Expression of Interest - Stage Two
Feasibility Study for the Burnley Backyard 49 Tudor St, Richmond City of Yarra
Richmond Community Learning Centre here studio Richmond Community Garden Group Richmond Toy Library April 2012
2
Contents
Introduction Summary Background Objectives
Stage 2 - Feasibility Study Process Community participation
Proposal Complementary sites Council objectives Programmes/activities Site plan Perspective drawings Scenarios Governance
Stage 3 - Issues & Opportunities Process Timeline Capital costs Demolition Re-use Re-development Community garden Land use Risk analysis Critical success factors Impact evaluation Activities revenue Operational costs Use snapshot
Community support Testimonials Letters of support
Appendix
3
4
Summary This Expression of Interest (EOI) Stage 2 feasibility study for 49 Tudor St in the City of Yarra has been carried out in partnership between Richmond Community Learning Centre (RCLC), here studio, Richmond Community Garden Group (RCGG) and Richmond Toy Library (RTL). Meeting at least weekly, RCLC and here studio have coordinated a process that included participation of key local stakeholders and a broad community of interests to discuss and develop a feasible and community supported model for the redevelopment of Tudor St. This report presents the best model we were able to develop with the limited financial and time resources available. From the start of the process we have witnessed growing support for the redevelopment of the site, common imagining of what activities would happen on the site, and ever-clearer articulation of shared principles around how a neighbourhood house on the site should operate – as a self-sufficient, diverse and welcoming local community. Our developed model is for the retention of the site for local community uses into a complementary network of sites that include Lord St and GTV9. Our key vision is for Tudor St to provide flexible indoor-outdoor facilities at a modest local neighbourhood scale with significant garden spaces. We have proposed a model that is achievable today within the current community expectations and complementary to future expectations of community infrastructure in the neighbourhood. Fundamentally, we propose a design-development process that sees the community able to occupy the site immediately and through support and partnerships, build meaningful social, environmental and financial capacity. Auspiced by RCLC and facilitated by here studio, we are describing the continuation of a innovative community development process that will see meaningful community participation in a design and decision-making process and even incremental community build. We see the importance of making the most of the existing neighbourhood assets around the project, and that many of the issues we have already identified in this process may be resolved. Our important proposal is for a self-sustaining community organisation to be incorporated and capable of governing and operating the site by 2015. Our current design proposal is to demolish the existing main building, refurbish and extend the former police station and build a new workshop and flexible room on the western boundary. Our spatial concept is to effectively open up the centre of the site for visibility, solar access and heritage significance. We have heard strong support for gardening activities as well as a diversity of activities that can coexist and co-operate at the same time. Our design concept of opening up the site allows more flexibility and co-existence of diverse activities at the same time. We have developed a capital works budget and initial operational budget that explores the feasibility of our proposal and identified some of the key risks, objectives and evaluation of critical success factors we will develop in EOI Stage 3. RCLC has a major role to play in providing support and project management for transition to a self-sustaining facility in year 4. Our operational budget relies on a minority proportion (40%) of space for hire by external entities and a majority proportion of affordable, fee for service community programs (60%) some of which are currently run at Lord St. Our model is for capital development to be supported by council, external grants, local sponsorship and at least $155,000 of community and partner inkind contributions. Granted the initial capital development budget, the proposal is for Tudor St to be financially sustainable in 2015 and to be run by an incorporated, community-run association. Our current model sees that building the capacity of the community would rely on the City of Yarra funding a project worker position in years 1 to 3. This, our presented service plan, operational model, facility and site planning is commended to you by the local community, many of whom have provided letters of support (included at the end of this report). We hope that it outlines the importance of continuing our process to a more significant degree in EOI Stage 3.
here studio Michelle Emma James Ammon Beyerle
5
Background In February 2011, Council decided not to proceed with a proposed sale of the property at 49 Tudor Street, Richmond. The property previously housed the Burnley Neighbourhood Centre and a Maternal and Child Health service, but has been vacant since 2007. Many community members opposed the sale, saying a community facility was needed in an area with a growing residential population. In June 2011, Council called for Expressions of Interest from local community groups who wished to use the property at 49 Tudor Street. Ten submissions were received. At its monthly meeting in August 2011, Council determined which organisations should proceed to Stage Two, which will involve developing detailed proposals for their use of the site. As some of the proposed uses complement each other, Council suggested that submitters work together on proposals for Stage Two. Stage Two involves the following two teams: 1) Richmond Community Learning Centre; here studio; Richmond Community Garden Group; and Richmond Toy Library 2) Cultivating Community
This feasibility report was prepared by Michelle Emma James & Ammon Beyerle from here studio in collaboration with Patricia Grosse & Sue Gold from The Chestnut Network, on behalf of the partners Richmond Community Learning Centre, here studio, Richmond Community Garden Group and Richmond Toy Library.
6
Objectives Our community engagement and feasibility study identifies the following to be the key objectives for the project: 1
Make effective use of the indoor /outdoor space at 49 Tudor Street to maintain its role as a community facility for the next 25 years
2
Retain this facility for use by community
3
Build shared capacity and learning opportunities for the community
4
Effectively transition community ownership and management of 49 Tudor Street to a dedicated resident-run community organisation which will be incorporated by year 3
5
Develop a facility that has complementary activities to other community-based facilities in the area now and into the future
7
8
Stage 2 - Feasibility Study
9
Stage 2 Process Our group formed out of a common vision of the site that included partnerships between multiple organisations and ideas. We chose to approach the feasibility study as the first phase of a community engagement process that would start to develop a shared sense of capacity. Very early on we established that we had common principles around community involvement and how to achieve long-term objectives. A significant proportion of time was set aside to establishing a working model for a process that could incorporate many people and identify community leaders and assets. A core group of Simone Gardiner (RCLC) and Michelle Emma James + Ammon Beyerle (here studio) worked closely through the project consulting with partners, a stakeholder group and the local community. In this process further partnerships were formed. RCLC had a challenging role CORE Simone Gardiner of wearing different hats as an Michelle Emma James interested participant and the Ammon Beyerle lead organisation that invited key stakeholders and community PARTNERS Richmond Community Learning Centre members to contribute to the here studio study. This challenge was Richmond Community Garden Group Richmond Toy Library increased by the prospect that council has discussed for a community space in GTV9. STAKEHOLDER GROUP
Our capacity to work together as a working group and community has grown significantly through a process of very open discussion, argument, testing and listening. We have already spent a long time together and built up a narrative for the project with many layers. Many building blocks of trust were laid through both successes and failures to establish a complex and resilient set of relationships. One key role of the process was to navigate through some of the misinformation and mistrust that circulated throughout the community. We have effectively identified many of the core issues that should be addressed as the project develops and even started to progress in shared resolutions and common language of how to solve them. We have been extremely encouraged over the past month
Pauline Segelyn (RPTA) Chris Artufel Pam Desiree Maree Heagerty Sophie Dawes
Paul McIntosh Rohan Syer Pam Cohn Simone & Harry Pakin
COMMUNITY
to see a swell of support for our proposal by the community. We are happy to hear more informed debate over what activities are preferred, how the site should operate and what the physical outcome could be. Many community members are already sharing visions of how to get involved in the next phase of the process, and are beginning to commit their material support for its early occupation.
To date our team has: Sent out community surveys (see appendix for results) Set-up a stall at the RCLC Sustainable House Day and the Gleadell St Market to talk to members of the community Set up an online presence blog (tudorstreet.posterous.com) and twitter account Held a community workshop focused on community programs and site/design (Sun 18 March) Held a full-day community workshop focused on operational model, financials and governance (Sat 31 March)
10
Held a community gathering at the Tudor St site (Sun 22 April)
TUDOR STREET COMMUNITY HUB EOI PROCESS - STAGE TWO
6
13
20
27
5
12
26
2
9
March
16
23
April
EO I
Cl os es
February
19
23/2
1/3
8/3
13/3
13/2
20/3
13/4
17/4
24/4
:0 020 :0 0
site/design
service plan/org structure
18 preparation
27/2
financials
community
preparation
16
16
:0
:0
0-
0-
18
:0
0
governance
22/3 0
preparation
:0
stakeholders
27/3
15/3 18 :0 020 :0 0
partners
14/2
18
7/2
18 :3 020 :0 0
27/1
13 :3 015 :3 0
coordination
27/4
18/3
22/4
31/3
external communication internal communication
working groups
24/2
20/3
29/3
4/4
11/4 13/4
working group led by RCLC working group led by Here Studio
The timeline above is version 8 of our working programme, which shows the times and dates of various meetings held during Stage Two. The coordination team (Michelle Emma James & Ammon Beyerle from here studio and Simone Gardner from RCLC) met at least once a week. The partners met monthly, while the stakeholder group met twice.
Partners - who we are Richmond Community Learning Centre, formerly Burnley Neighbourhood Centre was located at Tudor St until 2005. RCLC is a place of welcome and support for people to learn skills, share ideas and connect with their local community, RCLC provides a range of education, recreational and children’s programs as well as responding to emerging issues in the community. here studio is a local architecture practice that specialises in community development and participatory design. Both Michelle and Ammon from here studio have significant experience in managing and working with not-for-profit incorporated associations and other community
018 Tudor St Hub EOI Stage 2 program version 8 24 April 2012
groups. In 2010, here studio cofounded Hub Melbourne, leading the community design/build process as well as operations and events in the start-up phase. Richmond Community Garden Group is a newly formed incorporated association. They are keen to form a community garden on the largest possible area available on the site after the needs of the other groups are met. They imagine the community garden will provide a mixture of individual garden plots (primarily for food production) for group members, and substatial areas of communal garden for use by all members and by the broader community.
11
Community participation The partners identified that community participation was a key principle and a key success factor of the feasibility study. We saw that the project for the redevelopment of Tudor St would only be successful through participation and support of the local community.
Survey results One of the early engagement strategies we incorporated was a detailed survey. Feedback from community surveys indicates a strong demand for the following programs: Respondents under 50 External community space (eg BBQ area) Community garden Craft and workshops space Kitchen facilities Looking for: Educational programs Playgroups Events Specific ideas included: Children’s birthday parties, mothers’/fathers’ groups, health, chook enclosure, childcare, open space, recycling/fixing things Respondents 50+ Craft and workshop space Kitchen Communtiy garden Internal community meeting rooms Looking for: Broadband for Seniors Educational programs Craft exchanges Community lunches Events Markets Specific ideas included: book clubs, environmental groups
Purpose During our first community meeting we confirmed a shared sense of purpose for Tudor St: • • • • • •
12
community meeting space mutli-functional indoor-outdoor spaces public backyard shared resources learning & skill sharing
13
14
Proposal
15
Complementary sites We see Tudor St as part of a network of complementary sites in Burnley. RCLC moved from 49 Tudor to 92-94 Lord St in 2005 and remembers a strong connection to the Tudor St site as part of a local community. Lord St currently delivers a diverse mix of adult and children’s programs and there is an opportunity for these to grow in the future over many sites to service a broader community. This is an exciting prospect especially as we consider the growth of the local population and the development of the GTV9 site to include a significant community facility. In this map of complementary sites, Tudor St provides the opportunity for flexible indoor-outdoor spaces to support Lord St and GTV9. Tudor St would be particularly focussed on its local neighbourhood, mostly attracting those who would walk to the site and use it informally, as was some of the activity in the past. We have identified the potential for Tudor St indoor-outdoor flexible spaces to compliment Lord St increasing its focus on childcare services and for GTV9 to potentially focus on adult programs. Tudor St facilities would also be appropriate for noisy workshop, messy craft and loose gardening activities, chooks and kid’s birthday BBQs that might be more difficult to support at the other sites. The use of Tudor St for increasing resident interest gardening activities cannot be understated.
