Objection to Brimbank City Councils BCC Current Plans for Redevelopment of the Sunshine Communitys S

1
Objection to Brimbank City Councils (BCC)
Current Plans for Redevelopment of the
Sunshine Communitys Swimming Pools, Outdoor
Spaces and Site

• VCAT Hearing
• P2868/2005
• 10 January 2006

2
Credentials

• I am a Sunshine resident with a large family and
  a real interest in their future
• I was a community rep on BCCs Sunshine Pool
  Reference Group
• I am an active committee member of SCPAG and
  SunRRA Inc
• I have played active committee roles in many
  local groups
• I am past president of the Boards of
• Caroline Chisholm College Braybrook
• SYCW Sports Centre Inc (now known as RecWest)
  and
• SYCW Football Club Inc

3
Objection

• The objection against the Brimbank Councils
  decision to grant a permit is in my name and is
  on behalf of
• Sunshine Community Pools Action Group (SCPAG) (
  est. 1999) which represents local residents, pool
  users, sporting and community clubs and groups
  and a number of local schools. SCPAG is seeking
  adequate restoration of closed water spaces and
  outdoor lawns and trees. SCPAG has presented
  petitions containing 4000 signatures and has
  facilitated many hundreds of peoples submissions
  to BCC for a three pool complex at Sunshine.
  Earlier and now defunct pool groups also
  presented petitions of around 4000 signatures.
• Savesunshinepool Group (est. 2002) which
  represents residents and pool users wanting the
  sites three closed outdoor pools heated and
  fixed along with the restoration of the site
  incl. surrounding lawns and trees
• Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc
  (SunRRA) (est. Oct 2004) which prefers the
  Savesunshinepool option but is willing to
  compromise in the communitys best interests

4
Todays Hearing

• Sunshines 3 outdoor Pools have been closed since
  1992 and BCC issued applied for a permit to
  redevelop the site in Sept 2005. The process
  since has been timely.
• At the Directions Hearing Justice Morris
  suggested we engage a skilled advocate for
  todays hearing who was into town planning.
• I on behalf of local community groups agreed to
  fast track the process in the belief we could
  obtain the services of a planning consultant in
  sufficient time to prepare a well crafted case
  today.
• I am unrepresented today.
• BCC has argued that unnecessary delays and
  associated cost penalties are the reasons for its
  non agreement to a deferment of todays hearing.
  This presentation will show BCC has been the
  source of major delay throughout the life of the
  project.
• We feel that in the broader sense BCC has been a
  bit rich by pushing so hard for this hearing
  when it hasnt pushed itself to bring this long
  standing problem to a much earlier conclusion.
• I have a legal question to ask first.
• I have subpoenad the Council Architects Peddle
  Thorp in order to clarify matters
• I wish to call some witnesses to provide a wider
  community and social perspective to the this
  objection.
• Les Twentyman
• Katie Pahlow
• Simon Bureaux
• Darlene Reilly

5
Questions

• The PE Act links to the Brimbank Planning Scheme
  and MSS
• The MSS Preface on the DSE website links to the
  98-01 Council Corporate Plan (see Act 12A (4))
• Should it be linked to the current 04-08 Council
  Plan as the 98-01 plan isnt on the Council
  website only the 04-08 one?
• What minimum standard of content would be
  expected on the Council website to help inform
  the community about a project of this type?
• Council Plan 04 08 p16 - must follow
  Consultation Charter
• Councils Consultation Charter is confusing
  strong in the Introduction and softer in other
  areas - re the process to be followed for
  planning and developing major projects up to the
  point where they are placed into a statutory
  process for consideration by the Responsible
  Authority
• When in the project development continuum does
  the statutory process kick in when the Permit
  Applicant lodges plans?
• Under the Act must Brimbank City Council follow
  the prescribed process in its Consultation
  Charter for major projects prior to lodging plans
  to the Responsible Authority for consideration in
  the statutory process?
• Does the VLGA site www.vlgaconsultation.org.au
  have any weight in the project planning process?
• Does the Treasury and Finance endorsement of the
  masterplanning and cost planning process require
  Brimbank council to follow them

