June 2017 Newsletter

Go to the formatted version for links, nice layout and pictures.

Feature: Open space – where to spend? Plus: extending the party zone; Park Street mega-tower; bike safety; events, and more


** Do car stackers stack up?
On 3-4 July, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) will hear an important appeal over a Moreland Council planning decision on car stackers.

Every year, about 40-50 planning applications are considered by Council to install car stackers, usually in multi-unit apartment buildings or mixed-use businesses. The majority of the car stackers are placed in basements, which limit the amount of noise for nearby residents, but about 10% are designed for use at ground level, with their noise adversely affecting residents and neighbours.

For some time, Council has been considering an application for an apartment complex at 13-15 Cumming Street, Brunswick West, which will involve 24 car parking places, including 17 in a car stacker at ground level.

In 2015, VCAT made an important ruling on the proposal in Cumming Street. It’s a quiet residential street, but located in a Residential Growth Zone within the Melville Road/Albion Street/Victoria Street Neighbourhood Activity Centre. At that time, VCAT refused a permit, noting “these impacts are important considerations when determining the effect the car parking system may have on the amenity of adjoining properties.”

Steg v Moreland CC [2015] (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/1247.html) VCAT 1247 (10 August 2015)

With the project re-submitted, the next VCAT hearing in July will have important implications for noise control. Projects involving car stackers are becoming more common in the inner-city, as developers seek to minimise the provision of car parking space (using the space for more profitable apartments).

There are a range of local and state-wide policies and regulations that are directed towards determining appropriate noise levels, including the State Environmental Protection Policy Number One (known as SEPP N-1) for control of noise from commercial, industrial and trade sites. There are also the more stringent regulations of the Environmental Protection Act, including the Environmental Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008.

SEPP N-1 doesn’t cover residential sites but does include “common plant at an apartment block.” The acoustic engineers Marshall Day (who have prepared an expert’s report for the July VCAT hearing) see SEPP N-1 as an appropriate standard to determine acceptable noise levels at the Cumming Street project. However local residents have raised concern that SEPP N-1 does not include restrictions for high decibels levels at different times of the day, especially early in the morning.

Moreland Council has requested the Minister review Clause 52.06 of the Victorian Planning Provision or the relevant Australian Standard, to set new standards for car stackers. Last September, the Planning Department’s Executive Director for Planning, Building and Heritage responded to Moreland Council. While rejecting Council’s call for changes to clause 52.06, the letter on behalf of the Minister stated that “all dwellings must comply with the Environmental Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008 and any council local laws.” (Emphasis added). This direction from the Minister seems to suggest that the stronger EPA regulations should be used to assess noise from car stackers in residential settings.

Moreland Council has been addressing this issue in recent months, with council staff developing changes to the urban design provisions of the Moreland Strategic Statement (MSS). They have drafted changes to MSS objective 10.7, stating: “where car stackers are proposed, ensure they are designed to suitably buffer adjoining dwellings from all impacts.”

In March 2017, Moreland Council submitted the proposed MSS changes to the State Minister for Planning Richard Wynne, but they are still under consideration. Because the changes have not formally entered law, it will be interesting to see how the July VCAT hearing assesses the letter sent to Council on behalf of the Minister, stating “all dwellings must comply with the Environmental Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008.”

Given a planning application involving car-stackers is being submitted nearly every week, this is an important challenge for Brunswick. The ruling on the Cumming Street application will be seen by planners, developers and residents as a precedent, for a number of competing reasons: the project’s location in a Residential Growth Zone; its location well away from a major road in a quiet residential area; and the use of a multilevel car stacker above ground in the open.

There is a need to upgrade both local laws and state-wide planning changes on car-stackers, given the number of multi-apartment complexes being proposed, and Moreland Council policy to reduce requirements for car parking spaces, to encourage use of public transport.


** Feature article:
Where to spend open space funds?

Moreland Council has developed a new draft policy on open space called ‘A Park Close to Home: A Framework to Fill Open Space Gaps.’ The report sets criteria to measure how many people have limited access to open space in their neighbourhood, which can then be used to prioritise funding for new open space investment across the municipality, especially using money from developers’ contributions.