16
Links to City of Yarra Council Plan 2009-2013 This proposal is built around providing amenity for residents In the Burnley area. It supports the Council’s Plan in the following areas: Making Yarra more Liveable The proposed use will ensure access to indoor and outdoor facilities for residents in the Tudor Street neighbourhood. It will also be managed in the first instance by the Richmond Community Learning Centre, a neighbourhood house with substantial experience in providing services for the community. Ensuring a Sustainable Yarra It incorporates a community garden which will be available for community use. The community garden will provide opportunities to deliver sustainable living workshops eg to increase energy efficiency, waste minimisation and better use of resources. Support a diverse and dynamic Yarra 49 Tudor Street will remain a focal point for the community, delivering life-long learning, social participation and providing a local facility for use by individuals and groups within the community. The mental model for residents of a neighbourhood house will remain with features updated to also attract recent and new members of the community. It is a community facility to support local services and community activity. It will be a space that provides educational, recreational and social activities for the wellbeing of the community. It incorporates a plan to seek and encourage the hard to reach to take part in local activities. A key feature of the indoor / outdoor space and community workshop is that the site will be able to support local activities where people can meet with neighbours.
17
Programs and activities
The content of our operational plan was developed in iterative consultation with the local community through our community engagement process that included surveys and face to face meetings. The Operational Plan is based on forecast usage of the whole site including indoor and outdoor space. In response to consultation with the community we have emphasised the kitchen, craft and workshop facilities in such a way as to create more opportunities for diversity and shared learning to occur. Further, we designed the site in such a way to allow maximum flexibility for multiple uses and running events at the same time. Consideration is also given to the potential location of services at the community facility at the GTV9 site as well as services offered currently at 92-94 Lord Street. Services across these three sites should be complementary. The strength of the Tudor Street site is that it has both indoor and outdoor facilities which can be used by the local community. Facilities and services to be offered from the site include: • Community garden which can be divided into both shared and individual lots (managed by the Richmond Community Garden Group) • Office space (to be used by Richmond Public Tenants Association) • A bookable meeting room for up to 20 people which can be used for adult education, hobby programs, social events, birthday parties and meetings • A bookable kitchen which can be used to support indoor as well as outdoor activities • A workshop for use by the community • An outdoor flexible room which could be used for fitness programs, birthday parties or community gatherings • A covered outdoor BBQ area • A flexible room for arts and crafts activities • A children’s play area The community will be able to hire indoor and outdoor space through the Richmond Community Learning Centre. The range of programs and services offered will both reflect the community’s memory of the previous services offered through the Burnley Neighbourhood House (previous tenants of 49 Tudor Street) and the contemporary needs of today.
Target Groups This development is for the local community. Burnley is a rapidly growing community with a high level of young single people 30+ and an increasing number of young couples moving into the area. The property is located in an area with a mix of new developments and long established homes, ensuring a mix of young and older people. Within the area there are people who are isolated: people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and people with disabilities. The programs and activities will target a representative cohort of the community – men, older people, young families, environmentally conscious, business and community groups. Efforts will be made to identify and encourage isolated members of the community to take part in activities.
18
Site plan of the Burnley Backyard This is our proposed plan as developed in Stage 2. The initial operational budget, service plan and capital works development plan in this report are based on this proposal. We intend in Stage 3 to undergo a more significant participatory design process with the community starting with the occupation of the old police station and extending to develop the garden and detail around any demolitions and building of new pavilions on the site. The proposal has been designed with community build potential in mind.
19
Perspective drawings Here are some initial drawings of what the redeveloped site might feel like.
View from south-west corner of the 49 Tudor St site looking north-east • Community garden (individual plots in foreground, compost heap and shared plots beyond) • Front facade, gates and foundation stones of existing main building retained and re-used as landscaping elements including low-walls, seating, planter boxes • New workshop space to be used for bike repairs, Men’s Shed
20
View from south-east corner of 49 Tudor St looking north • Community kitchen garden (shared plots for herbs and vegetables) is located adjacent to the extended former police station building • The former police station is extended to include a community kitchen, new office space, new toilets that can be accessed internally and externally, and covered BBQ area
View from former police station looking west • Children’s playground under the trees between flexible room 1 & 2 • The centre of the site is an shaded open area for community gatherings and many other community activities 21
Concept plans - scenarios from a day in the life of the Burnley Backyard 7:30am Yoga (flexible room 1) Gardening (individual plots) yoga
Two relatively quiet activities occuring simultaneously early in the morning If it’s a nice day, the yoga class could be held outdoors without disrupting the gardening group
gardening group
The gardening group has access to sheds, water, compost, etc Both groups have access to toilets
music class
broadband for seniors
9:00am Broadband class (flexible room 1) Music class (flexible room 2) Taichi (outdoor room) Three separate activities occuring at the same time
taichi
All groups have access to toilets, kitchen can be accessed for tea/ coffee if necessary Individuals can still access their garden plots
mosaics
playgroup
mens group
gardening group
playgroup
10:30am Playgroup (flexible room 1 & playground) Mosaics (flexible room 2) Men’s group (workshop) Gardening group (across garden) A busy time with four different activities occuring at once The central outdoor room acts as a buffer/spill space for any of the activities. All groups have access to toilets Kitchen is in use by the playgroup Mosaics + men’s group can still make tea/coffee from their rooms
22
cooking class
community lunch
Cooking class and gardening group have just finished and the two groups meet at the outdoor room to host the community lunch Everyone on the site has access to the toilets and kitchen
gardening group
mum’s group
12:30pm Cooking class (kitchen) Gardening (individual & shared plots) Community lunch (outdoor room)
playgroup
bike repair
residents group meeting
3:00pm Residents group meeting (flexible room 1) Mothers’ group (flexible room 2) Playgroup (playground) Bike repair (workshop) Mothers’ group happening in flexible room 2. Playgroup is supervised but mums can still keep an eye out for their children in the playground Residents group and bike repair can both spill out into the outdoor room without disrupting each other
6:00pm Community BBQ event (outdoor room, kitchen, flexible room 1, flexible room 2) community BBQ event
A community BBQ occupies most of the site making the best use of the indoor-outdoor opportunities that Tudor Street provides Individuals can still access their garden plots
23
Governance Current model Richmond Community Garden Group
partner
Richmond Community Learning Centre
Richmond Public Tenants Association
partner
Management We have agreed as partners that RCLC is the only organisation that has the governance structure in place and capacity to start the project immediately. RCLC has been the lead organisation in this feasibility study and has been key in inviting participation of all of the community members to date. The majority of the in-kind work such as letter-box drops and manning the Gleadell St Market stall has been undertaken by volunteers for RCLC. There has been a strong and clear message from the stakeholders that RCLC should continue to lead the project into the next stage. The RCLC committee have worked through the risks associated with the project and determined that an auspicing model would be appropriate for the first 2 years reliant upon strong partnerships formed to other organisations. These other organisations would carry some of the responsibility of managing the site and eventually play a role in formulating a self-sufficient incorporated association for Tudor St. Before transition to the Tudor St incorporated association, RCLC will ultimately hold appropriate insurances including public liability insurance, and notably substantial volunteer insurance for the community participatory build process. A subcommittee of the RCLC management committee will continue to oversee the project. An important role of capacity building for the smooth transition to the Tudor St incorporated association has been budgeted for in the capital costs. The role will invariably require formation of new partnerships and focus on encouraging members of the community taking on active responsibilities. These services will be offered through collaboration between Richmond Community Learning Centre (RCLC), Richmond Public Tenants Association and Richmond Community Garden Group. RCLC will initially manage the day-to-day operation and oversight of the site. Richmond Community Garden Group will manage the community garden. Richmond Public Tenants Association will have an office onsite. A working group will be established to plan for incorporation of a community organisation for the management of 49 Tudor Street and transition to full community management over a three year period.
Year 1 & 2 model
er
ice
rtn
sp au
pa
Richmond Community Learning Centre
24
Richmond Public Tenants Association
Residents’ group
sp ice
Men’s Shed group
au
Richmond Community Garden Group
er
rtn
pa
Year 1 • RCLC as parent auspicing - MOUs for organisations: RCGG, RPTA • committee of management includes RCLC members, representative from RCGG, herestudio, RPTA, and 3 community members • paid position for project worker (capacity building) (role of getting the project going in terms of members / participation / local business partnerships, communication and hire set-up) • volunteer maintenance, hosting day to day • RPTA as on site presence Year 2 • Continue and transition • RCLC still auspicing and mentoring residents’ group / men’s shed group, etc • MOUs with RCGG, RPTA continue • Consider GTV9 coming online Year 3-4 • Incorporate Tudor St organisation • MOUs with organisations RCLC, RCGG, RPTA, RTL? • committee of management includes RCLC members, representative from RTL, RCGG, herestudio, RPTA, and 3 community members Year 5 and beyond • Tudor St incorporated association • MOUs with organisations RCLC, RCGG, RPTA, RTL? • explore other models (ie social enterprise / collectives)
Year 3 & 4 model
partner
Tudor Street Incorporated association
partner
Richmond Public Tenants Association
partner
Richmond Community Garden Group
Richmond Community Learning Centre 25
26
Stage 3 - Issues and Opportunities
27
28
Stage 3 Process Community engagement
The success of services provided at 49 Tudor Street will depend on support from the community. In developing this plan, we considered the potential to plan programs that would suit the local demographic: • • • • •
The indoor-outdoor concept welcomes families and community groups; Residents with no gardens will be able to hire outdoor space for celebrations, bbq’s etc; Programs for seniors, access to a meeting space for seniors groups. Location of the Richmond Tenants Group within the premises; Young parents will continue to have access to facilities at Lord Street. In addition they will be able to enjoy birthday parties at either the indoor or outdoor space (or a combination of both) at Tudor Street; • The environmentally conscious will be able to produce their own vegetables and skill share; • Business and government departments will have access to meeting facilities with outdoor amenity. The concept retains the community mental model which is the legacy of the Burnley Neighbourhood Centre, allowing for the enjoyment of both long term residents and new community members. However, the journey has not been without concerns from the community, especially those who would have preferred to maintain the main building on the property. During the current feasibility procees, the partners identified that the option to retain and refurbish the main building would not be feasible due to the poor state of the property and its current layout. For this feasibility model, the partners opted to maintain the police station, retain elements of the main building and make significant use of the site grounds for outdoor spaces. We see the proposal as a modest, achievable project that will allow the community to still have access to this site for its amenity. We consider our modest proposal to be an important first step in developing a network of complimentary sites open to change in the future. However, there are still concerns about security of tenure. We propose that the Council provides a 25 year lease for use of this site by the community. This will alleviate local concerns and facilitate community participation in Stage 3 of the project including community design and build - and space for inkind contributions of materials, labour and services. There are individuals and groups in the community who are keen to maintain a community focus for this site. In Stage 3 we will continue to involve broad community representation, to capture the ideas and aspirations of these individuals and groups. However, we are also conscious that for the initiative to fully succeed, we will require a greater level of community engagement in the next stage of the feasibility study.
29
Proposed stage 3 timeline
Jun - Aug 2012 OH&S/Risk • structural check of police station • fence off main building • OH&S check
Design • occupation / further site analysis • start community design process led by here studio
Build • cleaning of police station (to be • flexible room 1) • two week community working bee
Governance • identify residents • preliminary governance design
Financials • identify potential partners
Activities • first events on site
30
Sep - Nov 2012
• removal of asbestos by specialist contractor
Nov - March 2013
• OH&S procedures in place
• community design process led by here studio • fitout workshops
• garden planting phase 1 • office and flexible room 1 construction
• garden planting phase 2 • kitchen construction • community build of workshop space • community build of flexible room 2
• governance and organisational structure design
• governance and organisational structure in place/review
• negotiate with partners • source in-kind donations of materials
• partners in place
• first garden plots open • mosaics/yoga/women’s groups/meetings etc from flexible room 1 • RPTA move into office space
• garden plots thriving • mosaics/yoga/women’s groups meetings etc from flexible room 1 continue • kitchen/toilets open 31
Building demolition - the former health centre The proposed concept plan includes the demolition of the main building at 49 Tudor St. A planning permit application would need to be lodged as required by the City of Yarra. A Demolition Plan and Waste Management Plan (and any other statutory requirements) to the satisfaction of the Council would be prepared prior to the commencement of works on site.
