

86 years 5 0% 36 0% 100 0% 37 0% 0 0%



None (includes


Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

87 years 0 0% 29 0% 89 0% 34 0% 0 0%

88 years 3 0% 43 0% 76 0% 23 0% 0 0%

89 years 0 0% 19 0% 66 0% 17 0% 0 0%

90 years 0 0% 16 0% 36 0% 12 0% 0 0%

91 years 0 0% 9 0% 30 0% 9 0% 0 0%

92 years 0 0% 6 0% 27 0% 3 0% 0 0%

93 years 0 0% 7 0% 20 0% 10 0% 0 0%

94 years 0 0% 7 0% 6 0% 3 0% 0 0%

95 years 0 0% 7 0% 12 0% 6 0% 0 0%

96 years 0 0% 5 0% 10 0% 0 0% 0 0%

97 years 0 0% 0 0% 6 0% 0 0% 0 0%

98 years 3 0% 0 0% 3 0% 0 0% 0 0%

99 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

100 years 0 0% 0 0% 3 0% 0 0% 0 0%

101 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

102 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

103 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

104 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

105 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

106 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

107 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

108 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

109 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

110 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

111 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

112 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

113 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

114 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

115 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 3024 1 22662 100% 49126 100% 19755 100% 903 100%

Number of Dwellings 16221 25798 7649 309



None (includes


Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Greater Melbourne

No. %

Average Household Size 1.4 1.9 2.6 2.9



1.2 Lower Density Age Profile Assumptions

Source: City of Hobsons Bay Small Area Population Forecasts (2016 to 2036), prepared by .id, the population

experts.

Table 14 - Single Year Age Profile Altona North Age Profile in 2031

Age Cohort Population Percentage

0 263 1.5%

1 271 1.5%

2 272 1.5%

3 271 1.5%

4 269 1.5%

5 267 1.5%

6 264 1.5%

7 260 1.5%

8 256 1.4%

9 251 1.4%

10 239 1.3%

11 228 1.3%

12 220 1.2%

13 214 1.2%

14 209 1.2%

15 204 1.1%

16 194 1.1%

17 191 1.1%

18 187 1.0%

19 194 1.1%

20 185 1.0%

21 193 1.1%

22 190 1.1%

23 195 1.1%

24 207 1.2%

25 229 1.3%

26 238 1.3%

27 250 1.4%

28 257 1.4%

29 259 1.4%

30 277 1.5%

31 289 1.6%

32 301 1.7%




33 304 1.7%

34 305 1.7%

35 310 1.7%

36 312 1.7%

37 310 1.7%

38 309 1.7%

39 307 1.7%

40 298 1.7%

41 291 1.6%

42 283 1.6%

43 274 1.5%

44 266 1.5%

45 254 1.4%

46 242 1.4%

47 235 1.3%

48 227 1.3%

49 220 1.2%

50 208 1.2%

51 198 1.1%

52 195 1.1%

53 181 1.0%

54 172 1.0%

55 166 0.9%

56 163 0.9%

57 155 0.9%

58 151 0.8%

59 152 0.8%

60 146 0.8%

61 139 0.8%

62 145 0.8%

63 147 0.8%

64 142 0.8%

65 138 0.8%

66 128 0.7%

67 135 0.8%

68 130 0.7%

69 138 0.8%

70 129 0.7%

71 126 0.7%

72 132 0.7%




73 127 0.7%

74 118 0.7%

75 113 0.6%

76 128 0.7%

77 115 0.6%

78 109 0.6%

79 103 0.6%

80 101 0.6%

81 104 0.6%

82 98 0.5%

83 95 0.5%

84 87 0.5%

85+ 543 3.0%

Total 17898 100.0%

1.3 Anticipated Age Profile of the Altona North Precinct at Full Development

Table 15 - Single Year Age Profile for the Altona North Precinct at Full Development

Age cohort Subject Site

0 44

1 36

2 33

3 28

4 25

5 22

6 20

7 18

8 19

9 17

10 15

11 15

12 15

13 15

14 17

15 15

16 19

17 28

18 57

19 92

20 125

21 150

22 166



23 163

24 163

25 172

26 185

27 192

28 181

29 173

30 162

31 143

32 125

33 109

34 98

35 87

36 79

37 71

38 64

39 61

40 59

41 52

42 49

43 45

44 40

45 41

46 41

47 40

48 38

49 38

50 40

51 36

52 37

53 37

54 37

55 36

56 35

57 36

58 33

59 34

60 35

61 32

62 29

63 28

64 32

65 28

66 24

67 23

68 19

69 20

70 19

71 19



72 16

73 17

74 18

75 16

76 15

77 14

78 14

79 13

80 14

81 14

82 12

83 11

84 11

85+ 51

Total 4565



Appendix 2 – Example of Family & Children’s Centre Floor Area Size and Costs from the Clyde

Development Contributions Plan