This draft policy will be put out for community consultation in coming months (you can find a copy in the June 2017 Council papers, though it may be revised before the community gets to have a say).

Brunswick Residents Network is concerned that the criteria used in the draft report appear to take little account of density, current usage of open space and the type of housing in affected areas. This will distort the decision-making about which areas need further investment.

The Moreland Open Space Strategy (MOSS) defines areas of Moreland that are not adequately served by open space. These are defined as areas further than a 500 metre safe walking distance from open space outside of an activity centre, or further than 300 metres if located within an activity centre.

Council relies on developers’ open space contributions to create more open space. Council can seek a cash payment or land contribution (or a combination of both) towards open space at the time of subdivision. The proportion of Public Open Space Contribution varies according to the suburb: it’s higher in Brunswick (6.3 per cent), Brunswick East (5.7 per cent) and Coburg (6.8 per cent) than Pascoe Vale (3.7 per cent) or Brunswick West (2.5 per cent).

Over the last decade, the amount of open space contributions collected from developers has soared, as suburbs like Brunswick and Coburg undergo significant redevelopment. In 2006–7, contributions amounted to $2,199,397, rising to $4,835,010 in 2010–11 and $13,838,620 in 2015–16.

Cash contributions are held in the Public Resort and Recreation Land Fund (PRRLF). As of May 2017, the current balance of the PRRLF is approximately $37 million. The fund’s future annual income is modelled to be in the vicinity of $7 million to $15 million each year (some of this variation depends on the level of sub-division created by the recent State government policy of opening up more development in residential streets in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone – see last month’s newsletter to understand these zoning changes).