Figure 1 - demolition plan
Arguments for building demolition - why? • the building isn’t configured for the purpose (services and back-of-house areas are oriented to the north) • the current building does not facilitate multiple independent activities at the same time • historically the police station (not the main building) was used by community groups and residents • solar access to gardens and internal spaces is limited due to bulk and height • block visibility to playground and outdoor meeting room • the current condition of the building would require significant investment
The reasons why building demolition has been proposed is outlined in bullet point format below, in addition to a summary of the issues and opportunities that this raises. As this proposal is preliminary in its nature, it is expected that further community consultation is necessary and a report with more significant detail should be prepared as the design is further developed.
interior of main building
Issues • • • • • • • • • •
nostalgia/meaning in the community trust of Council (once it is demolished it is lost) embodied energy of materials and construction vista at the end of Bendigo St - current facade has an important presence and is part of the character of the street marks changes in morphology - transition to small brick cottages to the north, along Tudor St heritage - part of Racecourse precinct (HO331) lack of time to deeply investigate options with the community in Stage 2 costings - Council estimate vs independent estimate Council report to demolish the building misinformed article in local newspaper leading to confusion
interior of main building
Opportunities • re-use of bricks for raised garden beds and other landscaping elements • keeping elements of building to make seats and low boundaries between outdoor spaces • keeping the foundation stones • increasing heritage value and appreciation through use
cracking in walls of main building
Alternative proposals put forward In response to the proposal to demolish the main building, local resident Rohan Syer has put forward an alternative proposal which shows the retention of the majority of the building and the re-configuration of internal walls and doors. To set a benchmark, this alternative proposal was independently costed by Contract Management Systems. Please refer to the Appendix for a copy of this alternative proposal and the associated cost plan.
Building re-use - the former police station
Figure 2 - re-use of former police station highlighted
• The smaller building (the former Police Station) is to be retained, refurbished and extended as per the plan attached to include a flexible room kitchen, office space, and accessible toilets. • The Richmond Public Tenants Association is to have one staff person on site using the office space. • The flexible room and kitchen would be available for hire for general community use - arts and crafts groups, women’s groups, mothers’ groups, yoga, childrens’ birthday parties, community lunches, etc. • There would also be an adjacent covered outdoor BBQ area.
exterior of former police station
interior of former police station
Our proposal seeks to enhance the significance of the social meaning of the site with a mix of demolition and extension of existing buildings. The future design will retain some of the original elements of the physical buildings including maintaining remnants of the main facade. We have focussed on opening up the broader site for more use and giving prominence to the former police station.
33
Redevelopment - new flexible room, workshop & playground
Figure 3 - new structures highlighted
• The proposal is to construct new pavilions to the west side of the site. This new building is to include a flexible community room and a workshop (for men’s shed, bike repair, and other workshop activities). • The flexible room will be designed to include a sink and power for making tea and washing up after craft activities such as mosaics. • There is to be locked storage which is accessible by community groups.
• A disabled access toilet is proposed in this new structure. This has been considered as an important addition for many of the senior residents who will be using both the flexible room and the workshop. • The workshop will have a roller door and the ability to shut tools away for safety, so that the room can be used as an additional flexible space • The design of this new structure would be further developed with the community in Stage 3.
Children’s playground • The existing playground equipment on the site is likely to be arsenic-treated wood and as such should be removed from the site. • The proposal is to provide new playground equipment to the north of the site under the existing trees. • Bicycle parking is proposed for the site. 34
Redevelopment - community garden
Figure 4 - community garden highlighted
• The community garden would provide a mix of individual plots, communal plots, as well as facilities that benefit all the community (herb garden and fruit trees along an attractive and productive perimeter fence area). • The following facilities will be required for the community gardening - a large tank to collect water from the buildings on the site, 1 tap for each 8 plots plus a couple of others for communal garden beds, new compost bins, sheds for tools, wheelbarrows, etc.
Soil contamination • We have received mixed preliminary advice that some of the soil, particularly around the existing main building, may be contaminated, whilst other areas may well be safe • Soil which is contaminated could be rehabilitated by various methods - we would support an approach that makes contaminated land slowly safer over time • As mentioned previously, some of the foundations and parts of walls of the main building would be retained to create planter boxes after the removal of the roof (less soil disturbance) • Some raised beds would be provided for easier access for seniors and for those with disabilities - and aid good water management in dryer seasons.
Fences • The entire site would be fenced (with multiple gates), but a stronger barrier would be proposed on the south side (planting of trees etc) to block the current direct exposure to vehicular traffic along Bendigo St. • The community garden fence would be a raised brick bed with strong shrubby plants (e.g.) lavender plus compost bins as barriers between the private plots and public gardens. The only extra fences are the short lengths at the gates, mainly for the safety of children.
35
Services plan This is our initial services plan. As well as making the most of our designed water tanks we would like to develop a recycled water system. This will be developed further in Stage 3. In Stage 3 we intend to incorporate significant energy saving measures and devices into the project including energy meters, solar panels and a solar hot water system. We would intend to use reverse cycle air-conditioning attached to an external heat pump. RCLC has experience developing similar systems at 92-94 Lord St and we see opportunities to incorporate this into learning programs.
36
Land use planning The property at 49 Tudor Street is located in a Residential Zone 1 area. There is a Heritage Overlay (HO331) on the site. A planning permit regarding use will be required. The original centre at Tudor Street, Burnley was established in 1950 as a service for families and child health. In 1989, following a growing awareness amongst local people for the need of a locally-based community facility in Burnley, the local council funded a pilot Occasional Childcare program for six months. This program was a success. The centre became legally incorporated in 1990 and the Burnley Occasional Care Centre was established. Further ongoing funding was made available in 1993 to the Committee of Management to employ a parttime Community Development Outreach worker at the centre which later became known as Burnley Neighbourhood Centre (BNC). Until 2007, the site was used for community activities as the Burnley Neighbourhood Centre. We believe that the proposed land use is consistent with the historic uses of the site. There may be a need to argue that no additional car parking facilities be included - in consideration of the local walkable catchment area and provision of bicycle parking. We have sought advice from Melanie Ringersma, a senior statutory planner at the City of Yarra. Please refer to the appendix for this preliminary advice.
37
Capital requirements A Cost Plan based on the feasibility study drawings has been prepared by Contract Management Systems and is included in the Appendix of this report. The cost plan details a Construction Cost which includes building construction and a contingency. It does not include fees and cost escalation and is based on commercial rates today. Further work to establish the full cost of landscaping has been worked through by Patricia Pringle and Cath Stutterheim (Richmond Community Garden Group) and has been cross-checked against precedent case studies provided to us by community member, Rohan Syer (who is also a landscape architect). The full spreadsheet is included in the appendix. For initial purposes of budgeting, we have allocated a fit out cost of $600/m2. We consider this to be a potential area for local sponsorship and in kind support from the community. The other areas that we can see cost reductions through community volunteer/low-cost labour and discounted materials are detailed in the breakdown diagram on the following page. This includes builder’s overheads, joinery, finishes, painting, fixtures, and planting and landscaping.
Capital works - full commercial build Preliminaries
$57,725
Demolition
$14,865
Construction
$149,752
Services
$52,394
$111,330
Landscaping & play equipment
Contingency
$11,000
Traffic Management
$12,650
GST
$40,972
Sub-total
Fit-out
$120,000
GST
$12,000 Total Commercial Cost
38
$450,688
$582,688
commercial build
community build
profit
not-for-profit
wages
volunteer/low-cost labour
materials
materials
*discounted/second-hand materials
We see that the re-building of Tudor St is an opportunity for the community to connect, skill-share and build ownership. The above diagram also shows how costs could be reduced through community participation. Importantly the issue of long-term community tenure must be addressed in this model. Here we have made a preliminary indication of what potential we see for community buidling in the capital works budget.
Capital works - commercial + community build Preliminaries
$35,000
Demolition
$14,865
Construction
$120,000
Services
$52,394
Landscaping & play equipment
$75,000
Contingency
$11,000
Traffic Management
$12,650
GST
$32,091
Sub-total
Fit-out
GST Indicative Commercial Cost (after community build)
$353,000
$90,000
$9,000 $452,000
39
Funding sources and contributions The project will require $167,190 in working capital and $582,688 in CAPX requirements over the first 3 years. We have also included a contingency for Incidentals & error of $37,312. In a conservative budget, the project will require Council to initially budget for $787,190 to cover the cost of start-up working capital and to support CAPX. We propose to develop a partnership with council in which community and external in-kind contributions can be shared between council savings and additional community working capital.
Capital works budget
$582,688
Project worker (capacity building)
$82,190
Participatory design
$85,000
Incidentals & error
$37,312 Council budget
Partners & community in-kind contribution
$787,190
$130,000
here studio NFP reduction
$25,500
Sponsorship
$40,000
Transition project (RCLC / grants)
$56,100
Grants
$60,000 In-kind contribution
$311,600
Our capital works budget is presented in a conservative, commercial rate model. We would like to enter into a conversation with council about opportunities for the community to contribute to the project to both reduce the budget outlay of council and increase the available funds for fit-out, equipment and new programs in the finished project. We have already identified in our community engagement thus far that secure tenure is a key issue surrounding the potential for community participation and material contribution. We request a 25-year lease to be established and for council to allocate a significant liaison for the project in the first year. What we are suggesting is for the City of Yarra to provide funds to RCLC who with here studio will manage the project so that maximum possibility for savings and increased support for the project through community participation can be best realised. We see this principle of community participation not only a benefit to financial sustainability of the project but a recognition of significant assets in the existing community, and an opportunity to realise and build capacity. From our EOI Phase 1 submission (June 2011): In May 2010, the City of Yarra invited Jim Diers from Seattle to conduct a one-day workshop for Council officers, local agencies and residents about empowering communities. Diers discussed how neighbourhoods are more than just 40
places with needs. They are communities with abundant assets and resources. In order to fully tap those resources, he urged the need to go beyond involving citizens in the city’s priorities through the city’s programs (citizen participation) to enabling communities to address their own priorities through their own organisations (community empowerment). We believe Tudor Street offers an excellent platform for a community empowerment project. We believe that people care very deeply about their community and want to be a part of it. They want to contribute something, but they don’t always want to manage the administration activities or go to meetings. At here studio we work hard at trying to find other ways for people to get involved - to tap those incredible resources that already exist in each community. We have established a reputation for doing this successfully with a number of different community groups. In Stage 3 we aim to develop an implementable model with council that attracts not for profit rates for services and materials and have included contingencies around this. here studio as facilitators commit to continuing a 30% reduction in fees as per a not for profit rate. We have included a commercial fee budget based on a complex project with a total cost of works of 850k. It may be appropriate to work more transparently at hourly rates considering that the potential for the cashflow savings would develop collaboratively over the course of the project. We have identified some of the opportunities in the capital development plan that could include community contributions and external inkind support or grants. We propose that these contributions contribute equally to a reduction in the council’s spending and an increase in additional operational and capacity building funds for the overall project.
The transition project The proposed model involves a transition from the management role occupied by RCLC to support for the development of, and eventual incorporation of, a community-owned committee of management at 49 Tudor Street. It is anticipated that the committee of management for the new entity will include representatives of the partners and the community. This process will enable RCLC to focus on potential provision of programs in the GTV9 development. The expectation is that activities offered through the GTV9 community facility will complement the activities provided through the indoor / outdoor space at 49 Tudor Street. As RCLC will undertake this transition project, it has not been included in the Tudor St operational budget. Item
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Project management (avg 5 hours/week) - convening transition working group - liaison with COY and stakeholders
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
Planning –transition plan (including operations, marketing, succession and financials), strategic plan, monitoring and evaluation
$6,000
$4,000
$8,000
Development of policies and processes
$6,500
Mentoring new committee
$1,600
TOTAL $16,000
$20,500
$19,600
The above budget is indicative of the costs likely to be incurred to achieve the desired outcomes related to long term sustainability of Tudor Street. Over the three year timeline, we propose that funding for the transition project be sourced from external grants such as the community support grants. Professional development such as project management, grant writing and governance support to maximise the capacity of the new governance entity, are additional features of the project. To assist, we anticipate support can be provided through professional development opportunities already offered by the City of Yarra. 41
Service Plan and Operational Budget In our model, the programs and services offered are separated into three main areas: • Community garden • Programs for the community • Facility hire
1 Community Garden The Community Garden will be managed by The Richmond Community Garden Group. The Garden at 49 Tudor Street will comprise two garden spaces (one with 20 private beds and one with 2 beds for community use) a kitchen garden, large compost heap, herb and flower beds and a flower garden. The community garden will be managed by the Richmond Community Garden Group.