6
Assumption re S1, 4.1a,g and 4.2a,c,e,j of the Act

• All Victorian government public sector projects -
  like the 7M Sunshine Pool project funded by SRV
  and BCC are expected to be developed using a
  similar orderly and planned capital works
  development process to that DHS uses. It is a
  similar process to that adopted by the State
  government and the Dept Treasury and Finance
• User Group / Catchment area confirmed
• Community needs identified in service plans
• Project scoped
• Business case developed
• Concept plans worked up with stakeholders
• Project options identified, preliminary capital
  Cost Plans produced and feasibility study
  conducted
• Preferred option decided on and site
  masterplanned
• Business case reviewed and Staging plan developed
  if needed
• Schematic Designs and upgraded capital cost plan
  developed and lodged to Responsible Authority
• Design Documentation developed
• Tender documents produced

Statutory Process begins

• A similar transparent process is used
  generally as an industry standard and has been
  recently used by neighbouring Wyndham and
  Maribyrnong Councils and Greater Geelong (
  Bellarine Pool) for their pool development
  projects

7
Directions Hearing Orders

• The application for review is amended by
  substituting as the grounds of the application
  (in lieu of the letter attached to the
  application) the following
• Persons residing or owning land in the vicinity
  of the land which is the subject of the
  application for review have had insufficient
  opportunity to participate in the procedures
  required to be followed under the Planning and
  Environment Act 1987 before the responsible
  authority made a decision in respect of the
  application for a permit, in particular in that
  insufficient information was provided as to
  master plan options concerning the development of
  the subject land and nearby land, which
  information was necessary or desirable to make a
  decision about the permit application.
• (b) The grant of a permit is undesirable as it
  would make more likely the loss of an outdoor 50
  metre pool and toddlers pool, together with
  associated landscaping and trees, which would be
  detrimental to the well being of the Sunshine
  community.

8
The Site

• Historically significant
• Culturally important
• Aesthetically a landscaped oasis in the desert
• 2/3 derelict and closed off
• Highly valued by the whole community
• Fit for Purpose
• Ideally located near public transport and
  infrastructure
• Easily accessible
• High level of community ownership

9
Sunshine Pool Catchment Area

• Signed off at Reference Group
• Sunshine, N Sunshine, W Sunshine, Albion, Ardeer,
  Deer Park,
• Parts of Braybrook, Tottenham, St Albans
• Rustbucket area Herald Sun Report Dec 2005
• 57 families on low incomes
• Size Verified in Parlt by MPs 65000 people
  as big as regional Victorian centres
• Highly disadvantaged, poor, most unhealthy,
  inactive, culturally diverse, very tolerant, high
  youth unemployment, major problem gambling issues
• Poor access to active recreation programs and
  services very limited choices see SCPAG Map
• Very low swimming participation rates 33 with
  55 saying they would swim if suitable local
  water space was available

10
Reference Group process

• Chaired by MP started Sept 03 and ended Dec 03
  time pressured 6 meetings
• Good early work identifying needs for 3 pools a
  swimming pool, learn to swim pool and a leisure
  pool for a catchment of 65000 people
• Process went off rails when agreed needs scoped
  down and options studies / masterplans not agreed
  to
• Ward Councillor stated in Council meeting that
  one new small indoor pool would meet 95 local
  needs community pool groups support for plans
  withdrawn support for Stage 1 funding remained
  see 9 Dec 03 letter to chair of Reference Group
  
• Group met once more in Sept 04 when MP supported
  3 pool submission and requests for masterplan was
  tossed out by Council
• Since then there has been no mechanism for
  community engagement and the only involvement
  since has been the Meet the Architects Day on Dec
  04