There are a number of issues relating to open space in Brunswick that residents must debate during the consultation period when this new policy is released for public comment:
* Different suburbs in the Moreland municipality have different rates of open space compared to total land area. Brunswick, Brunswick East and Brunswick West have just 7.7% of open space, lower than other suburbs – Coburg and Coburg North (12.9%) Pascoe Vale and Oak Park (9.2%), Fawkner (17.2%) and Glenroy, Hadfield and Gowanbrae (31.8%).
* According to Council’s own research, there are significant gaps in the provision of open space in our neighbourhood. The draft strategy notes that there are many locations across the South Ward that are further from open space than the designated walking distance. At least 1,148 addresses in the Brunswick Activity Centre; 556 in Brunswick residential streets and 592 in Brunswick West are in areas designated as high priority for new investment (another 2,000 Brunswick addresses are listed as “medium priority” in the draft strategy).
* The draft report is based on research on “addresses”. Does this mean dwellings, or can there be more than one dwelling at one address (eg on a sub-divided block)? Do all dwellings have the same need to access public open space? For example, children in a house with its own garden may have more access to greenery than kids living in a ten story apartment tower. People in well-designed apartment buildings with rooftop gardens and big balconies will have different needs to people living in multi-storey dogboxes.
* Over the next 20 years, the number of residential dwellings in Brunswick East is set to grow by 60%, while in Brunswick, it’s 30% (In comparison, Fawkner is projected to grow by 13%, Coburg North by 25% and Pascoe Vale by 22% in 2016-36). The South Ward has a number of sites where the construction will likely be of dense apartment blocks, along with some one to two storey townhouses, whereas in Moreland’s north, the vast majority of construction will be of one to two storey townhouses. On Council’s own figures, the number of new residential dwellings in the South Ward will be 2 ½ times those in the north of the municipality.
* If you were to get rid of Fleming Park, the number of affected dwellings in our neighbourhood would soar – it’s a precious resource in the heart of Brunswick East. However hundreds of new apartments are already being built in surrounding streets and Fleming Park is already under pressure. There is growing competition for space between toddlers, dogs, cyclists, football enthusiasts and locals taking the evening air. Measuring access to open space should take account of the number of people using a park, and the diversity of activities in the area, rather than just measuring how long it takes to walk there.
* Despite the level of apartment construction underway in the Brunswick Activity Centre and adjoining streets, there is no requirement for Council to spend the developers’ open space contributions in the suburb where they were collected. Even though South Ward brings in over one third of the levy for the municipality, it receives between 0 and 10% of the money spent each year. For example, over a two year income period, developers in Gowanbrae have paid nothing into the PRRLF fund, while South Ward developers paid $7.3 million in open space contribution. This means that major projects in Brunswick are subsidising open space and sporting grounds in the northern wards. Should a greater proportion be spent closer to the projects where the money comes from, given the level of activity in the south?
* The draft report lacks basic data that could help the community make informed decisions on priorities for future investment. What are the amounts of levy collected in each part of the municipality? What are the amounts spent in each part of the municipality? What sort of developers are paying what sort of sums (e.g. family sub-division versus large corporate developers?) What open space investments have already been made over the last decade?
* In the days before the ‘open space’ levy, developers provided parks on-site that amounted to an area of around 5 per cent of the total project. The opportunity to pay an open space contribution lets many large developers off the hook. Rather than designing their buildings to create open space and greenery within the project site, they’d rather just pay the contribution, then add it to the cost of each apartment. This can give lazy developers and architects an escape valve from doing creative and environmentally sustainable design.
* The current Council approach on purchasing land for open space is not proactive; it is essentially based on a ‘watch and wait’ principle of assessing land available for purchase, rather than targeting strategic parcels.
* What is the process to determine strategic purchase? For example, should Council-owned car parks near Sydney Road be sold to private developers for housing, converted to new green pocket parks, or retained to get car parking off Sydney Road to allow for better tram, cycling and pedestrian movement? How do you ensure transparent decision making?
* As well as purchasing new land for open space, there is scope to upgrade existing facilities. However the current model for determining priority areas, based on distance from open space, disqualifies creative initiatives in built up areas. One example is how residents around Edward Street Brunswick have exhausted themselves through a five year “Pitch in for a Park” campaign. They have tried to turn a small section of the car park in Edward Street / Dod Street into parkland, but this is apparently not seen as a prioritry project for investment. Other residents near Symons Park in Trafford Street, Brunswick have been petitioning Council to improve this pocket park by redeveloping the playground, providing fencing, reviewing maintenance practices and providing recognition of the original custodians of the land. They are also calling for better management in the narrow streets next to Symons Park, given the street access of the park is unfenced and there is only a narrow
turning circle for cars using the dead end street. However, this park is too close to Fleming Park to be prioritised under the current model, despite new construction projects underway in nearby Lygon Street and adjoining streets.

In coming months, keep an eye out for notification of public meetings to discuss Council’s open space strategy. Come along and have your say, as the new policy will set priorities for years to come. We’ll be publicising the Council meetings, but join the conversation at the Brunswick Residents Network (https://www.facebook.com/Brunswick.Residents.Network) Facebook page.


** The right to party?
Brunswick’s nightlife has been extending west between Sydney Road and the Upfield Railway Line. In addition to existing pubs and clubs on Sydney Road, venues such as Howler, The Railway Hotel, and other music and drinking haunts are expanding along the Upfield corridor.

Now, a new project called ‘Brunswick Yard’ is proposed east of Sydney Road, near Frith Street, running through to include the former La Paloma and barbershop buildings in Albert Street. It raises important questions about the balance between the right to party and the right to a good night’s sleep!

Local residents are concerned that ‘Brunswick Yard’ will extend the nightlife of Sydney Road too far eastwards into the residential hinterland. The Sydney Road activity strip (zoned Commercial) is next to an area that has already been re-zoned as mixed use to encourage higher density residential use. (As well as older houses in Frith Street, lots of new apartments have already been built in the immediate area, like the multi-storey C3 building on Victoria Street).

The proposed ‘Brunswick Yard’ will include licensed premises and food trucks, similar in concept to the existing ‘Welcome to Thornbury (http://welcometothornbury.com/) ‘ food truck venue (though the Thornbury site is smaller and located in a commercial rather than mixed use zone). The developers for the Brunswick Yard project claim that they want to create a ‘family-friendly’ atmosphere, but the current design leans towards the young adult drinking market.