2 Programs for the community Our community profile has been informed by census and council data, population projections and the consultation process for the feasibility study. We will offer a limited range of neighbourhood house activities at the Tudor Street site. These programs will reflect the needs of local residents and will include adult education, arts and crafts and social interest programs. They will be offered by Richmond Community Learning Centre as part of the Neighbourhood House Coordination Program. Childcare programs will continue to be offered from the Lord Street premises. The Richmond Community Garden group will also be able to offer community education programs focussing on garden activities.
3 Facility Hire Hire of facilities is expected to be the major revenue stream to support the sustainability of the Tudor Street Site. The indoor and outdoor spaces will be available for hire outside of times used for planned neighbourhood house/community programs. The kitchen and outdoor BBQ area are also bookable and may be booked as a package alongside indoor room hire and/or outspace space hire. Plans and processes will be put into place to ensure a balance of use for programs, the community and commercial hire whilst maintaining financial viability.
Building to Full Capacity (and a project worker role) The project worker role (capacity building) is a significant role for the first 3 years to establish and build the image and patronage of the facility. From July 2012 to at least January 2013, this role will ensure that agreements for use, timelines and plans for use are monitored, communicate between RCLC, here studio architects, the partners and the City of Yarra, consult with the community and manage the transition to full operation. The project worker role (capacity building) will be a day to day role that, once 49 Tudor Street is operating, will focus on promotion and setting up coordination of activity and hire. Another aspect of the project worker role will be to develop and implement strategies to engage hard to reach members of the community. The proposal is for the role to be incorporated into a single centre coordinator role in year 4. Fundamental to the proposal is a gradual capacity building project to full service operation from July 2013. During 2012 (Year 1), efforts will focus on community participatory involvement in building the site, growing and supporting a volunteer base, and staging the first limited hire and community programs. Hire of office space by the Richmond Public Tenants’ Association and the operation of the community garden is planned from November 2012. The community workshop space is planned for use from February 2013. Full community education, leisure and general interest programs will commence in April 2013. To consider gradual growth of the facility, our estimates have been developed over a usage of 40 weeks per year equivalent to 65% usage in Year 2 and 80% usage from Year 3. This calculation method has been used to estimate a minimum benchmark level of income required to offset costs. Additional usage, which we estimate to be between 5 and 10%, would provide surplus revenue for contingencies, further learning programs and capital purchases. 42
Year 1 (2012-2013) Operational Plan The first year running costs include support to manage the transition to full occupancy, engage the community and promote the venue in order to reach optimum occupancy as soon as possible. We estimate that usage during Year 1 will incremental as follows: Program
Date(s)
Activity
Estimated income
Direct Costs
Community education/ Neighbourhood house programs
From April 2013
6 classes/ week x 10 weeks x 10 people per class (inc craft room) Room hire (8 days)
$6,000
$4,800
Community workshop
From November 2012
Men’s group (40 members – annual fee) Programs 2 classes/week x 10 weeks x 8 people x 2 terms (@$120/term)
$2,000
Volunteer
$1,920
$3,200
2 x cooking groups/educ x 10 weeks x 10 Room hire x 5 days
$2,000 $500
$1,600
Kitchen
From April 2013
$800
Program delivery/ coordinator (RCLC)
$5,000
Community gardens
From November 2012
Outdoor space
From April 2013
Office hire (RPTA)
From November 2012
None (winter)
$3,500
$1,000
$0
$0
$6,000
Total Year 1 running costs (see page 48)
$23,840
Salaries - project worker (capacity building)
$30,020
Proposed support from COY project worker
$30,020
RCLC Contribution (DHS funding)
$11,000
Fundraising event
$1,000 TOTAL
$64,740
$69,460 43
Service Plan and Operational Budget Annual Usage (full operation)
1 Community garden Estimated full operation annual usage and revenue (Year 2+) is as follows: Space
Purpose
Day/time
Anticipated revenue
Garden 1
Public garden
20 beds x $120
$2,400
Garden 2
Private beds
30 members x $55
$1,650
Indoor/ outdoor
Community education programs
Richmond Community Garden Group / RCLC / Others
$3,000
Outdoor space
Sale of garden produce / market
44
$3,000
Income Total
$10,050
Less community garden costs
$6,000
Annual Usage (full operation)
2 Community Programs Estimated full operation annual usage and revenue (Year 2+) is as follows: Space
Purpose
Day/time
Anticipated revenue
Room 1
Community education and general interest programs
$100/term x 10 participants per session 6 classes/week (eg over 2 days) x 4 terms (or $12/session)
$24,000
Room 1
School holiday programs
3 days/week x 12 participants x $45/session x 12 weeks
$19,440
Outdoor Flexible Room
Health interest programs eg Tai Chi, Yoga
1 hour x 3 sessions/week @ $12/session x 10 people x 40 weeks
$14,400
Outdoor Flexible Room (and BBQ)
Community education – cookery classes
2 hours/week x 10 weeks @$100/participant/term x 10 people x 2 terms (or $12/session) Participants cover the cost of ingredients
$4,000
Kitchen
Community cooking classes
One morning and one evening per week $100/person per term x 2 hours/session x 10 people 2 classes/week x 4 terms (or $12/session) Participants cover the cost of ingredients
$8,000
Room 2
Arts and crafts (Arts, craft, scrapbooking, mosaics etc)
2 hour sessions/week x 10 people x $100/term x 4 terms 6 classes/week
$24,000
Workshop
Community education programs
2 hour sessions/week x 8 people x $120/term x 4 terms 6 classes/week Participants contribute towards cost of materials and equipment
$24,000
Workshop
Men’s/community group
2-3 days/week availability for men’s/community group. Membership $50/year x 40 members Men’s/community group expected to contribute back to running costs through community projects Participants contribute towards cost of materials and equipment
$2,000
TOTAL
$119,840
45
Service Plan and Operational Budget 2 Community Programs Estimated direct costs of service delivery for the above are as follows: Resource
Anticipated cost
Tutors
1760 hours @ $40/hour
$70,400
Administration/materials
24 classes approx.
$7,000
School holiday program
2 staff/supervisors
$15,500
SUB-TOTAL
$92,900
10 hours/week
$20,000
TOTAL
$112,900
Salaries - Program coordination (inc on costs) based on approx. $65k/year
This is an average estimation across all the above activities. Some programs may attract more than 10 participants, others less. Community education programs are estimated at fee for service rates. Some programs may attract funding eg education programs for culturally and linguistically diverse clients, people with disabilities and people with low levels of educational attainment. The current proposal is for RCLC to deliver and coordinate programs in Years 2 to 3 with increasing community support. In Year 4 this role would transition to a centre coordinator who would also organise hire of facilities. Any surplus funds eg as estimated above will contribute to the general revenue stream for Tudor Street. The current proposal is for the men’s/community workshop group to be financially self-sustaining and led by a voluntary coordinator. It is expected that the men’s/community workshop group will contribute to site financial administration. In the first few years the men’s/community workshop group will be managed as a unit of RCLC in and by the new association on incorporation.
46
Annual Usage (full operation)
3 Hire of Facilities
Space
Purpose
Day/time
Anticipated revenue
Room 1
Children’s parties
Weekend/evenings/school holidays 40 per year x $80 party ($100 bond)
$3,200
Room 1
External agencies
Week days 40 weeks x half/day x 2 agencies x $20/hour ($100/day max)
$4,800
Room 1
Community/ groups
Week days, evenings and weekends $10/hour x 2 hours avg x 40 weeks (10 weeks/term) 3 mornings/week, 3 evenings/week
$4,800
Room 1
Commercial hire
20 days/year Occasional one-day hire targeted to local government, Government departments and local businesses/groups (strategic planning, team building, events etc) $120/day
$2,400
Outdoor Flexible Room
Children’s parties
Weekends/evenings/school holidays 20 per year x $80/party ($100 bond)
$1,600
Outdoor Flexible Room
Personal Training Sessions
Mornings (6.00 am – 9.00 am) x 3 days/week x 45 weeks $40/session
$5,400
Outdoor Flexible Room (and BBQ)
Community/ Groups/events
Weekends (30 x half days), evenings (2 x 2 hours/week x 40 weeks) $10/hour - $30/half day, $50/day
$2,500
Kitchen
Community events
Additional charge of $10 contribution to utilities (80 events / year)
$800
Room 2
Community groups eg craft groups (external)
Evenings 2 x evenings/week x 40 weeks ($10/hour)
$800
Workshop
Community access
3 days/week max (rest of time allocated to community shed and planned activity groups) Access to use of equipment in Workshop @ $10/session or $50/quarter
$1,500
Office
Richmond Public Tenants Association
Onsite presence during business hours
$6,000
TOTAL
$33,800 47
Annual running costs The anticipated annual running costs are as follows: Item
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Advertising
$5,000
$5,000
$3,000
$3,000
Audit
$800
$800
$1,700
$1,700
Bank Charges
$120
$120
$400
$400
Maintenance and cleaning
$2,000
$8,200
$8,500
$8,700
Consumables
$1,000
$1,000
$1,500
$1,500
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$500
$2,000
$2,000
Depreciation Insurance
$500
Participatory design consumables
$5,000
IT
$2,000
Power, heat, light
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
$4,000
Telephone and internet
$1,200
$1,200
$1,200
$1,200
Water
$600
$600
$600
$600
Rent
$120
$120
$120
$120
Contingencies
$1,500
$1,500
$3,000
$3,000
SUB TOTAL
$23,840
$33,040
$39,520
$36,220
Salaries project worker (capacity building)
$30,020
$30,920
$21,250
$3,500
Salaries centre coordinator
TOTAL
48
$36,000
$53,860
$63,960
$60,770
$72,220
Advertising A key success factor for 49 Tudor Street will depend on how well it is supported by local residents, community groups, business and government departments. The initial plan for the operation of the site will involve a focus on promotion and engagement activities to attract participants for programs and hire of facilities. Audit A contribution to audit costs has been calculated to cover costs for RCLC. Upon incorporation, the new association will take up the responsibility for auditing of accounts. • Bank Charges • As per audit. • Maintenance This is based on City of Yarra estimates for maintenance costs for neighbourhood houses. Cleaning is estimated at $20/ hour for 2 hours per week. Consumables These are small items such as catering resources, replacements, administration items Capital equipment and depreciation This needs much more development in Stage 3. We are assuming fixtures and furniture to be depreciated over 10 years and technology over 3 years. Some significant items include tools for workshop ($6,000), computers and projectors. Insurance In the first instance insurance costs will be covered through RCLC’s insurance (eg Public Liability). However, the new entity will require its own insurance policies. Organisations hiring facilities will require to show evidence of their own insurance, otherwise an additional premium will be negotiated to cover additional coverage on RCLC policies. Participatory design - consumables The first year participatory design and build process will be an opportunity for residents to connect and develop shared skills and a sense of ownership. Assets in the community will be integrated with events such as make-days, working bees, craft workshops and fundraising lunches. IT A laptop with connection to the internet and an ISP provider will be onsite for administration purposes during years 1 and 2. Provision is made for IT equipment for the new entity in Year 3. Power, heat and lighting This figure is an estimate that includes costs associated with the kitchen, the meeting spaces and the community workshop. Telephone and internet Telephone costs include a mobile phone and access to the internet for Years 1 and 2 in order to respond to enquiries. A full telephone service is expected for use by the new entity in Years 3 and 4. Water The estimated water costs do not include costs associated with the community garden. Detailing these costs in consideration of on-site water tanks and recycled water will be developed in Stage 3 with the Richmond Community Garden Group. Salaries - Project worker (capacity building) This is estimated at 15 hours per week in Years 1 & 2 and 10 hours per week in Year 3, at $35/hour including oncosts plus CPI at approx. 3%. -Centre coordinator This is estimated at 18 hours per week from Year 4, at $35/hour including oncosts plus CPI at approx. 3%. As well as and organising hire of facilities, this role will include some delivery/coordination of community programs. Superannuation Superannuation is estimated at 12% from 1 July 2013. Rent This is based on a notional peppercorn rent and does not feature in the budget.
49
Integrated Financial Sustainability The costs associated with developing the capacity of the project and maintaining the operation of the community facility at Tudor Street cannot be met by facility hire and program delivery alone. This is especially the case in years 1 to 4. Assuming that the contribution from the community workshop will be at breakeven to the costs of its operation, key components of funding to support the ongoing viability will be: • • • • • • • • •
Funding support from external sources Inkind or wholesale cost materials and equipment Inkind services provided by local businesses or provided at discounted rates Fund raising activities Community projects / grants Sale of garden produce Sale of items made in the workshop Establishing a community enterprise External funding – support from City of Yarra
Inkind or wholesale cost materials and equipment • We will encourage and support volunteers to assist with day to day tasks, routine maintenance and administration. • Local businesses will be contacted to provide services, materials and equipment at wholesale or where possible, as an inkind contribution to site activities (eg tools, materials, kitchen resources). • Inkind services provided by local businesses or provided at discounted rates • We will liaise with local businesses to support our administration and business costs such as accounting, IT assistance, graphic design, copy editing, advertising and printing. Fundraising Activities The indoor / outdoor function of the site allows for opportunities to fund raise including sausage sizzles, community markets, craft markets, sale of produce etc. Six events a year have the potential to raise $6,000-$8,000 dollars. Community projects / grants Community strengthening, arts. Volunteer, small equipment and multicultural festivals grants are examples of opportunities to source funding to provide activities for the community, some of which contribute to costs of coordination and administration. Sale of garden produce An estimate of three sales a year, yielding $1,000 per sale, raising $3,000. The sale of garden produce will contribute to the indirect costs of operating the community garden that are included in the overall budget for the site. Sales of items made in the workshop Eg furniture Establishing a community enterprise This is a planned approach to supplementing income for the ongoing viability of the 49 Tudor Street site. This could come out of the community workshop or the community garden. Investigating a community enterprise will be an option occurring alongside the transition to a new community-owned manager for the site. The Annual Usage Plan is an estimate of full activity from Year 2 onwards and will be dependent on a clear operational plan for both this site and use of the community space at the GTV9 facility. Year 1 will be a transitional year when activities will take place as the site becomes ready for use. We anticipate that some activities such as the community garden will be provided from November 2012, but the launch of the programs from 49 Tudor Street will be in April 2013 when the site becomes fully available for use.
50
Snapshot of usage of the Burnley Backyard
The following is an indicative snapshop of how 49 Tudor St might be programmed on a weekly basis. This assumes at least 60% time is dedicated to community use. Notably, this table shows that multiple activities can occur on the site at Snapshot of without usage interrupting – 49 Tudor each Street the same time other with noise and access - we have also realised the possibilities of shared use of space and facilities, or activities being able to occupy multiple spaces for flexible indoor / outdoor programs. Description
Room 1
Community education and general interest Party hire
Mon
Tues
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat
Sun
Am Pm Ev Am Pm Ev Am Pm Ev Am Pm Ev Am Pm Ev Am Pm Ev Am Pm Ev
Room
Outdoor Flexible Room
Kitchen Room 2 Workshop
External agencies Community/groups Commercial hire Health interest Community education – cookery Children’s parties Personal training Community/groups/events Community cooking Community events Arts and crafts Community craft groups Community shed group Community access
x x
x
x x
x x x o
o o o
o o
o o
o
o
o o
x
o o x
x
o o o o o o o o o o
x o o
o
o
o
o o
o
o
o x o
x o x
o x x
o x
o
x
o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o x
o x x
x x
o o o o
x x x x
x x x x
x Programs for the community x example of when kitchen and meeting room can be used together
o Estimate of room hire use by the community and business
51
Overall Operational Budget - 4 years The operational budget including 1 Community Garden, 2 Community Programs and 3 Hire of facilities is as follows: Item
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Direct costs community garden (refer page 44)
$1,000
$4,800
$6,000
$6,000
Direct costs programs (refer page 46)
$9,600
$74,320
$92,900
$92,900
Program delivery/ coordinator (RCLC) (refer page 46)
$5,000
$20,600
$21,218
Running costs (refer page 48)
$23,840
$33,040
$46,520
Salaries project worker (capacity building) (refer page 48)
$30,020
$30,920
$21,250
Salaries centre coordinator (refer page 48)
$36,220
$36,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURE
$69,460
$163,680
$187,888
$171,120
Revenue community garden (refer page 44)
$3,500
$8,040
$10,050
$10,050
Revenue community programs (refer page 45)
$11,920
$95,870
$119,840
$119,840
Revenue room hire (refer page 49)
$7,300
$27,040
$33,800
$33,800
RCLC contribution (DHS funding)
$11,000
$11,000
Fundraising events
$1,000
$5,000
$6,000
$8,000
Proposed support from COY for project worker
$30,020
$30,920
$21,250
IIINCOME TOTAL
$64,740
$177,870
$190,940
$171,690
BALANCE
-$4,720
$14,190
$3,052
$570
52
Cash Flow Statement - 4 years
July-Sept
Year 1 Oct-Dec Jan-M ar
Apr-Jun
July-Sept
Oct-Dec
Year 2 Jan-M ar
Apr-Jun
Expenditure Direct costs – com m unity garden Direct costs – com m unity program s Salaries – program delivery/coordinator (RCLC) Running costs Salaries – project worker TOTAL EXPENDITURE
$3,262
$1,802
$500
$500
$1,200
$1,200
$1,200
$1,200
$2,400
$2,136
$17,060
$17,860
$17,060
$22,340
$2,500
$2,500
$5,150
$5,150
$5,150
$5,150
$8,635
$4,135
$6,135
$4,935
$5,935
$5,435
$5,435
$16,235
$7,505
$7,505
$7,505
$7,505
$7,730
$7,730
$7,730
$7,730
$19,402
$13,442
$19,040
$17,576
$37,075
$37,375
$36,575
$52,655
$1,000
$2,500
$2,400
$2,440
$11,920
$22,000
$18,000
$18,000
$37,870
$1,300
$6,560
$7,360
$6,560
$6,560
$2,750
$2,750
$2,750
$2,750
$2,750
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$2,000
Income Revenue – com m unity garden Revenue – com m unity program s Revenue – room hire RCLC contribution (DHS funding) Fundraising events
COY support TOTAL INCOME Balance to date
$6,000 $2,750
$2,750
$2,750
$3,200
$7,505
$7,505
$7,505
$7,505
$7,730
$7,730
$7,730
$7,730
$10,255
$16,255
$11,255
$26,975
$42,440
$39,280
$36,040
$60,110
-$14,119
-$4720
$645
$2,550
$2,015
$9,470
-$9147
-$6334
July-Sept
Oct-Dec
Year 3 Jan-M ar
Apr-Jun
July-Sept
Oct-Dec
Year 4 Jan-M ar
Apr-Jun
Expenditure Direct costs – com m unity garden Direct costs – com m unity program s Salaries - program delivery/coordinator (RCLC) Running costs Salaries – project worker Salaries – centre coordinator TOTAL EXPENDITURE
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$21,275
$22,425
$21,275
$27,925
$21,275
$22,425
$21,275
$27,925
$5,304
$5,305
$5,304
$5,305
$10,790 $5,312
$11,870 $5,313
$12,680 $5,312
$11,180 $5,313
$8,115
$9,435
$9,435
$9,235
$9,000
$9,000
$9,000
$9,000
$51,223
$39,890
$42,360
$41,210
$47,660
$4,000
$3,000
$3,050
$44,181
$46,413
$46,071
Income Revenue – com m unity garden Revenue – com m unity program s Revenue – room hire RCLC contribution (DHS funding) Fundraising events
$3,000
$3,050
$27,500
$22,500
$22,500
$47,340
$27,500
$22,500
$22,500
$47,340
$8,200
$9,200
$8,200
$8,200
$8,200
$9,200
$8,200
$8,200
$1500
$1500
$1500
$1500
$2000
$2000
$2000
$2000
$5,312
$5,313
$5,312
$5,313
TOTAL INCOME
$45,512
$41,563
$37,512
$66,353
$40,700
$36,750
$32,700
$61,540
Balance to date
$10,801
$5,951
-$2,608
$12,522
$13,332
$7,722
-$788
$13,092
COY support
$4,000
53
Risk management
Risk
Impact
Likelihoodd
Insufficient insurance coverage eg public liability, professional indemnity, employers liability, fire insurance, general risks
Insurance claims for injury, theft, fire etc not being met – could lead to closure of site
Medium
Neighbourhood house coverage for programs it manages Sub-letting of garden to incorporated garden group and residents association with necessary insurances Room hirers to have own public indemnity etc or pay additional feel for coverage To be built into policies and procedures
Theft, damage, vandalism
Lowers community morale and participation Increased insurance premiums
Medium
Ensure adequate insurance coverage Onsite coordinator Use of volunteers to monitor and maintain site Good design of facilities by an architect through a community design process
Low community participation
Programs and activities cancelled Unable to pay bills Closure
Low-medium
Implement a promotional plan Appoint an onsite coordinator to liaise with the community Delivery programs and events that the community wants Provide a diversity of participatory design activities that are interesting and provide significant attraction Design closely with the community to insure the best fit possible and high understanding of the site’s adaptabiltiy
Council plans to sell off land in five years’ time
Community objects Petition
High
Establish a 25 year lease for the community use Develop effective governance that increases the likelihood of a financially sustainable site Integrate the site to complement other community sites in the area
Sense of space being used for sectors other than the community
Community objects Complaints to local government Community has less capacity to develop programs
Low-medium
Planned usage of at least 60% community use
54
Mitigation
Risk
Impact
Likelihoodd
Mitigation
Community burn out
The effort in developing the plan not being carried through to implementation
Low-medium
Continue the current process with the current partners Get access to the site in June 2012 and incrementally occupy the site Design the proposal to be modest in scale and achievable with limited resources and in a timely fashion Have a short and sharp participatory design process Properly budget for services by coordinators and facilitators that will underpin the project’s success Target a broad and diverse community of many members – many hands make light work Develop meaningful benefits and rewards for inkind and volunteer contributions Start small community activities on the site from the very beginning
Over expectation of what can be offered
Disappointment Not meeting community expectations
Low-medium
Promote the indoor-outdoor function. Plan for use of community space at GTV9 community facility Continue community involvement in the design and set-up process Budget properly for coordination and communication during the design and set-up process
Unable to meet budget commitments
Trading deficit Closure of site
Medium
Establish a four year operational plan Regular monitoring via an established working committee This plan is dependent on seed funding to grow community participation and a community support grant to support transition to a newly incorporated community entity Limit capital expenditure for fit out items and equipment in the initial period to match the community’s growth Promote volunteer and in-kind contribution in the start up period to limit capital expenditure
55
Risk management
Risk
Impact
Likelihoodd
Insufficient skills to coordinate and engage with local community
Low participation Financial return less than projections Non-viable entity
Medium
Continue current partnership model and process Implement sufficient governance to review roles and goals Attract experienced community facilitators and develop growth of new facilitators with reference to research
Unable to secure additional funding for the transition project
Pressure on RCLC to continue auspicing arrangements Inability to break even in year 4 Poor governance structure established for the new Tudor St incorporation
Low-Medium
Make the most of existing council community training programs Apply for volunteer program grants RCLC builds partnerships and identifies other established organisations able to take responsibility Start saving in year 1 through inkind contributions, volunteer support and cost savings to capital works Project worker (capacity building) starts some work on this from the beginning Participatory design process employed builds shared skills and assets Schedule budget review and adjustments before and after GTV9 becomes clearer.
Unable to transition effectively to new governance model
Impact on plans for community facility at GTV9
Medium
Have plans in place to manage growth of an alternative incorporated group Increase and develop partner relationships and responsibilities
Council does not grant access to the site in June 2012
Project starts later than expected Community looses positive momentum and ambition Participatory design process takes longer than expected
Medium
Clearly and quickly work with council to plan re-occupation of the police station Maintain availability of Lord St for events and workshops Highlight to all stakeholders the importance of an incremental strategy
Building works protracted later than planned
Inability to start delivering full services and programs Cost overruns Community loses patience
Low
Maintain a schedule for building works that leaves room for contingencies Maintain an incremental schedule that allows occupation of the police station and garden area from early on
Failure to develop and implement agreed business plan
Lack of direction Potential conflict
Medium
Review regularly as a coordinating team and with the community Be open to flexibility as the community grows and report regularly Focus on effective communication and transparency from the beginning – continue the current partners process.
