|
PRESENT:
Paul Adams, Miles Allen (observing), Noel Blencowe, Robyn Evans (observing),
Arnaud Gallois (observing), Sam Grover, Hamish McCracken, Tony Morton,
Cathy Nixon, Tim Patchett (observing), Vyv Rodnight, Adam Tiller, Eric
Vigo (observing), Jane Ward (observing).
APOLOGIES:
Fran Hoban, Sharryn Muir, Mara Ripani, Maya Ward, Leigh Snelling, Josie.
Chaired by Cathy Nixon. Minutes by Sam Grover. Timekeeper Jane Ward.
1. INTRODUCTIONS
AT provided a brief summary of progress so far for the benefit of new
attendees. Buildings on the Roberts Street site were demolished in April.
This came to the attention of Maya at CERES who arranged a public meeting
to discuss the potential for cohousing on the site which is just opposite
CERES. Maya's enthusiasm was the inspiration for the Merri Cohousing
group which formed as the outcome of this meeting. Cohousing is a specific
form of 'friendly' housing design popular in northern Europe and the
USA. Adam is also familiar with this concept and has participated in
cohousing groups in the past. Adam stressed that cohousing is not 'eco-housing'
and is not an 'intentional community'. It is a resident - initiated
neighbourhood design in which private dwellings coexist with shared
facilities and a 'common house'. It is a compromise between intentional
communities and alienating suburbs. Cohousing exists in Denmark, the
USA, Tasmania and Perth. The Merri Cohousing group so far has focussed
its intentions on cohousing on the Roberts Street site. There is room
for 60 high-density dwellings on this site, with all having north-facing
sunlight. This is more than is practical for cohousing which typically
involves no more than two dozen households. While the focus is on cohousing,
there is the goodwill from CERES in particular to develop the whole
site. To be financially viable this would be developed as an 'ecovillage'
with a cohousing component (perhaps 20 houses). It is expected that
most occupiers will be homeowners, with some Ministry of Housing involvement
and some private renters. Currently the land is owned by developers.
Cathy noted that there has been an article in Metro News, written by
reporter Amanda Hurley and organised by Maya. While it was not made
explicit that this group is particularly focussed on cohousing, it has
sparked interest in the community as evidenced by the attendance at
this meeting.
2. ADMIN
2.1 Progress of incorporation
and bank account
CN reported that our Application for Incorporation has not yet been
lodged but will be in the next few days. TM reported on the need to
open a bank account. He will discuss this later with NB. The question
of signatories to the bank account was discussed. In line with previous
decisions it was moved That Noel Blencowe, Tony Morton, Sharryn Muir
and Maya Ward be authorised as signatories to the bank account of Merri
Cohousing and Ecovillage Inc. with any two out of four to sign. (moved
CN, seconded VR, carried) 2.2 New members process TM noted that according
to the Rules of the Association now in force, any new members must be
voted in by a general meeting. We should have some 'induction' process
in place for people wishing to become members. HM suggested that we
run a monthly education night for new people, rather than involving
them in our everyday meetings. This could be left to the Education WG
to organise. ACTION: HM to write a proposal on new member induction
processes. The next 'information meeting' is tentatively scheduled for
Saturday 19 August at 2pm, at ACF Fitzroy, to be run jointly by us and
Cohousing Melbourne and coordinated by SM and Hans Tilstra.
3. PLANNING WORKSHOP
3.1 Report on workshop
NB gave the first report on the planning workshop which ran on Friday
28 July and involved a number of 'high up' people from the Department
of Housing, City of Moreland (including the mayor), with David Oppenheim
as architect and PA, NB, RE, HM and AT present from this group. All
parties gave positive accounts of their interest in the project. A representative
of the 'Social Housing Innovations' project in DoH stated that their
ideas were in line with ours and our project fit in excellently with
their guidelines. The DoH people undertook to purchase 10 per cent of
properties on the site, perhaps more. Council spoke on zoning and were
very supportive and positive. NB had to leave the workshop early to
speak to a possible financial backer. HM gave his version of events,
in particular expressing disappointment that the council were unprepared
to compromise on the carparking requirements for the site. Every two-bedroom
house will require one car space and a three-bedroom house will require
two. If a shop opens on the site (in line with council's 'urban village'
strategy), it will require an additional five car spaces. This will
reduce the useful land available, or else drastically increase the cost
if carparking is put underground. According to HM, the council reps
insisted categorically that there were to be no concessions on carparking.
Another concern was regarding the priority for social housing tenants;
whether we had any leeway to select public tenants or just had to accept
whoever was first on the list. Ken from DoH said they were flexible
on this matter. It was unclear how much support we could expect from
DoH; it seems to depend who we speak to. HM got the impression that
they were not prepared to put any money up front, would not buy land
or carry any risk and would not pay a premium for housing beyond minimum
standard. AT said he had got a different view from 'Fred' who indicated
that the DoH would pay a 10% premium and would build to "top quality"
standard. There is a group of people in DoH who have built shoddy Housing
Commission flats in the past but have learned from the experience and
now want to do better. HM spoke of the need to put pressure on the Minister.
RE said her impression was that DoH would commit fully once we got our
act together. DoH were more flexible on carparking as they expect many
of their tenants will be without cars. Car spaces could also be used
for other purposes. The requirement for five car spaces only applies
to retail premises; home offices have no requirements beyond that for
residences. NB said the idea of "creative inclusion of business elements"
got quite a good response from council. EV commented that council seemed
to be taking a very conservative approach to the development and wondered
if we could give a written undertaking that we wouldn't use cars. MA
replied that council has to consider land uses 50 years or more into
the future. RE suggested we could take a creative approach to satisfying
the council requirements. EV hoped we could demonstrate the way forward
for Melbourne as a whole. HM is typing up the transcript of the workshop
which will be made available to anyone who asks.
3.2 Follow-up actions / consideration
of process priorities
There were six key process points that came out of the design workshop:
* The 'cohousing' and 'ecovillage' aspects of the development must be
clearly separated. * We need to locate 25 people with $50000 to put
into a trust account to buy the land.
* We urgently need a business plan.
* There are a variety of financing plans to consider; NB mentioned a
'6 phase plan'.
* We should be actively looking at other sites.
* The financial/legal process should not become a distraction from the
work of the design group.
AT noted that while we have focussed to date on the Roberts Street site,
we really need to look at other sites and publicise this fact. NB mentioned
that Leigh Snelling (Lygon ward councillor) has been suggesting other
sites. HM observed that finding some council-owned land to build on
would make things a lot easier.
4. PROCESS
4.1 Financial support request
to City of Moreland
NB said he had written to council asking for money to pay for a project
coordinator working 2 or 3 days a week. MW was to have taken on this
role but is now overcommitted, so we need to find someone else. We have
also requested financial support to pay someone to do a business plan.
4.2 Contact with Community Housing
and Poola Foundation Community Housing Ltd.
Poola is a company that develops housing for disabled people. NB has
been in contact with them and finds them great people with all the skills
we require, including preparing a business plan and finding finance.
They have done a lot of development work already, and while they focus
on housing for the disabled they are interested in anything that includes
affordable housing. Council may fund them to do a business plan for
us; there is a meeting with Leigh Snelling tomorrow about this. The
Poola Foundation is a philanthropic organisation that finances the ACF
building. They are prepared to put in $500,000 to get the project going
but will need to sell some other properties first. We need to send them
info. NB says the person he spoke to has "lots of mates with lots of
money". ACTION: RE to follow up. HM asked whether anyone had contacted
Bill Kelty who looks after a lot of superannuation money for unions.
AT said we will need a business plan before we talk to him. A discussion
followed regarding how much responsibility we want to give to Community
Housing Ltd. AT suggested we ask them to do our business plan 'on spec'
and subsequently invite them to become the project manager. SG questioned
whether this was premature, and whether we should get them to do it
for free if they are a community group. CN suggested that if we get
the funds from council, we invite Community Housing to make a presentation
at our next meeting. A motion to this effect was proposed but withdrawn
after AT suggested we should just get them to do it as time is of the
essence. The motion was put That Noel Blencowe and Miles Allen recontact
Community Housing Ltd. to do the business plan 'on spec' and that if
they will not do this, invite them to our next meeting. (moved RE, seconded
AT, carried) EV left the meeting at this point. 4.3 Communications with
lawyers and other parties AT has spoken to several lawyers who may be
interested in doing our legal work, but does not want to deal with them
on his own. RE volunteered to assist in meeting with lawyers. NB mentioned
the need to find professionals to discuss our new financial options.
Frank Spranger from Community Aid Abroad suggested a woman who would
be good. ACTION: NB to follow up. RE mentioned that potential investors
in the project have a number of questions about cohousing. How much
say do absentee owners have over who comes and goes? How long would
the waiting list for tenants be? It was agreed that the process of accepting
tenants into cohousing, and the intersection of ownership rights and
tenancy rights with cohousing rights, needs to be looked at. We also
need to consider the number of potential investors for the ecovillage,
and our 'Plan B' if the cohousing doesn't get off the ground. MA suggested
discussion with a real estate agent could assist with tenancy issues.
CN added that we should be talking to other cohousing groups. RE said
at least one cohousing group was dealing with this already. AT said
Brigette could offer useful advice. AG noted that there is an existing
strata-title model that could be adapted to cohousing. HM explained
this further, noting that this was more common where there was just
one building. There is also a distinction between 'strata title' and
'title in common', which may differ in appeal to investors. TP suggested
we speak to a strata-title lawyer.
4.4 Purchasing strategy
4.4.1 Communication with site vendor(s)
AT raised the question whether we should engage with the vendors of
the Roberts Street site. We are obtaining professional advice on this.
Sale negotiations are a very intricate and private process. NB noted
that the vendors are aware of our interest and will be expecting a premium
price. They are unlikely to work with us on our goals. We should be
investigating alternative sites. RE said other sites are not hard to
find; a cohousing site in Mitcham is already being investigated by others.
It was agreed that we should appoint an official contact person to talk
to the vendors and explain that we are looking at other properties.
The motion was put That Robyn Evans be the official person to contact
vendors on behalf of Merri Cohousing and Ecovillage Inc. (moved CN,
seconded MA, carried)
4.4.2 Identifying alternative
sites
Many alternative cohousing sites in inner-northern Melbourne have
been suggested. PA has agreed to collect all information on possible
sites.
ACTION: Anyone with alternative site suggestions to forward them to
Paul.
4.5 Future meetings with legal/financial
contacts
This point was covered earlier. AT and RE will arrange meetings.
5. FINANCE
TM will be presenting monthly Treasurer's reports to the committee,
the first (for July) to be presented at the next meeting after this
one. TM also mentioned the need to apply for an ABN in order to avoid
withholding tax. MA suggested waiting until we are incorporated.
ACTION: CN to take responsibility for applying for an ABN at the appropriate
time.
6. DESIGN
6.1 Report on communications
with David Oppenheim
RE said there has been no communication with David at present; we will
contact him later. 6.1.1 Acceptance of David Oppenheim as project
architect
AT and HM expressed reservations about formally accepting David as our
architect, saying we are not yet ready to take that step although we
are generally happy with his work. Paula also has some concerns. AT
said David is willing to be part of future design workshops in any case.
PA said we shouldn't leave him hanging and should be dealing with him
in a professional manner. The point was made that we need to be ready
with our council planning permit as soon as the land is bought, which
could be 125 days from now. We also cannot sell houses off-the-plan
until we have a plan. It was agreed that HM and Paula would present
their concerns about David to the next Committee meeting and a decision
would be made then. MA, PA and MW would bring a proposal to the next
meeting on how to proceed with the design process.
6.2 Social Housing Innovations
This point was covered earlier (item 3.1).
7. EDUCATION
7.1 Date for next community info
session
The next information meeting is scheduled for Saturday 19 August (see
item 2.2).
7.2 Metro News
This was reported on in item 1.
ACTION: MA to bring a copy of the article to the next Committee meeting,
and mail to PA who will put it on our website.
8. COMMUNICATION
PA will speak to TM and NB about the status of people on the mailing
list and what information is to go to whom.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
9.1 Alternate Wednesday nights
There are no plans to do anything on the alternate Wednesday nights
when there is no Committee meeting. Committee meetings (for Committee
members) currently happen fortnightly and general meetings (for all
members) every two months, coinciding with Committee meetings. Information
meetings (for the public) occur monthly, the next being on 19 August.
9.2 General meeting
The next general meeting has been set for 30 August. AT suggested we
put on a show for the members with plenty of overheads, info sheets
and chocolate cake. The Urban Ecology group has arranged to present
at our next Committee meeting on 16 August. It was suggested they should
present at the general meeting instead.
ACTION: NB to negotiate date of presentation with Urban Ecology.
9.3 Complementary uses for Roberts
Street site
PA said there is a group with a vision for the non-cohousing portion
of the site. They would like to buy and build a shared-infrastructure
development on approximately half of the Roberts Street site and are
also open to other sites. These are serious people who want to build
environmentally friendly homes, mostly architects who would be working
from home offices there. PA is attending these meetings and has a common
interest in this and Merri Cohousing. MA noted there is a local business
network who also might be interested in uses for the site. NB said he
didn't want this to become a hotch-potch development like Kingfisher
Estate around the corner. The development should have a common design
theme as well as simply being environmentally friendly. MA suggested
this might be enforced through covenants on the land.
10. CLOSE
The meeting closed at 9:30pm.
|