To alleviate noise, residents want to create buffers from the venue to protect the residential boundaries on the south and east of the project site. Residents are asking Moreland Council and the developers for detailed specifications of the wall and roof treatments, in order to assess the likelihood that noise will be kept at suitable levels. One concern is that the location will interact with other nearby venues – ‘Brunswick Yard’ would be only 14 metres away from the existing music venue Penny Black and the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel on Sydney Road. On weekends, the noise from these venues is likely to cause ‘Brunswick Yard’ to play its music much louder than would otherwise be expected.

Residents have also argued that the primary entrance to the new licensed premises should be from Sydney Road. The laneway between the Duke of Edinburgh and the Penny Black is already used by security staff to hold queues for that venue. With extra lighting, this laneway could form an excellent access point to the main music and drinking part of Brunswick Yard, and reduce impacts for residents in Frith Street, Albert Street and Victoria Street.

Council has already considered and rejected applications for activities to the east of Sydney Road, such as a pool hall in David Street, not far from this project site. Discussions between residents, the developers and Council staff are continuing – watch this space.


** East Brunswick Shimmy Schemozzle
Moreland Council have closed the East Brunswick cycling shimmy at Fleming Park, a popular north/south route used by cyclists. The pathway through the park has been fenced off at the Albert Street end near the playground, and works will go on for months. Initially no diversions were marked (which is very poor practice, considering this is a major cycling route), reportedly because work started earlier than planned.

Heading south from Fleming Park, the shimmy runs along John Street, identified in the Bicycle Strategy as a secondary bicycle route. But John Street borders the massive East Brunswick Village (EBV) project – involving a 24-hour supermarket, new office and commercial space and hundreds of new apartments. The developers Banco Group have already gone to VCAT to argue against paying their fair share of traffic management around the project, which will involve an estimated 10,000 vehicle movements a day. VCAT ruled that they should just provide one speed hump and threshold treatments (at John Street/Glenlyon Road and John Street/Albert Street), but nothing along Albert Street and the area alongside Fleming Park.

Residents have long called for Council to be proactive in traffic management around this precinct. But at the May Moreland Council meeting, Council staff argued that the only option to improve cycling on John Street was to install an additional speed hump to reduce the speed of vehicles. They investigated another option, costing $5000, of a shared bicycle/parking lane along either side of John Street. The cycling lane would have a 3.3m width and a 3.2m traffic lane, but staff stated that this was not the preferred option (the lane is marginally narrow, with a 3.7m wide lane offering a better clearance between parked cars and bicycle).

Instead of accepting just one speed hump, Councillors instead resolved that there should be a consultation with the community about options for improving cyclist safety and protecting the integrity of the Brunswick Shimmy through Fleming Park and along John Street.

What do you think about the type of treatment and budget required to maintain cyclist safety and the integrity of the Brunswick Shimmy? Given that construction is underway for the EBV, can cyclists still hope to safely use John Street, East Brunswick? Any alternatives?

Contact your South Ward Councillor to have a say, and join the conversation on our Facebook page!
* There’s more bike newsbelow (#bikes)


** Park Street skyscraper

If you thought Brunswick Heart at 14 stories took the cake, another project – opposite Princes Park on the boundary of Moreland and Yarra municipalities – will be even taller.

If the proposal is approved, the developers JWLand want to start construction this year on a 13-level, 6300-square metre development bound by Park Street, Sydney Road and Brunswick Road (now the site of the Best Western Princes Park Motor Inn). The developers spin the project’s location as “a vibrant and sustainable precinct” (though you wouldn’t know from the project website, which has no information on it!)

Comprising three buildings with 333 apartments, 699 Park Street is expected to be Brunswick’s tallest apartment tower, at an estimated 42 metres.

A small group of residents who live near Park Street have formed the ‘Protect Park St Precinct Action Group’ to fight the scale of this development. They acknowledge that the site is prime for development, and do not oppose a project per se, but do not accept the proposed scale and impact of the current proposal. If you’re interested to find out more, contact: friendsofprincesparkvic@gmail.com (mailto:friendsofprincesparkvic@gmail.com)

* Protect Park St Precinct Action Group Facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/ProtectParkStPrecinct/)
* JWLand information website (http://699parkstreet.com.au/) (with no information in it!)
* Brunswick could have another 13 storey building as towers spread across Melbourne (https://www.domain.com.au/news/brunswick-could-have-another-13-storey-building-as-towers-spread-across-melbourne-20170317-guzamg/) , Domain.