56
Mitigation
Outcomes & Performance Indicators The expected outcomes and performance indicators from this model are: Theme
Outcome
Key Performance Indicators
Ownership
A community-owned facility supported by the whole community
Transition working group consisting of community stakeholders Transition plan to new governance Effective transition to new governance structure and operation
Indoor/outdoor amenity
Indoor and outdoor space used by the community
Number of programs, users increasing annually (see initial projections as benchmark) Documented usage of community garden, workshop, outdoor space and indoor meeting rooms Usage by representative demographic of the local community Diversity of use based on the projections Proportionate usage of room hire – amenity, community groups, community programs, business
Identity
This facility is clearly distinguishable from other community facilities in the area (inc GTV9 community space)
Clear community perception and understanding of the site ‘brand’ Patronage – people wanting to use the services for appropriate use Effective marketing and promotion
Longevity
This site is sustainable for at least five years (ie the first three years and during the first two years of the community facility at GTV9)
Transition and strategic plans Annual reviews Strategic Review (September 2013) Monthly monitoring of activity, budgets, risk etc Professional development Source new funds Return on investment
57
Evaluation Plan To measure our outcomes we have developed a draft evaluation plan using the Measuring Impact methodology. Measuring Impact is an evaluation tool developed for the community education providers working in partnerships with the community. It is incorporated from the start of the project and includes benchmark, formative and summative evaluation. Impact indicator
Measurement
Instruments
Community participation
Appropriateness of focus, programs and design (did we get the design right?)
Community feedback Community attendance in programs (what, numbers, feedback) Changes to program mix Facility hire patterns and feedback Impact of programs/facilities at GTV9 Changes to community mental model
Interviews Focus groups Attendance records Program plans Room booking forms
Partnership
Level of engagement of partners (did we cooperate well together?)
Application of agreements Financial and resource contributions Participation in transition process
Agreements Financial reports Minutes Interviews Reflection
Business Plan
Year 1 – progress v plan Year 2 – activity mix Year 3 – sustainability and complimentary activity (GTV9/Lord Street) Financial, HR and marketing (have we got the right focus?)
Changes to plan Community feedback Changes to program mix Comparable balance sheet analysis Community consultation feedback Changes to community mental model
Focus groups Desk top review Surveys Review of business plan - findings
Governance
Transition to new governance (what lessons or good practice can we replicate elsewhere?)
The model – transitional stages Participation Changes to skills levels Effectiveness of transition plan
Transition plan – review progress – findings Surveys Interviews Reflection
Delivery
Function
Theme
58
Community Learning
Impact indicator
Measurement
Instruments
Community Learning
Changes to the way partners manage their business/consult and engage with community (what have we learnt from this process?)
Perceptions and feedback from partners Changes to skills levels Changes to marketing plans, consultation processes and materials Community perceptions
Interviews Third person feedback Review of documentation
Community Mental Model
Community perceptions Positioning (what does the community think of us?)
Sense of community ownership Perceptions of different community demographics Program mix and participation
Focus groups Surveys – participants and wider community
Sustainability
Economic activity v community participation (is this model financially sustainable whilst maintaining community support?)
Community participation rates Commercial activity Demographic analysis of activities Financial plans
Desktop review of data
Community Garden
Impact on environmental values (what difference has the community garden made and the outdoor space made to the community? It’s contribution to energy efficiencies and sustainable living?)
Usage Feedback Participation and follow up to education programs
Surveys Interviews Case studies
Community inclusiveness
Engagement across the community demographic (sense of community? Reaching isolated community members?)
Participation demographics Community perceptions
Desktop analysis of data Observation Targeted interviews
Cultural
Environmental
Economic
Social
Theme
These evaluation questions will also support the consultation process for a potential EOI for the community space at GTV9 through: • identifying the strengths and gaps of the Tudor Street site • Measuring community need and mix of programs • Articulating community perceptions and positioning Tudor Street’s unique features to complement activity at GTV9 • Providing indicators of potential use of the space at GTV9
59
60
Community Support
61
Letter of support from Richmond Community Learning Centre committee
richmondcommunitylearningcentre 92 – 94 Lord Street RICHMOND VIC 3121
ph (03) 9428 9901 fax (03) 9428 9553
email rclc@internode.on.net website www.rclc.org.au
Thursday 26 April 2012 Mr Craig Kenny Director, Community Programs City of YARRA PO Box 168 RICHMOND VIC 3121 Dear Mr Kenny RCLC is very committed to the redevelopment of the Tudor St site and believes our partnerships’ proposed plans have very strong community support. The Richmond Community Learning Centre (RCLC) committee of management is committed to the auspicing model of governance detailed by here studio and Pat Grosse in this report and fully indorses the transitional arrangements to a self-‐ sufficient entity in the third year and will provide support and project management for this to occur. The RCLC committee of management supports the operational model, preliminary design and continuation of the process led by here studio and supported by Pat Grosse as detailed in the report for Tudor Street. RCLC and the other partners have witnessed that this feasibility, design and process model has been well informed by members of the local community. Yours sincerely James Sadler Secretary RCLC Committee of Management
62
find us on facebook & twitter via our website abn 59 709 547 292 reg A0021655S provider 0668 Page 1 of 1 MEJ:Users:MEJ:Downloads:rclc-‐com-‐letter-‐eoi2.doc
Letter of support from the Richmond Community Garden Group
4/98 Dover Street Richmond VIC 3121 I am writing on behalf of the Richmond Community Garden Group in support of the proposal for shared use of the Tudor Street site. I have been involved for several years with various attempts to get community gardens started in the City of Yarra, each of which has been thwarted for reasons, which are not likely to be a problem at this site. This opportunity to provide an example of a small local garden is an exciting one, and a model that may give hope to others who are despairing of finding available land for larger enterprises. I am aware of the level of community interest and the waiting lists for many of the existing gardens. For example there is a three year waiting list at Rushall Community Garden in North Fitzroy. I have had many personal enquiries about the possibility of a garden in Richmond and there has been strong support at the community workshops and gatherings we have held during this feasibility process. The proposal has been developed in collaboration with RCLC and herestudio. We are excited about the potential for crossover between the groups, and the benefits of a true community engagement. To be auspiced by RCLC for the early years will be helpful, before the community garden establishes itself as a fully self-‐sufficient group. Yours sincerely, Patricia Pringle Richmond Community Garden Group
Document: letter.doc Author: Trish Pringle Save Date: 26/04/2012 Page 1 of 1
63
Letter of support from Richmond Toy Library
24th April 2012 Richmond Toy Library is a Not For Profit Organisation which loans toys to members and operates similar to a book library. We employ two part time co-‐ordinators to operate our opening sessions three times a week from the basement of Richmond library in a space we share with the Maternal & Child Health Nurse. Our Committee is run entirely by volunteers and we rely on fundraising , grants and paid memberships to keep the library going. As part of our growth planning and community outreach planning for the next three years we aim to operate a specialised service aimed at families who are at a disadvantage or who are having difficulties. This may include but will not be limited to-‐ refugee families new to the community, families experiencing the hardship of mental illness (eg. post natal depression) multiple birth families (twins, triplets etc) and other families who are experiencing difficulties of various natures. With the help from a grant from the City of Yarra we aim to operate a door to door service, delivering on a fortnightly basis toys to families in need or to those who are experiencing difficulty leaving the house to access our service. Part of this plan is that we would also be giving away memberships to these families. Ideally (financial support allowing) we would like to run this service for about six months. During this time we would also hope to keep expanding this program as new members in need moved into the area or more people needed access to a program such as this. After six months we would like to then move this program to a permanent satellite service that these new members could access and also provide a meeting place for similar families in need and a place that would encourage them to get out into the community and feel at home. This satellite Toy Library will be an integral part of our future growth and we see The Tudor St Community Centre as an ideal site. The vision put forward by Richmond Community Learning Centre would be a perfect match for our proposed outreach program. Not only would a satellite office be able to access new families to the area (eg those moving into the GTV9 site) but it would offer a nurturing and safe community centre where these groups could then meet. Currently as a member of Finbar House and having children at RCLC in Lord St I personally access these facilities as a family weekly for playgroups and childcare. I find the environment comfortable and encouraging and have met many friends through these community houses. Regards, Susan Davies President Richmond Toy Library
64
Letter of support from Richmond Public Tenants Association
65
Letter of support from Abbeyfield
66
Letter of support from St Bartholomew’s Anglican Church, Burnley
67
Letter of support from Kris Thompson
Michelle Emma James Here Studio 915/37 Swanston St Melbourne VIC 3000 23rd April 2012 Dear Michelle,
Kris and Sally Thompson 69 Westbank Terrace Richmond Vic 3121
Support for the Proposal for a Men’s Shed at 49 Tudor Street, Richmond 3121
Thanks for hosting the open day at 49 Tudor Street last Sunday. I would like to express my interest to help your team with the development and operation of the Men’s Shed if the proposal for its construction is approved. I used to volunteer at the BikeShed at Ceres (Brunswick, Melbourne) helping to educate people on basic bicycle maintenance, servicing and even rebuilding. It was always uplifting being able to help anyone off the street get their bicycle up and running, and in some cases just safe to use! What was apparent to me was the number of people who came to use the facilies, which is open at to all members who pay a small annual subscription that helps to cover the site rental and pay for tools to help with their repairs. While I don’t envisage the Mens Shed to be a similar set up to the BikeShed at Ceres, I consider that the facility site and a couple of volunteers on site to assist could only be of benefit to local students, the mechanically challenged and those without the space to work on their bikes. I live adjacent to the Tudor street site and if the site is to be developed and includes a facility to allow people to work on their bikes, appliances etc, I’d feel privileged to be a core part of the group that develop and manage this space. As an aside, we have a two year old daughter and would be keen to use the community space facility for mothers group meetings, children’s parties, the toy library and as a general space to meet up. Kind regards Kris Thompson
68
Letter of support form Pam Cohn
To whom it may concern, Re Proposal for 49 Tudor St Richmond as an outdoors based community centre. I am writing in support of the proposal submitted to council on the 27th April 2012 by the group comprising Richmond Community Learning Centre, Here Studio, Richmond Community Gardening group and Richmond Toy Library. I think an outdoors based community centre is sorely needed in this rapidly growing area of Richmond and will complement the indoor based community centre planned for the former Channel 9 development in Bendigo St. As a former user of the maternal health centre and the Burnley Neighbourhood House I have been very sad that the site has remained unused and off limits to the community for so long. Although I have an emotional attachment to the main building at 49 Tudor St, I understand there is a big risk for the RCLC in trying to repair and maintain it and then keep a viable centre going. I believe the proposal put here will enhance the quality of life for the many families and residents of the area by providing a wonderful gathering place with opportunities for play, learning, sharing, creating and fixing. I will be looking forward to gardening here, and doing craft and meeting the local community on an ongoing basis. I will be volunteering my time and efforts as well. Yours faithfully, Pam Cohn 101 Westbank Tce. Richmond 3121
69
Letter of support from Megan Buckley
Megan Buckley 1A Park Street Richmond 3121 megabucks78@gmail.com
24 April 2012
Dear City of Yarra, I wish to express my support for the Richmond Community Learning Centre’s (RCLC) proposal for the site at 49 Tudor Street, Richmond. I have lived on Park Street for about seven years and have never seen the site as more than a derelict old building with an overgrown garden. As a mother of two young children, the idea of developing the site into a community hub for families is very exciting. With an ever-growing number of families in the area there is a real need for an integrated space where families and individuals in the area can gather, where children can safely play and learn, where mother’s groups can meet, and where sustainable concepts like a community garden and composting can be explored and encouraged. I am therefore strongly in favour of the RCLC’s plans for development into a site that will connect the community and strengthen families. Yours Sincerely, Megan
70
Letter of support from Nick Hays 22 Manton St Richmond VIC 3121 20 April 2012
To Whom It May Concern: Re: Proposal for 49 Tudor St, Richmond by the Richmond Community Learning Centre I have been asked to provide a letter of support for this project as a member of the local community and potential user of the facilities that are being proposed by Richmond Community Learning Centre and Here Studio. I think that this proposal has great value to the community at a time when such public spaces are becoming increasingly important to a range of people. As an alternative to communal spaces that are not commercially driven this proposal would provide a place to learn, relax, socialise and contribute to society. I would be more than happy to contribute to the development of this facility as I think it is important to have a mixture of views and age groups represented in the process. I would like to be able to be a part of this facility when it is operational, particularly around the community gardening areas. I think that the move to grow our own produce and be active in your food choices is beyond a fad now, and this space would be much sought after in the coming years. I know a number of people my age (early 30s) in the area who would also like to use these facilities. If you require any further information from me I am more than happy to supply this for you. I hope that you are able to look favourably on this application, as the result will be an invaluable community resource that will be of great benefit to the residents of Richmond. Yours sincerely, Nick Hays T E
0403 338 009 nickmhays@yahoo.com.au
71
Letter of support from Maree Heagerty
72
Testimonials from members of the community Having had first-hand experience in helping to set up and run two Neighbourhood Houses in Victoria thirty years ago I know there are many social and educational benefits in being involved in community centre activities. I was delighted to hear that the site at 49 Tudor Street had been handed back to the residents and that their intention was to “bring it back to life” with a view to cementing a cohesive social network and lots of social and educational benefits for local residents and their families. I am enjoying my small role on the sub-committee for the 49 Tudor Street project as it has given me the opportunity to get to know more people of all age groups in my local area in the past 12 months. I believe this process would have taken a lot longer if I was not involved in the project. As the site is just a short walk from my street I would be very keen to take part in the proposed community garden, the art/ craft activities and use Seniors Broadband on a weekly basis. I believe that taking part in those activities would enhance my quality of life in my years of retirement, help me to feel more a part of the local community and provide me with opportunities to make new friends and to contribute my skills. -Lyndley Havyatt retired teacher, resident for two and a half years in Richmond, previously living in New South Wales for 20 years
I support the plan for demolition of the main building as in your proposal and development of imaginative outdoor areas as this it seems would complement what is to be avaible on the former GTV9 site.