11
The Pools History

• Sunshine hosted the State Swimming Championships
  in its Kororoit Creek pool in 1930s
• 3 Year community fundraising effort in 1957
  1960 for an Olympic pool after the Melbourne
  Games
• 7000 pounds plus 7000 pounds voluntary labour and
  materials supplied by community in a 60000 pound
  project
• 1 x 8 lane x 50m pool opened in 1960 and was and
  immediate and raging success
• The 50m pool was 3 feet deep at one end and 8
  feet deep at the other end and had a 1 meter high
  diving board. It served all age groups and met
  the needs of most user groups during the swimming
  season.
• Concrete aprons, lawns, learn to swim and
  toddlers pool opened soon afterwards
• Community useage massive all age groups
• Indoor 25m pool introduced in 70s
• Closed outdoor pools in 1992 due to cracking
  following lack of Council maintenance
• Major community campaign for restoration of water
  space and outdoor areas from 1992 onwards
• Wide ranging reports identifying under investment
  in sport and recreation infrastructure and
  increasing health and social issues in Sunshine
  and surrounding areas
• Community health and wellbeing has been clearly
  affected by inadequate Pool services since 1992
  the community is still bleeding

12
The Pools Water Space

• Now 450m2
• 1 x 6 lane x 25m indoor Australias most
  programmed pool
• 1994 - 1850m2 toddlers pool
• 1x 6 lane x 25m indoor pool
• 1x 8 lane x 50m pool with diving board
• 1 x learn to swim pool
• 1 x toddlers pool
• Proposed 800m2
• 1 x 6 lane x 25m indoor pool
• 1 x toddlers and 3 lane learn to swim pool

13
Y R we here 1

• I and all three groups believe the decision to
  grant a permit is premature for the following
  reasons
• The broader Sunshine community was, after the
  initial project scoping exercise, not engaged
  properly nor provided with sufficient information
  to be able to properly consider the options,
  impacts and medium - long term ramifications of
  the BCC plans for site redevelopment prior to the
  RA making its decision. The actions taken by
  Council in its process with the broader community
  was not a positive experience.
• Masterplan concept options for the site
  redevelopment developed as a result of community
  input in Dec 2004 have been deliberately withheld
  from the Sunshine community by BCC and not
  properly considered by Council in an orderly,
  efficient and transparent process before the
  decision to grant a permit was made
• SRV entered into a conditional Funding Agreement
  with BCC proper consultation and masterplanning
  were conditional funding requirements in a State
  government policy framework. Unions have holding
  bans in place for similar reasons.
• The site is historically important, culturally
  significant and highly valuable and options for
  its future use must be properly planned and
  tested. The site is the only one of its kind
  left in the area and its proper longer term
  redevelopment is vital to future community
  strengthening and wellbeing. The site is much
  more than a swimming pool its our Opera House.
• There is a need to develop the land under a fair
  and orderly process that delivers economic and
  sustainable use while respecting its historical
  and cultural importance and balancing the present
  and future interests of all Sunshine Pool
  catchment area residents (PE Act 1, 4.1
  a,c,d,f,g)
• The current plan does not adequately replace
  waterspace previously available to the Sunshine
  pool community for many decades. It may be better
  to have a 50m heated outdoor pool and surrounds
  like the twin Harold Holt pool at Glen Eira than
  have a small shallow indoor pool as a replacement
  
• The BCC and SRV 7M investment in redevelopment
  is unanimously supported by the Sunshine
  community. The current plans, lack of a proper
  feasibility options study and associated
  masterplan and the negative actions taken by BCC
  in the planning process ( PE Act 4.2 g) in order
  to make its decision has divided our community
  down the middle

14
Y r we here 2

• Unfair and Disorderly Planning Process
• The BCC project scoping exercise in its 2003
  Reference Group was highly problematic
• The Western Region Aquatic strategy was based on
  a flawed planning assumption
• Maribyrnong / Highpoint Pool plans and underlying
  planning assumptions (Panels Victoria Report Mar
  2004) have never been provided to the Sunshine
  pools community by either BCC or Maribyrnong
  Council in a consultation process despite key
  service planning assumptions being made by both
  Councils.
• BCC hasnt done any proper feasibility studies of
  the options for redeveloping our pools incl.
  fixing and heating our 3 closed outdoor pools
• we dont know what to think about BCCs current
  plans for our water spaces and outdoor spaces and
  our site and their plans to have us travel out of
  area for a swim on a regular basis
• BCC hasnt informed or involved us properly to
  enable us to potentially influence its key
  decisions about its plans for our pools
• BCC hasnt fed back the collective community
  views and options we all gave PTA at the Meet
  the Architects Day in Dec 2004 thats purpose
  was to develop preliminary plans
• BCC hid PTAs masterplans while launching final
  plans to the local media in April 2005 without
  any validation or input by the community
• BCC simply wont develop feasibility studies and
  masterplan options with us so we can all be
  properly informed about the best way forward with
  our site and our pools
• we believe that BCC has no intention of further
  developing our pools beyond the current plans and
  is hiding its true intentions
• BCC has processed a poor quality Aquatics
  Strategy one year late that excluded
  consideration of any further development at
  Sunshine Pool beyond the current plans and months
  after it had launched the final plans for our
  pools and still has no clear plan for the sites
  future
• we feel there will be a significant impact on the
  future health and wellbeing of our highly
  disadvantaged community if a permit is granted
  for these plans prematurely

15
What the Community Thinks

• Its been hung out to dry in an extraordinary
  planning process that has been full of delays,
  been non strategic, disjointed, exclusive, and
  potentially harmful to the community
• The Council has a clear mindset for as small an
  indoor pool / investment it can make and is
  relying on an acknowledged flawed regional pool
  strategy
• The VCAT Hearing about the Pool will be a very
  difficult one to present all its examples of
  exclusion however the extent to which the Acts
  purpose and objectives have been flaunted seems
  extraordinary
• Insufficient info was provided to the Sunshine
  community prior to determination of the
  application to enable the community to adequately
  participate in the planning process as
  contemplated by the Planning and Environment
  Act..
• the Council's decision to grant a permit was
  definitely premature and uninformed by proper
  site master planning and evaluation processes.
• With less than 1/3 rd of the site being used in
  the proposed plan over 2/3 of the site's future
  use is unknown. This is definitely not a
  masterplan as defined in DHS / Victorian
  government capital development guidelines.
• It is losing its closed outdoor pools having a
  small shallow indoor pool replacement for the
  long term and is totally unclear about how the
  rest of the site is planned to be developed in
  the future.
• A feasibility study may show it is better value
  to invest 2.9M in restoring heated outdoor pools
  than 2.1m in a small indoor pool with limited
  useability by different age groups
• The community doesnt know what to think about
  the current plans to redevelop the site
• The community could argue the planned
  redevelopment shouldn't occur because its better
  overall to have a 50m heated outdoor pool (like
  many pools now have including Sunshine's twin
  sister pool in Glen Eira) than have a small
  indoor learn to swim and program pool.
• The way the matter has been dealt with, the
  community was unable to participate properly
• That a staged redevelopment of the communitys
  preferred option would be fine when funding was
  available so feasibility study the options,
  masterplan the communitys preferred option and
  cost it properly before Stage 1 begins

16
Community Political Support

• MPs Mildenhall and Languiller Hansard 1 April
  2004
• Sunshine International Womens Group
• Jackson St Special School
• 4000 signature petition
• Marches, rallies, forums, submissions and
  presentations by community pool groups but
  virtually nil from Council
• SCPAG - SSLC Future Outcomes Paper Oct 04 says
  it all but nothing changed

17
Maribyrnong (Highpoint) Pool Myths

• Western region strategy flawed for Sunshine
  survey table shows only 6 residents use the
  Sunshine Pool - rest go out of area with a swim
• BCC uses data to justify scoping down Sunshine
  water space
• Later studies prove it completely wrong see
  Reference Group report by SGL Consulting and
  Aquatic strategy data
• BCC ignores later study findings and own surveys
  showing 55 of people want to swim if water
  available locally 40 more swimmers - up from
  current very low 33 participation levles
• Business case flags 19 of Maribyrnong useage to
  come from Brimbank mainly Sunshine postcode (11)
  see Panels Victoria report Apr 2004
• There will not be enough additional water space
  at Maribyrnong to cover its population and large
  populations from Moonee Valley and Brimbank.
  There is effectively one 25m pool more than
  currently exists at Footscray and much of the
  pool time will be taken up by regional or
  specialist sports such as competitions, water
  polo etc. The average leisure swimmer will have
  limited access see The Age p4 4 Jan 2006
• Assumes people will drive cars from Deer Park,
  West Sunshine etc or catch limited public
  transport with time and cost penalties over and
  above a local swim
• New survey in Herald Sun shows Sunshine one of
  top four areas feeling the pinch at the petrol
  pump no money left for recreation etc. after
  filling up
• BCC ignores SCPAG presentation re Aquatic
  Strategy detailing myths re Maribyrnong and BCC
  Aquatic Strategy asssumptions
• Ascot Vale being redeveloped as a district pool
  when 2k from Maribyrnong Pool
• BCC developing Sunshines water space as a local
  pool when 5 k away and a poorer less affluent
  area and less able to travel. Wont discuss
  rationale for decision with the community.

18
Measures of Community WellBeing

• Health
• Happiness
• Motivation
• Activity
• Participation Levels
• Satisfaction
• Self esteem
• Tolerance
• Crime
• Poverty
• Unity / Integration
• See Municipal Public Health Plan 2004 -06 p6
• Has access to a wide range of community based,
  Council and private service and program
  opportunities

19
Media Activity

• Ongoing for 12 years
• No 1 issue in Sunshine
• Front page The Age 4 Jan 2006
• Folders full of stories of widespread community
  anger
• Ongoing pools debate since
• Other communities / Councils are taking different
  stance to Brimbank and value pools highly
• BCC putting out mixed messages via media - adding
  to confusion rather than consulting openly

20
Community witnesses

• Les Twentyman OAM - past resident, youth worker,
  social commentator
• Katie Pahlow - resident, pool user, SCPAG member,
  Swimming Club member, community rep on Reference
  Group
• Simon Bereux - resident, pool user,
  Savesunshinepool member, IT professional
• Darlene Reilly new resident, pool user, SunRRA
  member

21
Strengthen Consultation Process CEO Request
Pool Groups Responses

• Pool Groups joint response to CEO request
  following ongoing community questioning in
  Council meetings - see email 22 Oct 2004
• Pool Groups proactive process response to CEO
  following very positive Meet the Architects Day 4
  Dec 2004
• Council never responded again to either of the
  pool groups responses
• Still waiting for it all to happen

22
Council Architects - Peddle Thorp

• Very experienced in pool developments
• Hastings, Bellarine, MSAC pools
• Engaged October 04 six months after Better Pools
  funding announcement another long delay
• Involved in concept review process with community
  Dec 04
• Produced 5 masterplan concept options for Council
  consideration in Feb 05
• Produced final plans for Council media launch
  in April 05

23
Planning Schemes and Policies

• As per Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit
  P244/2005
• Unclear about MSS / 04-08 Council Plan /
  Consultation Charter issue

24
Issues with Permit Applicants Process and Plans 1

• No proper consultation to enable informed
  consideration of plans and future site
  development opportunities
• Mixed messages in media and BCC publications
• No connection to Sunshine Structural Planning
  2030 principal activity centre process compare
  to Greensborough which has included pool planning
• No discussion at all with community after 4 Dec
  session with PTA
• Disabled and aged people with skin and mobility
  problems want a more cost efficient and effective
  saltwater pool complex but are being fobbed off
  by BCC
• Youth not engaged at all
• Process for Councils 4 Committees approval of
  final plans?
• How was Councillors approval of final plans
  obtained?

25
Issues with Permit Applicants Process and Plans 2

• Notice of Decision - all plans below are being
  settled after the permit is granted without any
  community input not a fair and reasonable
  process has a common theme to it
• No identification of planned services and
  programs, schedules, hours of opening,
  availability of access for people with different
  age, sex and cultural backgrounds first
  requested in 2000
• Demolition no discussion with community about
  trees, facilities for demolition or leaving
  historical markers behind
• Site management plan has no community input or
  validation process past present or future
• External and Carpark / Street Lighting plan non
  existent
• Landscaping before occupation of the
  development starts - has no community input or
  validation process no clarity about shaded
  areas from buildings or future landscaping
• Traffic Transport Management Plan submitted
  before use starts no community input or
  validation
• Engineering no clarity about how a first stage
  might interface with a preferred second stage
  option potentially very wasteful no hydrology
  plans for watering outdoor areas
• No asset management strategy or plans the last
  pools busted due to poor maintenance regimes a
  prescribed planned asset maintenance strategy
  must be endorsed with these plans
• No noise management plans

26
Plans of Concern 1

• 04C
• No identification of roof water tank storage /
  retention areas for watering landscaped areas
  potentially barren outdoor areas
• 06D
• Outdoor pools to be demolished without any
  clarity re adequate level of water space
  replacement for future generations
• Potentially significant historical and cultural
  loss and impact on future community wellbeing
• 07C
• Mature Trees being removed for no good reason
  22 and 19
• 08D
• Lack of trees in outdoor area
• Site useage large part of site in SE corner
  potentially wasted no alternatives to dividing
  site in half with new EW building provided
• No independent value management studies conducted
  

27
Plans of Concern 2

• 09D
• Creche areas landscaping and equipment,
  management plan unknown
• Pool management plans unknown
• Disaster / emergency management plans unclear
• 013D
• Water depths,treatment and temperatures unknown
• Water treatment plans to avoid Windy Hill Pool
  health issues unknown
• 16D Aerial Perspective
• Outdoor community area
• landscaping and functional useage assumptions
  unclear
• Potential barren dustbowl
• Fencing / community and child safety concerns
• Community safety at SE corner of site
• 18D
• Notes dont provide community with clarity as
  they have not been discussed at all so they can
  be understood

28
Submission

• The Permit Applicant, as identified through this
  Hearing, has provided an extraordinary landmark
  case study on how not to develop a significant
  project. The delays and stop / start include /
  exclude process has frustrated all.
• The spirit and intent of the Acts purpose and
  objectives have not been complied with nor have
  other provisions. There are administrative
  matters like SRVs conditional Funding Agreement
  that need testing there.
• The planning authority has not been fair and
  orderly in its planning process, nor has it
  provided a MSS consistent with the current
  corporate plan as required under the Act see
  DSE website
• The responsible authority should have sought more
  information from the permit applicant
• The Sunshine Pool community has been unable to
  properly assess the impact of the site
  redevelopment plans prior to the decision being
  made as masterplan options and other essential
  information has not been provided in the BCC
  process prior to the lodging of plans
• Final plans have been launched in Apr 05 by the
  permit applicant without proper reference back to
  the community.
• The displayed plans and the other four
  masterplanning options have not been validated
  with the Sunshine community
• The site is an important historical and cultural
  asset that has been proven vital to community
  strengthening and wellbeing
• Less than 1/3 site will be used and 2/3 will
  remain idle. Many Sunshine people believe it
  would be better value to the community to
  reinstate and heat the outdoor pools (like Harold
  Holt twin pool) and reinstate the outdoor areas
  rather than acquire a small shallow indoor pool
  and have a comparatively barren outdoor site.
• The wellbeing of the Sunshine community is likely
  to be adversely affected into the long term by
  the site redevelopment planned
• The Permit Applicant has provided insufficient
  information to the Sunshine community prior to
  determination of the application to enable the
  community to adequately participate in the
  planning process as contemplated by the Planning
  and Environment Act.
• The relevant provisions of the Act that have not
  been complied with are
• S1 4.1a,c,d,f,g 4.2 a,c,e,g,I 12.1a,b
  12.3a,b,c 12A 4 14c
• 54. 1
• S 84B 2(f) and S 52 are the relevant provisions
  underpinning this submission there may be
  others an expert can identify

29
Conclusion

• The Tribunal not grant a permit for the
  redevelopment of Sunshine Pool site
• That the Tribunal direct that a proper
  feasibility study and masterplan process be
  undertaken in accord with Victorian public sector
  policy standards and a report provided to the
  Sunshine Pool community on the outcomes within
  four months
• That the Tribunal direct that the Sunshine Pool
  catchment area population be properly consulted
  and be involved appropriately in decision making
  on the preferred future site redevelopment option
  for the long term
• That the Tribunal direct that DVC / SRV take over
  the role of planning authority and independently
  prosecute the project as the Sunshine community
  has lost trust in its Council

30

• Thank You