Update: 269 Stewart Street – next to Ceres
The developers of the present Triple R Car Hire Site have circulated a proposal to reduce the number of apartments from 109 to 105 apartments, with some increases in setbacks but no concessions on driveway location, reducing height, neighbourhood character and a number of other issues of concern.

There is a compulsory conference at VCAT on 26 June with a final hearing scheduled for 7 August. You can find more detail on the residents’ Facebook page: 269 Stewart Street inappropriate development next to CERES (https://www.facebook.com/269stewartstreet/) @269stewartstreet


** Stepping into safety
look bike
Arthurton Street Bridge tops walking danger poll
The Blyth Street/Arthurton Road/Separation Street bridge comes out on top in a Melbourne-wide survey into perceived hazardous spots for pedestrians, reported in The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/walk-on-the-wild-side-hazardous-crossings-among-pedestrians-top-gripes-20170619-gwu5og.html) . This level of participation and concern supports the push for Moreland Council to match Darebin’s allocation for funding a pedestrian/bike bridge north of the road bridge in the budget under consideration. Other danger spots in or around Brunswick include Nicholson Street near Albion, and Nicholson Street just north of Moreland Road. See the detailed map at https://www.walkspot.org.au

Ewing Street works started
Good to see that works have finally begun on re-vamping Ewing Street to make it safer for everyone, in particular for the families that use it daily to get to school in Princes Hill. Once again, we have residents to thank for the campaign which has resulted in this improvement!

Moreland Bike Count: 2017 bike use analysed
Moreland Bicycle Users Group (BUG) will host Moreland Council’s Simon Stainsby in a presentation on the results of the annual Super Tuesday bike count conducted on 7 March, followed by discussion and analysis. All welcome, especially if you helped with the count.

WHEN: 7:00 p.m. Thursday 22 June 2017
WHERE: Coburg North Meeting Room, Cnr Sussex St & Gaffney St

It’s official: drivers cause most bike accidents
In 2015, South Australia introduced road laws that means that cyclists must give way to pedestrians, and drivers must give way to cyclists. A new study by the Royal Automobile Association of South Australia finds that drivers are more at fault in the majority of accidents surveyed, with a spokesperson noting: “Looking at the report, we can see that most of the crashes occurred at intersections across popular cycling routes and were deemed not to be the fault of the cyclists.”
* RAA reveals most dangerous suburbs and roads for cyclists, (http://www.raa.com.au/community-and-advocacy/media-releases/1208) RAA media release, 5 Jun 2017
* Cars overwhelmingly cause bike collisions, and the law should reflect that (https://theconversation.com/cars-overwhelmingly-cause-bike-collisions-and-the-law-should-reflect-that-78922) : The Conversation

This finding mirrors other recent studies of the hazards of cycling and driver responsibility. A 2011 Monash University study reviewing images from helmet cameras found that in 87% of the events captured, the driver was responsible for the action that preceded the event.
* Monash study: Helmet-cam captures bike accidents (and could make cycling safer) (https://theconversation.com/helmet-cam-captures-bike-accidents-and-could-make-cycling-safer-3540)

In 74% of those events, the driver cut the cyclist off, turning in front of the cyclist without either providing enough space, indicating effectively or making a visual check. The footage showed that, rather than being focused on the cyclist they had just cut off, drivers were instead focused on other vehicles on the road.

These findings don’t absolve cyclists from common sense self-defence (how often have you seen a Brunswick hipster riding at night with no lights, dark clothes and their eyes on their phone?). But the research highlights the danger in cyclist/vehicle crashes and the need for massive investment in cycling infrastructure, which can protect all road users – especially in areas like Brunswick where the trend to cycling is evident.