I am very supportive of the proposal to open up 49 Tudor Street as an indoor/outdoor space for the local community. It would be fantastic to have a space nearby for community events, children’s activities, community gardens, workshop etc.
-Janet Paterson From a cost point of view and supposing it is unlikely that the City of Yarra will want to spend much on 3 community type projects (RCLC, Tudor & Channel 9), I think its better to go with new plan ie not retain existing building. But would like to know what it will look like from street when built.
I love the idea of having a large central outdoor area. Most homes in Richmond don’t have a lot of outdoor space so this would be a very valuable community asset and could be used for a wide range of activities and events. I have heard lots of positive comments from other people in our local neighbourhood. Let’s make it happen!!
-Anne Soosai -Julie Edwards First of all I would love to say thank you to everybody for getting involved to do something nice for all of us, the neighbours, which is a very good idea and I do agree with what they are thinking to do. And I think it’s the right thing to do. I will come here when I am free. Thanks again, lovely people, polite, respectable, + cooking + Greek singing, and that’s what we need in life. Also, my daughter Andrea Ifram (aged 25) is willing to volunteer for 1/2 hour dancing classes for the ladies.
My name is Eleni and I am 71. I am Greek and living alone, close to Tudor St. I would like to go to Tudor St so I can meet new people and learn new things. I like the garden and talking with people. I like RCLC to be at Tudor St. I also like to go to womens evenings and share some food. I like the outdoor and having space for the children to play.
-Eleni Ninas -Sonia Ifram (aged 42) We would like to put in our support for the proposal for an outdoor based community facility at the site. The plan that includes a community garden , workshop, craft room, playground and indoor and outdoor meeting/community spaces. We have Finbar house nearby and feel this a great asset to the community which is used extensively and think another house similar will benefit in particular with the Channel 9 development that’s going to occur in the near future. -Chris & Thea Nisiforou 73
Colouring by Mia
74
Colouring by Ellie
75
76
Appendix
77
78
Appendix
Consulted Stakeholders Facilitated by here studio Pty Ltd - Michelle Emma James & Ammon Beyerle Partners • Richmond Community Learning Centre - Simone Gardiner • Richmond Community Garden Group - Patricia Pringle, Cath Stutterheim • Richmond Toy Library - Elizabeth Geddes, Susan Davies Richmond Community Learning Centre committee • Brenton Downing • Chris Artufel • Chrystal Psaltopoulos • Dan McLaughlin • James Sadler • Susan Gair RCLC Tudor St sub-commitee • Pam Cohn • Chris Artufel • Lyndley Havyatt • Jenny Killick Stakeholder group • Pauline Segelyn (RPTA) • Chris Artufel • Pam Desiree • Maree Heagerty • Sophie Dawes • Paul McIntosh • Rohan Syer • Pam Cohn • Simone & Harry Pakin • Diane Di Stefano
Thank you We would like to include a special thank you to all of the residents who have volunteered their time to this feasibility study through letterbox drops, attendance at workshops and involvement in the RCLC Tudor St sub-commitee and stakeholder group.
Community survey 1 • Letterbox dropped to 900 households • 35 respondents Community survey 2 • Letterbox dropped to 1200 households • 50 respondents Gleadell St Market • 15 local residents Community Workshop 1 • 15 local residents Community Workshop 2 (all-day) • 10 local residents & partners City of Yarra staff • Director of Community Programs - Craig Kenny • Urban Agriculture (Community Gardens) Facilitator - Peter Huff • Senior Statutory Planner - Melanie Ringersma
79
Appendix
Richmond Community Gardening Group here studio
Tudor Street -‐ Community Survey: RESULTS for AGE GROUP UNDER 50 As part of the City of Yarra’s EOI process Stage 2, Richmond Community Learning Centre (RCLC), here studio, Richmond Community Gardening Group (RCGG) and Richmond Toy Library (RTL) have been selected to do a joint feasibility study for the site at 49 Tudor St. We’d like to acknowledge that there has been strong support for a community centre and we’d like to encourage your participation in this feasibility process. For further information on the process and about us, please visit: tudorstreet.posterous.com Thank you for taking the time to help us by filling in and returning this survey by Monday 27 February 2012. Put survey into letterbox at: 49 Tudor Street, Richmond or RCLC, 92 – 94 Lord Street, Richmond Post survey to: RCLC, 92 – 94 Lord Street, Richmond VIC 3121 * Required response
As a local resident, what do you think would be the best use of the site at 49 Tudor St? * NOTE, FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS FOR ALL AGE GROUPS: 6 indicated NO for a community centre at Tudor St; 44 indicated YES for a community centre at Tudor St -‐ following results are collated from this YES group only – RESULTS IN RED. What types of spaces would you like to see included in a community centre at Tudor St? * 1 (Not very important) 2 (Important) 3 (Very important) Community garden
( )
(11)
( 10 )
Internal community meeting rooms
( 1 )
( 9 )
( 7 )
External community space (such as BBQ area)
( )
( 12 )
( 11 )
Craft and workshop space
( 2)
( 10 )
( 9 )
Childcare
( 1 )
( 4 )
( 12 )
Workspace for parents with adjacent childcare
( 2 )
( 9 )
( 3 )
Kitchen facilities
( )
( 12 )
( 8 )
Outdoor playground
( 1 )
( 7 )
( 12 )
Please specify any other types of spaces you would like to see included in a community centre at Tudor St yoga, cooking, dancing, computers, tai chi, games, community garden, childcare shortage, teenage, young families moving in, BBQ, local residents space to connect
-‐-‐ PLEASE TURN OVER -‐-‐ 80
Appendix What types of activities would you like to see included in a community centre at Tudor St? *
1 (Not very important)
2 (Important)
3 (Very important)
Educational programs
( 1)
( 4 )
( 16 )
Playgroups
( 1 )
( 5 )
( 15 )
Handyman's shed
( 1 )
( 11 )
( 5 )
Craft exchanges
( 1 )
( 13 )
( 1 )
Community lunches
( 2 )
( 10 )
( 5 )
Events
( 1 )
( 9 )
( 10 )
Markets
( 1 )
( 6 )
( 8 )
Broadband for seniors
( 1 )
( 7 )
( 9 )
Acupuncture
( 1 )
( 6 )
( 3 )
Yoga
( )
( 6 )
( 5 )
Please specify any other types of activities you would like to see included in a community centre at Tudor St Children’s birthday parties, mothers’/fathers’ groups, health, chook enclosure, childcare, open space, recycling/fixing things, pottery & art classes for kids Do you have a program or group that you would like to run or organise at the Tudor St community centre? * Yes: Craft groups, holiday programs for kids with disabilities, health groups and cooking No:13 How often would you want to use these spaces/activities yourself? * ( 3 ) Daily ( 12 ) Weekly ( 6 ) Monthly ( 1 ) Almost Never What form of transport would you use to visit the Tudor St community centre? * ( 6 ) Walk ( 2 ) Bicycle ( ) Public Transport ( ) Car Would you be interested in working at the Tudor St community centre as a volunteer? * [ Yes / No ] Yes: 15 No: 11 Maybe: 3 As you may be aware, the City of Yarra approved the redevelopment of the former Channel 9 site in Richmond at its council meeting in December 2011. We have been told that the redevelopment is to include a 400m2 community centre. Would you be interested in using this space? Does this change your perceptions about having a community centre at Tudor St? * •
Interested in both centres; both can complement each other; GTV9 needed for extra population
•
Tudor St more localised/volunteer based; Tudor St currently known; not interested in GTV9 centre – residents feel Tudor St accessible, not interested if in development – will not use;
Are you interested in being further involved in the feasibility process? ( 10 ) I'd like to attend a community consultation workshop ( 3 ) I'd like to be a part of one of the working groups Your age * ( ) 12 – 17 ( 1 ) 18 – 24 ( 7 ) 25 – 34 ( ) 50 – 59 ( ) 60 – 69 ( ) 70 – 84
( 17 ) 35 – 49 ( ) 85 and over
81
Appendix
Richmond Community Gardening Group here studio Tudor Street -‐ Community Survey: RESULTS for AGE GROUP 50 AND OVER
As part of the City of Yarra’s EOI process Stage 2, Richmond Community Learning Centre (RCLC), here studio, Richmond Community Gardening Group (RCGG) and Richmond Toy Library (RTL) have been selected to do a joint feasibility study for the site at 49 Tudor St. We’d like to acknowledge that there has been strong support for a community centre and we’d like to encourage your participation in this feasibility process. For further information on the process and about us, please visit: tudorstreet.posterous.com Thank you for taking the time to help us by filling in and returning this survey by Monday 27 February 2012. Put survey into letterbox at: 49 Tudor Street, Richmond or RCLC, 92 – 94 Lord Street, Richmond Post survey to: RCLC, 92 – 94 Lord Street, Richmond VIC 3121 * Required response
As a local resident, what do you think would be the best use of the site at 49 Tudor St? * NOTE, FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS FOR ALL AGE GROUPS: 6 indicated NO for a community centre at Tudor St; 44 indicated YES for a community centre at Tudor St -‐ following results are collated from this YES group only – RESULTS IN RED. What types of spaces would you like to see included in a community centre at Tudor St? *
1 (Not very important)
2 (Important)
3 (Very important)
Community garden
( 1 )
( 5 )
( 12 )
Internal community meeting rooms
(1 )
( 6 )
( 11 )
External community space (such as BBQ area)
( 1 )
( 3 )
( 12 )
Craft and workshop space
( 1 )
( 3 )
( 14 )
Childcare
( 2 )
( 5 )
( 5 )
Workspace for parents with adjacent childcare
( 1 )
( 4 )
( 1 )
Kitchen facilities
( )
( 4 )
( 14 )
Outdoor playground
( 1 )
( 4 )
( 9 )
Please specify any other types of spaces you would like to see included in a community centre at Tudor St men’s shed, community garden, small group art, U3A, drop in, art/craft, tai chi, mosaics, computers, adult/children/teenage/non-‐english speaking background access outside business hours 82
-‐-‐ PLEASE TURN OVER –
What types of activities would you like to see included in a community centre at Tudor St? *
1 (Not very important)
2 (Important)
3 (Very important)
Educational programs
( )
( 3 )
( 15 )
Playgroups
( 1 )
( 5 )
( 8 )
Handyman's shed
( 1)
( 7 )
( 8 )
Craft exchanges
( 1 )
( 5 )
( 13 )
Community lunches
( )
( 6 )
( 12 )
Events
( )
( 2 )
( 14 )
Markets
( )
( 6 )
( 11 )
Broadband for seniors
( )
( 4 )
( 15 )
Acupuncture
( 2 )
( 3 )
( 7 )
Yoga
( 2 )
( 5 )
( 7 )
Please specify any other types of activities you would like to see included in a community centre at Tudor St bookclubs, environmental groups Do you have a program or group that you would like to run or organise at the Tudor St community centre? * YES: Yoga and craft groups NO: 18 How often would you want to use these spaces/activities yourself? * ( 4 ) Daily ( 10 ) Weekly ( 4 ) Monthly ( ) Almost Never What form of transport would you use to visit the Tudor St community centre? * ( 2 ) Walk (1 ) Bicycle ( ) Public Transport ( ) Car Would you be interested in working at the Tudor St community centre as a volunteer? * [ Yes / No ] Yes: 7 No: 17 As you may be aware, the City of Yarra approved the redevelopment of the former Channel 9 site in Richmond at its council meeting in December 2011. We have been told that the redevelopment is to include a 400m2 community centre. Would you be interested in using this space? Does this change your perceptions about having a community centre at Tudor St? * •
great indoor space; Tudor outdoor (run by some organisation); different activities; yes, interested – depends what and when activity finishes; Tudor St known
•
7 respondents indicated they were not interested; site in GTV9 unknown; owners corporation, use by residents
Are you interested in being further involved in the feasibility process? ( 7 ) I'd like to attend a community consultation workshop ( 5 ) I'd like to be a part of one of the working groups Your age * ( ) 12 – 17 ( ) 18 – 24 ( ) 25 – 34 ( ) 35 – 49 ( 7) 50 – 59 ( 4 ) 60 – 69 ( 7 ) 70 – 84 ( 1 ) 85 and over Gender * ( 16 ) Female ( 2 ) Male ( ) Unspecified
83
Tidor Street Community Project (new Option) Job Name :
1305 TUDOR STREET H
Job Description
Client's Name:
Trd
Trade Description
Cost/m2
Trade
No.
