Item of correspondence Agenda item o.o Kate Sullivan FuW · PDF file ·...

Item of correspondence Agenda item o.o

Kate Sullivan FuW.1

Subject: FW: Circus policy

—Original Message From: Michael Scibilia rmailto:[email protected] Sent: Monday, 15 February 2016 9:39 AM To: Robert Doyle Subject: Circus policy

Dear Lord Mayor,

I am writing in regard to the proposal to ban exotic circus animals, as reported in today's Herald Sun.

This ban would be completely unnecessary. Firstly, all Australian circuses are licensed businesses that are governed by animal welfare legislation and regularly inspected by the RSPCA. These existing licensing and governance structures mean the welfare of animals is always being monitored, making outright council bans excessively harsh and prohibitive.

I understand that some people have concerns with animals being in circuses, but why would the City of Melbourne be striving to deprive our freedom of choice? Those with concerns can continue to boycott, and those who remain supportive of circuses can continue to enjoy a form of wholesome family entertainment. Isn't that fair?

Take a walk to the Arts Centre and look at the mosaic dedicated to Wirth's Circus. This circus was a staple of Melbourne's performing arts culture and featured a myriad of exotic animals. The mosaic acknowledges the cultural significance of Wirth's, so why would the council want to suddenly end the continuation of that tradition by becoming an opponent of animal circuses? This city is about promoting live entertainment, not stifling it!

The other point to make is that the Herald Sun report mentions the proposed ban would include elephants and tigers. No circuses in Australia have elephants and tigers! The Melbourne Zoo, however, has elephants and tigers. Does that mean the zoo should be banned?

We have two circuses in Australia with lions, but those particular cats have been born in Australian captivity for over 20 generations. If the circuses no longer have anywhere to perform, the lions would probably be moved to a zoo where they will no longer be with the people who have cared for them since they were born. This would not be in the lions' best interests.

I sincerely thank you for your time and urge you not to vote in favour of the proposed ban.

May the show go on,

Michael

l

Item of correspondence Agenda item 6.9

Future Melbourne Committee

Kate Sullivan 16 February 2016

From: CoM Meetings Sent: Sunday, 14 February 2016 8:14 PM To: *Gov & Leg - Council Business (Team) Subject: FW: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#559]

From: Wufoo Sent: Sunday, 14 February 2016 8:13:29 PM (UTC+10:00) Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney To: CoM Meetings Subject: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#559]

Name: * Michael Kennedy

Email address: * [email protected]

Contact phone number (optional): 0414347537

Please indicate which meeting you would like Future Melbourne Committee meeting

to make a submission to by selecting the

appropriate button: *

Date of meeting: Tuesday 16 February 2016

Agenda item title: 6.9 Program of actions for the conduct of the 2016 Melbourne City

Council Elections

Alternatively you may attach your written

submission by uploading your file here: A corbaJetterhead 2016.pdf 520.72 KB • PDF

Please indicate whether you would like to

address the Future Melbourne Committee in

support of your submission:

No

(No opportunity is provided for submitters to

be heard at Council meetings.) *

Privacy acknowledgement: I have read and acknowledge how Council will use and disclose my

personal information.

1

CoRBA - Melbourne Coalition of Residents and Business Associations

Carlton Residents Association Inc.; Collins Street Precinct; Docklands Chamber of Commerce; Docklands Residents Association; East Enders Inc.; East Melbourne Group Inc.; Flemington Association; Hardware

Precinct Residents and Tenants Group; Hosier Inc.; Kensington Association; Melbourne South Yarra Group Inc.; North and West Melbourne Association Inc.; Parkville Association Inc.; Parkville Gardens Residents; Residents 3000 Inc.; Southbank Residents Association Inc.; Yarra Park Association; The

Pasley Streets Precinct Group; Wesley Historic Precinct Action Group; Wilkinson Publishing; Yarra Park Association

14 February 2016

Dear Councillors

Future Melbourne Committee meeting 16 February 2016 Item 6.9 Program of actions for the conduct of the 2016 Melbourne City Council Elections

I write to you, in regard to the above, as the Chair of the Coalition of Resident and Business Associations (CoRBA). CoRBA is comprised of over 20 organisations representing a constituency of 35,000 voters in the City of Melbourne.

In its submission to the State Government's 2015 Local Government Review, CoRBA stated:

The CoM is a small electorate of only 37 square kilometres. It has Victoria's best public and private transport infrastructure and, unlike some suburban or regional municipalities, there is little physical or geographical impediment to attending a voting booth. Whereas, logistics and the residential built form of the electorate of the CoM create difficulties in the administration of a postal-only ballot.

Postal-only voting is inappropriate for the significant and increasing percentage of voters who reside in in the municipality.

High and medium density living is increasing across the entire municipality and is the predominant form in major CoM population centres such as the CBD, Docklands, Southbank, and St Kilda Road and will also be the norm in the proposed two large new suburbs of E-Gate and Fisherman's Bend. Apartment complexes generally have strict security access arrangements including mail delivery and visitors. Some of these complexes may have upwards of several thousand residents, the equivalent of a small country town.

The CoM also has the greatest concentration of public housing estates in Victoria; each tower within each estate has its own delivery and mailroom security issues. In 2008, at a very high cost, the VEC had to make extraordinary special private (non-Australia Post) arrangements for delivery of ballot papers to such dwellings due to the Office of Housings ban on political canvassing on housing estates. In such cases access negotiations had to be made with the Office of Housing for the special delivery of electoral material and ballot papers to public housing tenants.

An increase in apartment dwelling comes with an increase in the potential for lost ballots papers due to delivery problems. As was seen in 2012 CoM elections there is also increased security concerns with ballot pack deliveries to apartment blocks exposing ballot papers to vote-harvesting scams and theft.

The CoM also has the largest concentration of homelessness in Victoria, the present system ofpostal-only voting serves to further marginalise and exclude the homeless from

1


Future Melbourne Committee 16 February 2016

Kate Sullivan

From: CoM Meetings Sent: Monday, 15 February 2016 9:15 AM To: *Gov & Leg - Council Business (Team) Subject: FW: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#561]

From: Wufoo Sent: Monday, 15 February 2016 9:14:17 AM (UTC+10:00) Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney To: CoM Meetings Subject: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#561]

Name: * Yolande Leonardi


Contact phone number (optional): 0419 390 936




Date of meeting: * Tuesday 1 6 February 2016

Agenda item title: * 6.9 Program of actions for the conduct of the 2016 Melbourne City

Council Elections

Please write your submission in the space

provided below and submit bv no later than

noon on the dav of the scheduled meeting. We

encourage you to make your submission as

early as possible.

Dear Councillors,

I would like to advocate that Council adopt an ATTENDANCE voting model

for the forthcoming election, consistent with that used in Commonwealth

and Victorian elections, also with the provision for postal voting.

This does not seem an unreasonable request given the housing model in

CoM where most often multiples of residents live at the one address.

CoRBA has addressed this more broadly, and, as coordinator of that

group, I support their submission.

Thanking you,

Yolande Leonardi

Resident

1

Please indicate whether you would like to No



{No opportunity is provided for submitters to


Privacy acknowledgement: * I have read and acknowledge how Council will use and disclose my


2



Kate Sullivan

From: CoM Meetings Sent: Monday, 15 February 2016 12:28 AM To: *Gov & Leg - Council Business (Team) Subject: FW: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#560]

From: Wufoo Sent: Monday, 15 February 2016 12:28:13 AM (UTC+10:00) Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney To: CoM Meetings Subject: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#560]

Name: * Rilke Muir

Email address: [email protected]

Contact phone number (optional): 0424 468 486





Agenda item title: * 6.9 Program of actions for the conduct of the 2016 Melbourne City

Council Elections


submission by uploading your file here: -J*!" fmc_ 16.2.201 6. item_6.9.pdf 113.83 KB • PDF




No

(No opportunity is provided for submitters to




l

Kensington Association.

15 Feb 2016

Future Melbourne Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 Agenda Item 6.9 6.9 Program of actions for the conduct of the 2016 Melbourne City Council Elections

The Kensington Association wishes to indicate its support for the position taken by CoRBA on this matter in calling for attendance voting.

Along with attendance voting, we believe that optional postal voting should not only be available to corporate, offshore, interstate, and non-resident ratepayers who do not reside in the municipality but also to those residents that will be absent at polling time or are unable to attend physically due to infirmity, age etc., as per State and Federal elections.

With the permanent residential population of the City of Melbourne's suburbs increasing rapidly we suggest that this is the most appropriate model and would expect Council to make facilities in the CBD, the Kensington Town Hall and any suitable council-run locations in Carlton, Docklands and South Yarra available as polling stations.

We would also like a Council-hosted opportunity to meet the plethora of candidates that will no doubt be attracted to this Council's election. We suggest this would be the most democratic and cost-effective candidate introduction method, and in keeping with the open council style we so much admire.

I suggest a 'market style' session at the Melbourne Town Hall, where voters can move between candidates' 'stalls' and actually meet them all, rather than a parade of short speeches. Perhaps sessions could be held on two or three evenings, say, 5-7pm; and/or a weekend session as well.

Sincerely,

Rilke Muir Secretary Kensington Association

• Reg No A0036596B • ABN 46442812068 ® www.kensingtonassociation.org.au • PO Box 1208 Kensington Vic 3031

Page 1 of 1

Kate Sullivan

Item of correspondence/Item of correspondence Agenda item 6.2


From: Sent: To: Subject:

CoM Meetings Tuesday, 16 February 2016 11:55 AM *Gov & Leg - Council Business (Team) FW: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#569]

From: Wufoo Sent: Tuesday, 16 February 2016 11:55:03 AM (UTC+10:00) Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney To: CoM Meetings Subject: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#569]

which meeting

you would like to

make a

submission to by

selecting the

appropriate

button: *

Date of meeting: * Tuesday 16 February 2016

Agenda item title: Agenda Item 6.2 Ministerial Planning Referral: TPM-201 3-30/A 84-90 Queens Bridge Street, Southbank

Please write your Please find attached my submission,

submission in the

space provided I also wish to speak on this submission,

below and submit

bv no later than

noon on the dav

of the scheduled

Name: * Tony Penna


Contact phone 9028 2774

number (optional):

Please indicate Future Melbourne Committee meeting

1

meeting. We

encourage you to

make your

submission as

early as possible.

Alternatively you

may attach your

written

submission by

uploading your

file here:

Please indicate

whether you

would like to

address the Future

Melbourne

Committee in

support of your

submission:

(No opportunity is

provided for

submitters to be

heard at Council

meetings.) *

Privacy I have read and acknowledge how Council will use and disclose my personal information,

acknowledgement:

Adobe

submission__fmc_meetinq no. 75 .agenda item 6.2 ministerial_planninq_referral_tpm201 330_a_8490_g

84.03 KB • PDF

Yes

2

PO Box 1195 South Melbourne VIC 3205

Phone: 03 9028 2774

ABN 58 986 783 321 Cert, of Inc. A0036364B

[email protected]

www.southbankresidents.com.au Southbank .. _ o s Associ " n

Submission to Future Melbourne Committee

City of Melbourne, Council Meeting Room, Melbourne Town Hall Administration Building

16 Feb 2016, 5.30pm - Meeting No.75 Agenda Item 6.2 Ministerial Planning Referral: TPM-2013-30/A 84-90 Queens Bridge Street, Southbank

Southbank Residents Association cannot support this application.

This development should not have been approved in the first place at a height of 174 meters in a zone with a discretionary height limit of 100 meters.

This development is almost double that of approved developments in its immediate proximity, therefore not fitting with the desired built form outcomes.

Southbank Residents Association trust Councilors' will concur with the planning officer's recommendation.

Tony Penna President Southbank Residents Association

Printed and circulated with the assistance of a Melbourne City Council community grant

Kate Sullivan

. iyoi lua item 6.3 Future Melbourne Committee

16 February 2016


CoM Meetings Monday, 15 February 2016 11:45 PM *Gov & Leg - Council Business (Team) FW: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#565]

From: Wufoo Sent: Monday, 15 February 2016 11:44:46 PM (UTC+10:00) Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney To: CoM Meetings Subject: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#565]

Name: *

Email address: *

Kensington Association

[email protected]





Date of meeting: *

Agenda item title: *

Tuesday 16 February 2016

6.3 Flemington Life Planning Scheme Amendment


submission by uploading your file here: submission__to_the_future_melbourne_planninq_committee.docx

24.85 KB • DOCX




No



Privacy acknowledgement: I have read and acknowledge how Council will use and disclose my


1

Item 6.3. Submission to the Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee re: The Flemington Life Planning Scheme Amendment C290 and GC40

Submitted by The Kensington Association Contact: Hedley Moffat. 21 Drury Street Kensington 3031 Mobile: 0419 001 830 E-Mail: [email protected]

The City of Melbourne draft submission to the Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) has identified key issues with the proposed Planning Scheme Amendments and Comprehensive Development Zone and its associated Comprehensive Development Plan.

These issues concern development density, urban design in aspects such as building form and height, provision for infrastructure and community facilities, lack of affordable housing and lack of attention to sustainability issues.

A further concern has been outlined highlighting the proposed flexibility in the Planning Controls which will not "provide the community with certainty in regard to the ultimate form of the development and does not ensure an appropriate design response".

The Kensington Association concurs with the City of Melbourne response and is currently developing a submission to the Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) which highlights similar concerns. These are focused on excessive and inappropriate development, loss of amenity and negative community impacts and lack of supporting infrastructure.

Of particular concern to the Association are the proposed Planning Controls and what impact they will have on the community for the present and the future. Within these concerns are questions of what development is planned or likely to occur beyond that proposed in the current Planning Scheme Amendments for a Comprehensive Development Zone (CDZ).

The draft City of Melbourne submission supports the use of a CDZ and incorporated Comprehensive Development Plan for the site, though with reservations.

These reservations outlined in the draft submission are significant noting that:

(a) consideration does not go beyond the development sites and does not consider character and context in the local setting instead only considering the appropriateness of the development for the racecourse;

l

(b) the lack of certainty about the nature of proposed uses and exempts third party notice and appeal for section 2 (permit required) uses without a land use plan being included as part of the incorporated document;

(c) lack of certainty about the nature of the development including the need for heights, setbacks and pedestrian and vehicle access points and movement paths;

(d) the need for guidance on how discretion should be exercised; (e) the need for Section 173 agreements for physical infrastructure, development

contributions and affordable housing; (f) for the Comprehensive Development Plans there is a need for specific design

criteria and adequate guidelines to ensure a quality with clear guidelines and performance measures.

These reservations are extensive and critical comments on the proposal. The Kensington Association believes that while such issues exist, the support of the CDZ by the City of Melbourne, should not proceed. Consideration of whether a CDZ should be supported in the future rests upon the response to the specific concerns to the schedules to the CDZ raised by the City of Melbourne draft submission.

The Kensington Association opposes the use of the CDZ on the basis that it is both unnecessary and inappropriate given the intention of the CDZ is to facilitate high density residential and commercial uses, which are neither, required or suited to the Flemington Life proposals for the Flemington Green and Epsom sites.

The Association agrees that both sites can sustain a form of development that includes a degree of height. For Flemington Green the MAC noted that the existing racecourse grandstand was 12 to 14 storeys high. Advice to the Kensington Association is that a similar height with its associated density is possible to achieve through the use of a General Residential Zone (GRZ). For part of this site a residential zoning is already in place.The Epsom site is currently zoned as Special Use which prohibits residential development. It is accepted that a rezoning is necessary if residential development is to occur. Here the proposal has requested a CDZ to"facilitate high and/or medium density urban development supported by a mix of limited complimentary uses including commercial and retail".

Due to the limitations on the size of the site, its proximity to the Epsom Rd, Racecourse Road and Ascot Vale Road roundabout, difficulties in accessing the site, limitations in visitor and delivery parking and the large residential component of the site lead to the conclusion that little commercial and retail activity is feasible. Similarly questions about the size, height and built form lead to the conclusion that a re-zoning to a GRZ would suffice to enable a residential outcome for the site.

2

To support this, a relevant case, is the current development of the residential high-rise at 1 Ascot Vale Road opposite the Epsom site. This development is 21 storeys, 71 metres high, providing 346 units along with mixed use activity on the site. Strongly opposed by the community it was finally approved by VCAT and is zoned as General Residential 1.

Further concerns are that a CDZ removes the need for the developer to consult the community about actual building development plans and the right of the community to seek redress if planned developments are not acceptable. This leads to uncertainty in the community, lack of oversight, the fear of future unfettered and uncontrolled development and the loss of character for a unique feature, the Flemington Racecourse itself.

Also telling is the question of the need for such extreme planning outcomes for these sites. Need is expressed solely in the needs of the Victoria Racing Club and the vision is expressed solely in terms of the inward looking need for a new members grandstand and the prominence of the Flemington Racecourse and the Cup Carnival.

The Proposal does not examine and justify the need for such large accommodation outcomes in this location nor does it engage with Plan Melbourne Refresh's emphasis on people, building community and a liveable city that accommodates and promotes the needs of its residents.

The Kensington Association acknowledges development but not on such a scale and not with the use of a CDZ when other zoning regimes can deliver more appropriate and justifiable residential developments on both sites.

The Kensington Association wishes to raise concerns about the process that has applied to this proposal. Many residents only became aware of the proposal when they received notification from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning on 11 January 2016. This severely restricted the time that residents had to determine their responses to the proposal.

Additionally the notification was limited to 2000 Kensington residents primarily in Lynch's Bridge and Kensington Banks. The City of Melbourne had and has not provided information to these residents, or the wider Kensington community that the proposal existed. A reference to the two planning scheme amendments on the web site was the limit of the information provided.

While it can be stated that the Minister of Planning is the responsible authority for this application the fact remains that the Flemington racecourse is inside the boundary of the City of Melbourne and residents need to be advised of such proposals. The City of Moonee Valley has done this and being doing it since 2014.

3

Kate Sullivan

/agenda item 6.3 Future Melbourne Committee

16 February 2016


CoM Meetings Tuesday, 16 February 2016 11:43 AM *Gov & Leg - Council Business (Team) FW: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#568]


Name: * Francisca Araneda







Agenda item title: Item 6.3. Submission to the Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee re:

The Flemington Life Planning Scheme Amendment C290 and GC40

Please write your submission in the space Please disregard previous submission by the Kensington Association. This

provided below and submit bv no later than is the final version.

noon on the dav of the scheduled meeting. We

encourage you to make your submission as

early as possible.


submission by uploading your file here: final_submission_to_com.doc 94.50 KB • DOC

Please indicate whether you would like to Yes



l





2


Item 6.3. Submission to the Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee re: The Flemiraqton Life Planning Scheme Amendment C290 and GC40

The City of Melbourne draft submission to the Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) has identified key issues with the proposed Planning Scheme Amendments and Comprehensive Development Zone (CDZ) and its associated Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP).

These issues concern development density, lack of urban design in aspects such as building form and height, no provision for infrastructure and community facilities, lack of affordable housing and lack of attention to sustainability issues.

A further concern has been outlined highlighting the proposed flexibility in the Planning Controls which will not "provide the community with certainty in regard to the ultimate form of the development and does not ensure an appropriate design response". It also exempts third party notice and appeal rights for section 2 uses.

The Kensington Association shares the City of Melbourne's concerns and is currently developing a submission to the MAC which highlights similar concerns/issues. These are focused on excessive and inappropriate development, loss of amenity and negative community impacts, lack of supporting infrastructure and inadequate public consultation.

Of particular concern to the Association is the lack of certainty and planning controls within the CDZ and what impact they will have on the community for the present and the future. Within these concerns are questions of what development is planned or likely to occur beyond that proposed in the current Planning Scheme Amendments for a CDZ.

The draft City of Melbourne submission supports the use of a CDZ and incorporated CDP for the site, though with reservations.

These reservations outlined in the draft submission are significant noting that:

a) consideration does not go beyond the development sites and does not consider character and context in the local setting instead only considering the appropriateness of the development for the racecourse;

b) the Schedules do not provide certainty about the nature of proposed uses and exempts third party notice and appeal for section 2 (permit required) uses without a land use plan being included as part of the incorporated document;

c) lack of certainty about the nature of the development including the need for heights, setbacks and pedestrian and vehicle access points and movement paths;

d) the need for guidance on how discretion should be exercised; e) the need for Section 173 agreements for physical infrastructure, development contributions and

affordable housing; and f) CDP principles are too general and there is a need for specific design criteria and adequate

guidelines to ensure a quality development with clear guidelines and performance measures.

• Reg No A0036596B • ABN 46442812068 • www.kensingtooassociation.org.ay

• PO Box 1208 Kensington Vic 3031 Page 1

Kensington Association

These reservations are extensive and critical comments on the proposal. The Kensington Association believes that while such issues exist, the support of the CDZ by the City of Melbourne should not proceed. Consideration of whether a CDZ should be supported in the future rests upon the response to the specific concerns to the schedules to the CDZ raised by the City of Melbourne's draft submission.

The Kensington Association opposes the use of the CDZ on the basis that it is both unnecessary and inappropriate given the intention of the CDZ is to facilitate high density residential and commercial uses, which are neither, required nor suited to the Flemington Green and Epsom sites.

The Association agrees that both sites can sustain a form of development that includes a degree of height. For Flemington Green the MAC noted that the existing racecourse grandstand is 12 to 14 storeys high. Advice to the Kensington Association is that a similar height with its associated density is possible to achieve through the use of a General Residential Zone (GRZ). For part of this site a residential zoning is already in place.

The Epsom site is currently zoned as Special Use which prohibits residential development. It is accepted that a rezoning is necessary if residential development is to occur. Here the proposal has requested a CDZ to "facilitate high and/or medium density urban development supported by a mix of limited complimentary uses including commercial and retail".

Due to the limitations on the size of the site, its proximity to the Epsom Rd, Racecourse Road and Ascot Vale Road roundabout, difficulties in accessing the site, limitations in visitor and delivery parking and the large residential component of the site lead to the conclusion that little commercial and retail activity is feasible. Similarly questions about the size, height and built form lead to the conclusion that a re-zoning to a GRZ would suffice to enable a satisfactory residential outcome for the site.

To support this, a relevant case is the current development of the residential high-rise at 1 Ascot Vale Road opposite the Epsom site. This development is 21 storeys, 71 meters high, providing 346 units along with mixed use activity on the site. Strongly opposed by the community it was finally approved by VCAT and is zoned as General Residential 1.

Further concerns are that a CDZ removes the need for the developer to consult the community about actual building development plans and the right of the community to seek redress if planned developments are not acceptable. This leads to uncertainty in the community, lack of oversight, the fear of future unfettered and uncontrolled development and the loss of character for a unique feature, the Flemington Racecourse itself.

Also telling is the question of the need for such extreme planning outcomes for these sites. Need is expressed solely in terms of the needs of the Victoria Racing Club and the Proposal's vision is expressed solely in terms of the inward looking need for a new members grandstand and the prominence of the Flemington Racecourse and the Cup Carnival. No consideration has been given to appropriate design and planning outcomes.

Moreover, the Proposal does not examine and justify the need for such large accommodation outcomes in this location nor does it engage with Plan Melbourne Refresh's emphasis on people, building community and a liveable city that accommodates and promotes the needs of its residents.

The Kensington Association supports development but not on such a scale and not with the use of a CDZ when other zoning regimes can deliver more appropriate and justifiable residential developments on both sites.

PO Box 1208 Kensington Vic Page 2


The Association also wishes to raise concerns about the process that has applied to this proposal. Many residents only became aware of the proposal when they received notification from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning on 11 January 2016. This severely restricted the time that residents had to review over 1000 pages of documents, maps and designs and determine their responses to the proposal.

Additionally the notification was limited to 2000 Kensington residents primarily in Lynch's Bridge and Kensington Banks. Information provided by the City of Melbourne to its residents has been limited to date despite the significant impact the Proposal will have on local infrastructure and community facilities. While it can be stated that the Minister of Planning is the responsible authority for this application the fact remains that the Flemington racecourse is inside the boundary of the City of Melbourne and residents need to be advised of such proposals. The City of Moonee Valley has done this and has being doing this since 2014.

© Reg No MD036596B © ABN 46442812068 ® www.kensingtonassociation.org.au

• PO Box 1208 Kensington Vic 3031



Kate Sullivan

Subject: FW: Councils Proposed "Ban on Exotic Animal Circuses

From: Raymond Deller fmailto:[email protected] Sent: Monday, 15 February 2016 7:04 PM To: Robert Doyle Subject: Councils Proposed "Ban on Exotic Animal Circuses

Cr Robert Doyal,

Mayor,

City of Melbourne

Dear Mr Doyal,

It has been bought to my attension that your Council will debate this issue on Tuesday.

I am currently in Geelong Hospital and have been since last Thursday and now in isolation or I would come in

person to meet you tomorrow.

Firstly I understand that a Greens Council has put forward this idea so there are "NO EXOTICS WITHIN OUR

CITY", does this mean the Royal Melbourne Zoo will be next ??

Secondly has anyone from The Australian Circus Industry been asked to go before Council and speak ??

Thirdly there is a lot of misinformation out there with Videos of Circus animals being beaten and cropped

shots of animals in small cages, Yes these things did happen and they make me feel sick seeing them , but

they were filmed by people who paid big $$$$$ to handlers and promised them jobs after the footage was

released. And not one shows an Australian Circus.

I have been a Circus Fan for over 55 years since I saw the famous Wirths Circus. I have toured with several

Australian Circuses and performed in the ring as Ringmaster and a Clown . Following ill health I was forced to

retire from life on the Road but kept up my interest by working from my home booking sites and advertising.

I booked the last Circus to show on Batman Ave now Tennis Center.

Cr Doyal do not allow this move

Yours Sincerely

Raymond J. Deller EAST GEELONG

0417 531784

l



Kate Sullivan

From: CoM Meetings Sent: Tuesday, 16 February 2016 8:20 AM To: *Gov 8i Leg - Council Business (Team) Subject: FW: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#564]


Name: * Shane Scanlan



number (optional):


which meeting

you would like to

make a

submission to by

selecting the

appropriate

button: *


Agenda item title: 6.9 Program of actions for the conduct of the 2016 Melbourne City Council Elections

*

Please write your submission in the space provided below and submit bv no later than noon on the dav of the scheduled

meeting. We encourage you to make your submission as early as possible.

Dear councillors

I find the omission of my publications from management's proposed election communications campaign puzzling and

disturbing.

Despite detailing the problems in communicating with transient locals and others who probably don't understand their

1

rights and responsibilities in relation to the October 22 election, the 100,000 readers of CBD News, Docklands News and

Southbank Local News have been overlooked in item 37 of management's report to you.

I wonder why?

Is is ignorance of my three locally-circulating newspapers that led to this omission? That would be a worry. You would

hope that management would have a better understanding of what is going on in the municipality than that.

Is is deliberate? Don't the officers rate the communication value of the papers? Whichever conclusion you draw, it is clear

to me that the authors of this report have made a mistake.

The campaign outlined in item 37 reads as if we are talking about a state election. Paid advertising with the Herald-Sun,

The Age, Fox FM, Kiss FM, 3AW, Nova, Triple M and community announcements with Triple R, Koori News and PBR is an

extremely "scatter-gun" approach. Is is taking an expensive sledge hammer to crack a nut.

What percentage of these audiences are relevant?

If you are trying to connect with absentee property owners, then I would suggest you already have them covered with what

you send them with this year's rate notices.

On the other hand, ALL the readers of CBD News, Docklands News and Southbank Local News are within the City of

Melbourne's boundaries. Each copy is hitting your target.

44,000 copies are printed and circulated within the City of Melbourne each month. A conservative readership of more than

100,000 is claimed.

They are residents, property owners and business owners and occupiers. Given the transient nature of the populations in

these areas, they most likely weren't even in the municipality at the last election.

Your social media channels speak only to existing audiences. And there is a massive disconnect with potential and real

number of people reached via these channels.

Item 37.6 talks about the CoM "corporate ad". What is this? Does it actually exist? I don't think so. Perhaps it is referring to

the print advertising the council used to do in past in some of the more obscure locally-circulating mastheads. It has

certainly never included my papers.

The council's reluctance to advertise in my publications has been long been a source of frustration for me. I believe it is

personal.

Last year, you councillors directed your officers to put aside a fund of $50K to advertise in mediums such as mine.

To date, the spending has been zero. There has not even been an inquiry.

In a commercial sense, there is no point me whinging about this. It certainly hasn't helped in the past.

But this time, it is painfully obvious to me that the council intends to cut off its nose to spite its face.

Regards

Shane Scanlan

Local publisher

2


Future Melbourne Committee

Kate Sullivan 16 February 2016

From: CoM Meetings Sent: Tuesday, 16 February 2016 12:06 AM To: *Gov & Leg - Council Business (Team) Subject: FW: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#566]


Name: *

Email address: *

Trish O'Loughlin

[email protected]






Agenda item title: Future Melbourne Committee

Please write your submission in the space Dear Councillors,

provided below and submit bv no later than

noon on the day of the scheduled meeting. We On behalf of the CARLTON RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION I am writing to urge

encourage you to make your submission as councillors to support a return to attendance voting which of course

early as possible. allows the constituents the option of postal voting.

Once again this opportunity presents itself for councillors to respect and

respond to the preferences of constituents.

Our association has been consistent in calling for a return of a voting

system which is familiar to all and aligns with both the State and Federal

voting system.

More importantly it can be audited.

1

Your Sincerly

Trish O'Loughlin

Please indicate whether you would like to No







2

Kate Sullivan

Agenda item 6.9 Future Melbourne Committee

16 February 2016

From: CoM Meetings Sent: Tuesday, 16 February 2016 11:57 AM To: *Gov & Leg - Council Business (Team) Subject: FW: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#570]


Name: * Tony Penna



number (optional):


which meeting

you would like to

make a

submission to by

selecting the

appropriate

button: *


Agenda item title: Agenda Item 6.9 Program of actions for the conduct of the 2016 Melbourne City Council Elections

*

Please write your Please find attached a submission for this agenda item,

submission in the

space provided I would also like to speak on this submission,

below and submit

bv no later than

noon on the dav

of the scheduled

1

meeting. We

encourage you to

make your

submission as

early as possible.

Alternatively you

may attach your

written

submission by

uploading your

file here:

Please indicate

whether you

would like to

address the Future

Melbourne

Committee in

support of your

submission:

(No opportunity is

provided for

submitters to be

heard at Council

meetings.) *

Privacy I have read and acknowledge how Council will use and disclose my personal information,

acknowledgement:

submission__fmc_meetinq_no._75__aqenda_item_6.9_proqram_of_actions_for_the_conduct_of_the_2016_r

86.23 KB • PDF

Yes

2

PO Box 1195 South Melbourne VIC 3205

Phone: 03 9028 2774

ABN 58 986 783 321 Cert, of Inc. A0036364B

[email protected]

www.southbankresidents.com.au

Submission to Future Melbourne Committee

City of Melbourne, Council Meeting Room, Melbourne Town Hall Administration Building

16 Feb 2016, 5.30pm - Meeting No.75

Agenda Item 6.9 Program of actions for the conduct of the 2016 Melbourne City Council Elections

Southbank Residents Association is appalled that Council is choosing to adopt a strictly postal vote election, but moreso without any public consultation.

The Council has an interactive platform called Participate Melbourne where this could have been posted for public comment.

One specific concern Southbank residents have are the logistical issues associated with the effective delivery of postal ballots to mailboxes located in secure buildings. In most high-rise apartment buildings, the mail rooms are secured with strict access protocols which raises the concern of safe delivery of postal ballots.

Often residents in high-rise buildings find mass produced mail left in common areas or the front entrance as a result of being unable to gain access to the mailroom inside the building. For secure ballot papers, this would be unacceptable, and opens up the possibility of voting fraud.

When it comes to attendance voting, the City is well serviced by public transport and there should be no reason why constituents would be unable to attend to vote.

The City has an extremely large number of illiterate and homeless residents and postal voting excludes these marginalised groups. Attendance voting will offer more accessibility and equality for these people and enable them to have their voice heard.

Attendance voting would bring us in-line with state and federal voting.

We are not completely against postal voting, but recognise that attendance voting would need to operate alongside postal voting as there may be a number of constituents who are offshore, interstate or non-resident.

Southbank Residents Association demand, at minimum, public consultation before this item is passed.

Southbank ^.... ..d :.r.: Association

Tony Penna President Southbank Residents Association

Printed and circulated with the assistance of a Melbourne City Council community grant

Item of correspondence Agenda item 7.1 and 7.2

Future Melbourne Committee Kate Sullivan 16 February 2016

From: CoM Meetings Sent: Monday, 15 February 2016 5:55 PM To: *Gov & Leg - Council Business (Team) Subject: FW: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#563]

From: Wufoo Sent: Monday, 15 February 2016 5:55:01 PM (UTC+10:00) Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney To: CoM Meetings Subject: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#563]

Name: * Chris Thrum


Contact phone 0422066973

number (optional):


which meeting

you would like to

make a

submission to by

selecting the

appropriate

button: *


Agenda item title: Agenda Item 7.1 and Agenda Item 7.2, the written reports from Councillor Arron Wood and Councillor Catl

* their participation in the 201 5 Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on C

21).

Please write your submission in the space provided below and submit bv no later than noon on the dav of the scheduled meetii

to make your submission as early as possible.

Dear City of Melbourne meetings group

This is a written submission in regards to Agenda Item 7.1 and Agenda Item 7.2, the written reports from Councillor Arron Wo<

1

Oke in regards to their participation in the 201 5 Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Clir

Councillor Arron Wood and Councillor Cathy Oke are to be commended for travelling to Paris in late 201 5 and participating in 1

the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 21). By doing so they are ensuring that Melbc

and better future. Melbourne is an international city, and it is important that Councillors and City of Melbourne staff are involvt

conferences to further the knowledge base of Victoria. In Paris, Councillors Wood and Oke would have learnt more about the in

play in becoming more energy efficient and enabling the further deployment of renewable energies enabling a more sustainabl

Melbourne can only gain from active participation in conferences such as COP 21.

On January 20, 201 6 the Administrator of NASA, Charles Bolden discussed the recent global temperatures that were recorded ii

was an Astronaut who went into space four times, and was the Commander of the Space Shuttle Atlantis when the Hubble teles

high orbit position above the planet. NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are at the forefront of m«

climate and provide their information and data free to the citizens of the world.Not so long ago NASA launched Jason 3, a high

measure the sea levels around the globe.

http://bloas.nasa.qov/bolden/2016/01 /20/nasa-noaa-analvses-reveal-record-shatterinq-qlobal-warm-temperatures-in-20"

http://www.nasa.qov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analvses-reveal-record-shatterinq-alobal-warm-temperatures-in-201 5

NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Temperatures

www.nasa.gov

Earth's 201 5 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1 880, according to independent a

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The study of the work of Bob Tisdale will help one further understand the nuances of climate science.

2

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01 /20/the-oddities-in-noaas-new-pause-buster-sea-surface-temperature-product-an-o>

The Oddities in NOAA's New "Pause-Buster" Sea Surface Temperature Product - An Overview of Past Posts

wattsupwiththat.com

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale NOAA revised their global surface temperature product in June 201 5 to show more global warming c

period. Those data manipulations supposedly ended the s...

contiguous US

http://www.ncdc.noaa.aov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasetsn=uscrn&parameter=anom-

tavg&time_scale=pl 2&begyear=2005&endyear=201 5&month= 12

National Temperature Index | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

National Temperature Index

In late January in California, they voted to retain a system that rewards solar users for sending excess power back into the ener

http://www.nvtimes.com/2016/01 /29/business/enerqy-environment/california-narrowlv-votes-to-retain-svstem-that-pavs-

excess-power.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&reqion=stream&ri

le=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=l &pqtype=sectionfront

California Votes to Retain System That Pays Solar Users Retail Rate for Excess Power

www.nytimes.com

Regulators extended a policy that has helped the expansion of rooftop solar power, adding fees for future users but rejecting c

utilities.

Here is further information on NASA and its commitment to the study of climate science, with the recent launch of the Jason S

3

During a Jan. 1 5 briefing on NASA Television, panelists discussed the science and research of the Jason-3 mission - scheduled

from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Jason-3 is the newest in a series of satellites designed to maintain long-term sal

observations of global sea surface height. These data provide critical ocean information that forecasters need to predict devast

severe weather before they arrive onshore. Over the long term, Jason-3 will help us to track global sea level rise, an increasing

of coastal communities and to the health of our environment. The mission is a partnership between NASA, NOAA, Centre Natio

France's space agency, and the European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0AgqhS6B-U

The Science of Jason-3

www.youtube.com

During a Jan. 15 briefing on NASA Television, panelists discussed the science and research of the Jason-3 mission - scheduled

from Vandenberg ...

New York Times reported on the succesful launch of Jason 3...A satellite to measure the heights of the oceans was launched su

in the middle of January, 2016 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

http://www.nvtimes.com/2016/01 /I 8/science/space/satellite-tracking-risinq-seas-iason-3.html? r=0

Cities and leadership at the local level are necessary for climate change to be addressed in an effective manner. Here Michael R

Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change, and C40 Board President, explained why cities - and leadersh

are critical to tackling climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF6VrgJhcbA

C0P21 Interview Series: Michael R. Bloomberg at the C40 Cities Awards in Paris

www.youtube.com

During C0P21 in Paris, C40's news team had the opportunity to interview a number of mayors and global thought leaders gath

successful urban ...

Washington officials would have noted that Senator Cruz , a candidate for the Republican nomination for the US Presidency ,m£

opening statements at a recent Science sub-committee meeting of the US Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation meeti

science and data of climate science. This was the Commerce,Science and Transportation Subcommittee meeting in December 2

officials would also have noted the submissions and comments made by Judith Curry and Mark Steyn at the December 201 5 M>

IMPACT ON EARTH'S CLIMATE discussion, Commerce,Science and Transportation Subcommittee meeting 8 December, 201 5.

4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsGqbEIHwnc

Opening Statement: Ted Cruz targets 'inconvenient facts ...

www.youtube.com

Hearing: Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth's Climate US Sei

Commerce, Science, and ...

MAGNITUDE OF HUMAN IMPACT ON EARTH'S CLIMATE

December 8, 201 5

https://www.congress.gov/crec/201 5/1 2/08/CREC-201 5-12-08-ptl -PgDl 289.pdf

https://judithcurry.com/201 5/12/08/senate-hearing-data-or-dogma-2/

Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma | Climate Etc.

judithcurry.com

by Judith Curry The Senate Commerce Committee Hearing 'Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Mai

Impact on Earth's Climate ...

The website for the Hearing is at the Commerce web site [link]. Witnesses:

Dr. John Christy

Dr. Judith Curry

Dr. William Happer

Mr. Mark Steyn

Dr. David Titley

Here is the written submission from Mr. Mark Steyn

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/201 5/1 2/steyn-testimony.pdf

STATEMENT TO THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE AND ...

curryja.files.wordpress.com

5

3 eminent, you can just about withstand the Big Climate enforcers jumping you in the parking lot and taking the hockey stick t

younger...

The Right Climate Stuff group from Austin, Texas executive summary is worth reading.

http://www.theriqhtclimatestuff.com/ExecutiveSummarvBoundinqGHCCIimateSensitivitvForUselnRequlatorvDecisionsl 402 28. p

BOUNDING GHG CLIMATE SENSTIVITY FOR USE IN REGULATORY ...

www.therightclimatestuff.com

BOUNDING GHG CLIMATE SENSI TIVITY FOR USE IN REGULATORY DECISIONS. Executive Summary. A Report of The Right Climate

The Full Report can be found at:

Yours sincerely

Chris Thrum

email - [email protected]

Phone - 0422066973

Please indicate Yes

whether you

would like to

address the Future

Melbourne

Committee in

support of your

submission:

(No opportunity is

provided for

submitters to be

heard at Council

meetings.) *

Privacy I have read and acknowledge how Council will use and disclose my personal information.

acknowledgement:

*

6

Item of correspondence Agenda item o.o Kate Sullivan FuW · PDF file ·...

Documents

Transcript of Item of correspondence Agenda item o.o Kate Sullivan FuW · PDF file ·...