Better bike infrastructure
To get some ideas of excellence in cycling infrastructure, have a look at the website run by the Copenhagenize Design Company, which ranks cities according to the quality of their cycling infrastructure:
* Design CompanyCopenhagenize (http://copenhagenize.eu/index/)

Or have a look at the debate in Oslo, which has been working to restrict cars from the central business district:
* Oslo’s car ban sounded simple enough. Then the backlash began (https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jun/13/oslo-ban-cars-backlash-parking)


** Methven Park: have your say
Methven Park
Last month a major backlash from residents won a halt to construction of a toilet block slap-bang in the middle of the lawn in this small, historic and beautiful park.

Following discussions with Moreland Council CEO Nerida Di Lorenzo, several possible alternatives were identified. The Council has now posted an online survey asking residents whether they would prefer the original site (A, pictured) or a site on the edge of Leinster Grove (B) which is one of the alternative sites discussed, or no toilet at all.
SURVEY LINK: https://query.eharava.fi/2061

Problems with the survey
For a start, the pictures were a bit confusing. And Site B was the fourth preference of residents objecting to Site A, with the top preferences not included in the survey. The Friends of Methven Park Facebook group has detailed suggestions on how to respond. In brief, they suggest: If you are happy with either A or B, great! Please vote. If you are not happy with either choice, or have some reservations, please communicate directly with South Ward Councillors and Council staff.

Consultation in the park
There are also consultation meetings happening in the park, today (Wednesday 21 June) 12–1pm, Saturday 24 June 2–3pm, and next Tuesday 6-7pm.

Email addresses:
info@moreland.org.au (mailto:info@moreland.org.au) ;
Grant Thorne (Head of Infrastructure, new project lead) gthorne@moreland.vic.gov.au (mailto:gthorne@moreland.vic.gov.au) ;
Nerida Di Lorenzo (CEO) ndilorenzo@moreland.vic.gov.au (mailto:ndilorenzo@moreland.vic.gov.au) ;
Local councillors – listed at theend of this email (#Councillors)


** Tram and train updates
As we reported last month, Public Transport Victoria (PTV) is now running the Route 6 tram up from from Melbourne University through to Brunswick Depot in Moreland Road. The extended route runs D, B and Z-Class trams (The new E-class trams have been rolled out on route 96 along Nicholson Street to St. Kilda, with its D-class trams in turn moved to route 19 along Sydney Road).
* See the new route 6 map (https://static.ptv.vic.gov.au/public-transport-victoria/1491882588/Route-changes-map_v7.pdf)

Yarra Trams say there is a No. 6 tram every 8 minutes or better during peak times on weekdays and no more than 20 minutes at all other times. (South of Moreland Road also has the No 1 tram.)

One-third of trams on Route 6 will be low-floor. There have been complaints that Melbourne’s expanding fleet of low-floor trams are still being allocated to tram routes that lack wheelchair-accessible stops, while accessible tram stops are being built on routes that have no low-floor trams. However those wheeling toddlers, piano accordions or shopping trolleys welcome low-floor trams, as they are much easier to board even from street-level.

The real question is whether the changes can keep up with increasing passenger numbers, and the resulting overcrowding at peak hour. Have you noticed any difference in passenger numbers since the new route come online in May?

There is also the Upfield train, if you like sardines. The PTV’s 2016 “Metropolitan Train Load Standards Survey Report” says that, during the morning peak, more than a third of passengers on the Upfield Line (36.4%) were travelling on trains that exceeded their “benchmark capacity”, i.e. were overcrowded. New figures for the 2016-17 year should be out soon, but don’t hold your breath for much improvement!


** Culture: support your favourite local project
Brunswick Community History Group (BCHG) has been forced to find a new location for its monthly meetings following the closure of the Sarah Sands hotel. The BCHG will now meet at Site Works, 33 Saxon Street in Brunswick on the first Saturday of every month at 1:30 PM. If you’d like to get involved or to find out more information on forthcoming meetings, phone 9387 1194.