%
Total
3 PRELIMINARIES, OVERHEADS
5.38
57,725
4 ASBESTOS
0.51
5,500
5 DEMOLITION
1.02
11,000
6 EXCAVATION
0.58
6,270
7 TERMITE TREATMENT
0.20
2,095
8 CONCRETE
1.44
15,510
9 METAL WORK
0.67
7,150
10 WATERPROOFING
0.13
1,381
11 BRICKWORK
1.74
18,685
12 BRICK CLEAN
0.06
636
13 CARPENTRY
4.04
43,337
14 ROOFING
1.63
17,534
15 WINDOWS
1.15
12,320
16 INSULATION
0.23
2,440
17 JOINERY
0.84
9,020
18 PLASTER
0.90
9,716
19 RENDER
0.36
3,850
Floor on wet areas only and 20 TILING splash back in kitchen 21 GLAZING
0.32
3,410
0.06
594
22 FLOOR FINISHES
0.39
4,169
23 PLUMBER
1.31
14,108
24 ELECTRICAN
1.09
11,699
25 MECHANIACL
0.82
8,800
26 PAINTER
0.95
10,164
27 FIXTURES
0.58
6,193
0.13
1,430
29 SAIL
0.92
9,900
30 Play Equipment etc
1.23
13,200
31 LANDSCAPING
2.27
24,365
32 CONTINGENCY
1.02
11,000
33 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & STREET USAGE
0.15
1,650
28 HWS
Not Instant
34 Subtotal CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
84
Trade
344,851 Page :
1 of
2
5/Apr/12 Date of Printing: Global Estimating System (32 Bit) - H
Tidor Street Community Project (new Option) Job Name :
1305 TUDOR STREET H
Job Description
Client's Name:
Trd
Trade Description
Cost/m2
Trade
No.
%
35 GST
Total 3.21
34,485
36 Subtotal
379,336 35.33
379,336
Final Total : $
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Trade
Page :
2 of
2
379,336
5/Apr/12 Date of Printing: Global Estimating System (32 Bit) - H
85
Appendix
Tidor Street Community Project (Existing Option) Job Name :
1305 TUDOR STREET H
Job Description
Client's Name:
Trd
Trade Description
No.
%
Trade Total
42 PRELIMINARIES, OVERHEADS
7.33
78,647
43 ASBESTOS
0.51
5,500
44 DEMOLITION
0.51
5,500
45 EXCAVATION
0.50
5,330
46 TERMITE TREATMENT
0.20
2,095
47 CONCRETE / RAMPS
8.71
93,500
48 STRUCTURAL STEEL
1.02
10,901
49 METAL WORK
1.43
15,400
50 WATERPROOFING
0.15
1,601
51 BRICKWORK
2.61
28,028
52 CARPENTRY
12.63
135,649
53 ROOFING
1.49
16,033
54 WINDOWS
1.15
12,320
55 INSULATION
0.23
2,457
56 JOINERY
0.84
9,020
57 PLASTER
1.97
21,159
58 RENDER
1.02
11,000
Floor on wet areas only and 59 TILING splash back in kitchen 60 GLAZING
0.14
1,540
0.72
7,744
61 FLOOR FINISHES
0.73
7,871
62 PLUMBER
1.31
14,108
63 ELECTRICAN
1.77
19,025
64 MECHANIACL
1.43
15,400
65 PAINTER
1.81
19,404
66 FIXTURES
0.58
6,193
0.13
1,430
68 SAIL
0.92
9,900
69 Play Equipment etc
1.23
13,200
70 LANDSCAPING
2.27
24,365
71 ENGINEERING WITH REGARDS TO UNDERPINNING 72 CONTINGENCY
0.61
6,600
2.56
27,500
67 HWS
Not Instant
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
86
Cost/m2
Trade
Page :
1 of
2
5/Apr/12 Date of Printing: Global Estimating System (32 Bit) - H
Tidor Street Community Project (Existing Option) 1305 TUDOR STREET H
Job Name :
Job Description
Client's Name:
Trd
Trade Description
Cost/m2
Trade
No.
%
73 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & STREET USAGE
Trade Total
0.26
2,750
74 Subtotal
631,170
75 GST
5.88
63,117
76 Subtotal
694,287 64.67
694,287
or login Sign up
Final Total : $
694,287
|
Products |
Support |
Contact
outdoor connection demolish
opening tea making
opening storage / office Dis WC new wall
9200
lower window opening
entry
slidinf partitions
6000
storage / office 10m2
4200
5000
potential outdoor connection
EXISTING BUILDING PLAN Scale 1 : 200
EXISTING BUILDING PLAN (reconf igured layout) Scale 1 : 100 demolish
Showing
opening
Dis WC
SITE PLAN Scale 1 : 200
new wall
entry
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK PROPOSAL - No 1 RETENTION OF EXISTING BUILDING
9200
storage / office 10m2 slidinf partitions
6000
lower window opening
opening
storage / office
12 15 Feb 20
tea making
INTERNAL WALLS REMOVED AS SHOWN
5000
SKETCH PLAN SK-01 21 MARCH 2012 Rohan Syer
4200
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Page :
2 of
2
5/Apr/12 Date of Printing: Global Estimating System (32 Bit) - H
87
Appendix
Michelle Emma James <michellejames@gmail.com>
Tudor St - Feasibility Study Ringersma, Melanie <Melanie.Ringersma@yarracity.vic.gov.au>
Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:34 PM
To: Michelle Emma James <michellejames@herestudio.net> Cc: "Osman, Mary" <Mary.Osman@yarracity.vic.gov.au>, "Kenny, Craig" <Craig.Kenny@yarracity.vic.gov.au>
Hi Michelle Apologies for the delay, I just wanted to check some history files before providing any advice. @rom a Planning perspecBve, the site is within a ResidenBal 1 Eone and a Heritage Overlay (HO331 – Racecourse Heritage Overlay) yet the site is graded as being not contributory to the overall heritage precinct, therefore demoliBon of the buildings on site is likely to be supported subject to Council being saBsfied with the replacement building. The intended use of the site as described could be deemed as a Mleisure and recreaBonal’ use, or it may be deemed as an innominate use. In either case a Planning Permit is required for the intended use of the site. Given the previous use of the site as a community facility, it is likely that the intended use of the site as a community facility is likely to be deemed an appropriate use. It is noted that there are to be some bike spaces on site, however as part of the Planning applicaBon Council would need to consider whether the lack of on site car parking is appropriate within the site context. Therefore the levelRlack of on site car parking and potenBal impacts on the surrounding street network will need to be addressed in any applicaBon to Council. It is recommended you review Council’s local policy Clause 22.01 UiscreBonary uses in the ResidenBal 1 Eone, as any applicaBon will be assessed against this policy. Any buildings and works associated with the proposal would also require a permit pursuant to the ResidenBal 1 Eone and the Heritage Overlay. In considering whether the works are appropriate or not we would be assessing the neighbourhood characterV potenBal amenity impacts to surrounding residenBal properBesV and, the appropriateness of the built form within its heritage context. As previously menBoned the site is idenBfied as not contributory therefore any demoliBon would likely be supported. In looking at the preliminary sketch you have provided it appears that there would be a reducBon in built form on the site, opposite potenBally sensiBve interfaces to the north, therefore it is likely to be an improvement on exisBng condiBons. Obviously not having seen the elevaBons of what is proposed it is not enBrely clear whether Planning would have concerns about the proposed built form. It is recommended you review Council’s local Heritage policy (Clause 22.02) of
1 of 4
24/04/12 7:09 PM 88
Gmail - Tudor St - Feasibility Study
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=0b255ed3ed&vi...
the Yarra Planning Scheme when developing the further design detail. Please note that there is an exempBon at 62.02Z1 of the Yarra Planning Scheme from requiring a planning permit for ‘buildings and works’ only if: Buildings or works with an estimated cost of $1,000,000 or less carried out by or on behalf of a municipality.
The above is only applicable to buildings and works, including landscaping works. A planning permit would sBll be required for the use of the site. I hope this is of some assistance. Please feel free to contact me if you have any queries. Regards Melanie Ringersma Senior Statutory Planner City of Yarra PO Box 168 Richmond 3121 T (03) 9205 5365 F (03) 8417 6666 E Melanie.Ringersma@yarracity.vic.gov.au W www.yarracity.vic.gov.au
Make sure you refer to our website for more informaBon.
From: michellejames@gmail.com [mailto:michellejames@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Michelle Emma James Sent: Friday, 20 April 2012 4:11 PM To: Ringersma, Melanie Subject: Re: FW: Tudor St - Feasibility Study
Hi Melanie,
89 2 of 4
24/04/12 7:09 PM
Appendix SCHEDULE OF WORKS: LANDSCAPE PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COSTS
client Tudor Street_ RCGG for Review date 27/04/12
1
2
3
3
Landscape architects quantities General Contingency Surface-strip and general preparation (by others) Landscape Works Compacted driving surface 100mm Granitic Gravel incl. 100mm crushed rock base Above ground poly tanks, including fittings and pumps Soft Landscape Works Public Beds Approved Site Topsoil mixed with Compost at 3:1 ratio to 300mm depth Timber edging material Advanced Trees 45 Litres, inc soil, toppings Hedging Plants 200mm pot
Quantity
Units
60.00 40.00 100.00
m2 m2 Litres
11.00 17.28 144.00 10.00 40.00
M2 M2
M
UNIT UNIT
Price
100 75 55.00 46 40.00 250 30
garden tools (allowance) Vegetable and Herbs (punnets) Stakes and fixings for trees Topdress Lawn (reseed where necessary)
1.00
units
10.00 150.00
UNIT M2
20 15
Irrigation Structures & Fixings irrigation (stand pipes and pressure lines) allowance hoses and trigger s Ag. pipes between garden beds (100mm flexible coil with filter sock) Compost Bins
1.00 4.00 66.00 3.00
UNIT units M UNIT
160 47 400 Total
90
91