Year 8 and 9 students from Brunswick Secondary College are working with playwright Neil Cole to produce a new work, Cabarat Homicide, to be performed at the Butterfly Club. This group worked with Neil last year on the highly acclaimed “1916”, a project of the Brunswick Coburg Anti-Conscription Commemoration Campaign. Read more, and support their Pozible fundraiser (https://pozible.com/Project/caberat-homicide-3) .

Meanwhile, the Brunswick Coburg Anti-Conscription Commemoration Campaign are getting ready for the end-of-year centenary production ofSerenading Adela: A Street Opera (https://brunswickcoburganticonscription.wordpress.com/serenading-adela/) , re-enacting the “serenading” of the imprisoned Adela Pankhurst by an choral mob gathered outside Pentridge. Sign up to the e-news (http://eepurl.com/b-R8Lj) be part of the mass choir, marching band or just give a hand. You can also support this exciting local cultural project with a tax-deductible donation (https://australianculturalfund.org.au/projects/serenading-adela-a-street-opera/) .


** Sustainable Moreland ideas day
On Sunday 2 July, Moreland Energy Foundation Ltd (MEFL) is hosting an ideas exchange for residents, community groups and organisations who are passionate about environmental sustainability and getting Moreland on track to become a zero carbon community. You will find out what’s happening across Moreland, swap ideas, explore potential for wider collaboration and shape ideas and opportunities for reducing carbon emissions in Moreland in 2017/18.

WHAT: Sustainable Moreland – Community Ideas Exchange
WHEN: Sunday 2 July, 1-5pm
WHERE: Milparinka, 331 Albert Street, Brunswick
REGISTRATION: Through Eventbrite (https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/sustainable-moreland-community-ideas-exchange-tickets-34904016854)


** Next Moreland Council meetings
All Council meetings – held on the 2nd Wednesday of each month – and Urban Planning Committee meetings – held on the 4th Wednesday of each month – are now held at: Council Chamber, Moreland Civic Centre, 90 Bell Street, Coburg. Council meetings are on:
* Friday 23 June 2017 – 6 pm (Resumption of Council meeting adjourned from 14 June 2017)
* Monday 3 July 2017 (Hear Budget and Council Plan Submissions)
* Wednesday 12 July 2017
* Monday 24 July 2017 (Adopt the Council Council Plan, Strategic Resource Plan and Budget)
* Wednesday 9 August 2017
* Wednesday 13 September 2017
* Monday 25 September 2017 (Consider Draft Annual Report) – 6 pm

Check for all meeting details at the Council website (http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/about-council/council-and-committee-meetings.html) . Council meetings can now be watched online, either live, or later – you can find details here (http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/about-council/council-and-committee-meetings/council-meetings/agenda-next-council-meeting.html) along with the agenda for this week’s Council meeting.
* Hint: If you go to an evening meeting at 90 Bell Street and find the doors locked, you can probably get in through the back door via Urquhart Street.


** Contacts for our three local councillors:
Deputy Mayor Samantha Ratnam
Mobile: 0433 275 434
Email: sratnam@moreland.org.au (mailto:sratnam@moreland.org.au)

Mark Riley
Mobile: 0499 807044
Email: mriley@moreland.org.au (mailto:mriley@moreland.org.au)

Lambros Tapinos
Mobile: 0433 419 075
Email: ltapinos@moreland.org.au (mailto:ltapinos@moreland.org.au)


Welcome to new readers! To contact organisers of the Brunswick Residents’ Network, or to offer help with future activities, please email albertstreet2020@gmail.com (mailto:albertstreet2020@gmail.com) . (This gmail is our preferred address – but we have changed our “from” address on Mailchimp’s advice to avoid your email bouncing).

Please forward this e-letter to other Moreland neighbours who’d like a say in the way their community is changing. It’s easy to sign on, or edit your details to include your interests – just go to http://eepurl.com/VX4a9.

For meeting details, survey and newsletter archives, go to: https://brunswickresidents.wordpress.com

Check out our Facebook page for a range of lively discussions: Brunswick Residents Network (https://www.facebook.com/Brunswick.Residents.Network) . Help us reach more people by liking our page, commenting, forwarding this newsletter, and tweeting it using the links below.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: