Whitehorse City Council
Special Council Meeting- Whitehorse Centre 10 April 2017
AGENDA
2 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
3.1 Human Services
SUMMARY
Council commenced its review of the Whitehorse Centre facility in 2010. Since that time, a number of options and detailed studies have been undertaken including wide community consultation and survey processes at each stage.
Following presentation of a comprehensive business case to Council in 2016, Council resolved to examine two final options.
Officers are recommending redevelopment of the Whitehorse Centre and to allocate $1 million in 2017/18 to commence the redevelopment process.
|
That Council: 1. Endorse the findings of the Whitehorse Centre Business Case as released through the Council Resolution 14 December 2015. 2. Proceed with Facility Option A; the redevelopment of the Whitehorse Centre to be located on the Nunawading Civic Precinct with a budget allocation of $67.04m for building construction works. 3. Proceed with a multi-deck car park located at the rear of the Nunawading Police Station to service the needs of the Nunawading Civic and Walker Park Precincts with a budget allocation of $10.96m for building construction works. 4. Allocate $1 million dollars of funds to commence the Whitehorse Centre redevelopment in the 2017/18 budget and further allocate funds in Council’s Strategic Resource Plan and Long-term Financial Plan to complete the project.
|
Executive Summary
The Whitehorse Centre, located in the Nunawading Civic Precinct, is Council’s performing arts and functions facility. The centre provides performing arts opportunities and professional function services to the Whitehorse community and beyond. Opened in 1986, the design, layout and infrastructure of the centre are operating on a reducing functionality, and critical repair works are currently underway with further infrastructure failures expected. It is anticipated unless there is intervention the centre will be unable to provide the level of service required to operate for the Whitehorse community.
Since 2010 comprehensive market research, community consultation, business planning and site investigation has been undertaken and has produced both facility options and car parking plans to be considered for the future of the Whitehorse Centre.
In 2016 Council contracted JWS Research to consult with the community and analyse the response to the proposed options. JWS Research is an independent organisation that conducts research for federal, state and local Government as well as the private sector. Please find the full copy of the JWS Research – Community Opinion and Research Report listed at the 18 July 2016 Council Meeting and available at www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/Agendas-Minutes-2016.html
The Facility Options
Council is considering two facility options for the Whitehorse Centre:
Facility Option A – Redevelopment (new centre)
The redevelopment option is based upon the Whitehorse Centre Business Case findings. Williams Ross Architects (WRA), lead a team of consultants to undertake market research that produced evidence based findings for the future business needs of the centre as a performing arts and functions venue. WRA developed building components (spaces) to respond to the identified market research and the business case reflected the capital and recurrent costs. Please see the next page for an outline of the building components.
Please find the full copy of the Whitehorse Centre Business Case listed at the 14 December 2015 Council Meeting and available at www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/Agendas-Minutes-2015.html
§ The total estimated building, project management and contingency cost for Facility Option A is $67.04m.
§ Facility Option A will require the centre to close for 24 months for building construction works to be undertaken.
Facility Option B – Refurbishment (existing centre)
Essential refurbishment works to the existing centre will extend its effective working life by another 8-10 years after which additional capital investment or closure would be further considered. This option will address some technical, access and infrastructure issues. However, due to compliance requirements Facility Option B will reduce both the auditorium seating by 26 seats and the function room size and will not resolve all disability access and building code issues. Please see the next page for an outline of the building components.
§ The total estimated building, project management and contingency cost for Facility Option B is $10m.
§ Facility Option B will require the centre to close for 12 months for building construction works to be undertaken.
The following table provides a direct comparison of the two proposed facility options against the existing centre and outlines the variable building components included in these options:
The Car Parking Options
An improvement to the current car parking provision is required in the Nunawading Civic Precinct irrespective of the Facility Option that Council determines for the future of the Whitehorse Centre. Council is considering the following car parking plans:
§ Facility Option A - has two car parking plans
§ Facility Option B - has one car parking plan
Facility Option A – Redevelopment - Car Parking Plans
Plan One: to accommodate the redevelopment (new centre), a multi-deck car park is recommended to be built behind the Nunawading Police Station at an estimated cost of $10.96 million.
Plan Two: an on-grade car parking plan that incorporates the Walker Park Precinct; there is no increase in the number of car parking spaces but improvements applied to pathways, lighting and signage at an estimated cost of $3.5 million.
Facility Option B – Refurbishment - Car Parking Plan
Plan: an on-grade car parking plan with no increase in the number of car parking spaces but improvements applied to pathways, lighting and signage. There is a need with retaining the existing centre (Option B) to improve the loading dock and provide a pick-up/set down area as part of a new entrance to provide universal access. This variation is costed for Facility Option B but already included in the building costs for Facility Option A. An estimated cost for this car parking plan is $3.9 million.
Option Comparison
|
|
Facility OPTION A
Multi-deck car park |
Facility OPTION A
Existing on-grade car parking |
Facility OPTION B
Existing on-grade car parking |
|
Building Works |
$60.40m |
$60.40m |
$8.1m |
|
Car Park and Precinct works |
$10.96m |
$3.5m |
$3.9m Incl. loading dock and patron drop-off |
|
Council Project Management and Contingency costs |
$6.64m |
$6.64m |
$1.9m |
|
Total Project Costs |
$78m |
$70.54m |
$13.9m |
|
Expected Building Life |
50+years |
50+ years |
8-10 years |
It is recommended based upon the work undertaken the Whitehorse Centre be redeveloped (Facility Option A) on the Nunawading Civic Precinct to meet market demand and a multi-deck car park be constructed to service the needs of the entire Nunawading Civic and Walker Park Precincts. A multi-deck car parking option will provide a better level of service for all site users. It is recommended the funding for the redevelopment works be referred to Council’s Strategic Resource Plan and Long Term Financial Plan and the adoption of the 2017/2018 Council budget.
background
The Whitehorse Centre is Council’s performing arts and functions facility located on the Nunawading Civic Precinct, 379 – 395 Whitehorse Road, Nunawading. The centre opened in 1986 and has provided performing arts and professional function services to the Whitehorse community and beyond for over thirty years. More than 100,000 people attend the centre every year.
A key feature of the centre is its capacity to host Council’s major festival events. Within the natural amphitheatre of the precinct the Whitehorse Centre Soundshell stage has provided an ideal setting for a large audience to come together and celebrate important civic events. In addition to the centre attendance approximately 43,000 people annually attend the festival events on this site.
The Whitehorse Centre is an important cultural facility for the municipality. Arts and cultural activities make a key contribution to a community’s quality of life as well as being a contributor to the economy. In 2014 Council released the Whitehorse Arts and Cultural Strategy 2014-2022 and its Arts and Cultural Vision for the City of Whitehorse:
We aspire to be a creative community that is vibrant, diverse and engaged through our arts, culture and heritage.
The services offered by Council in support of arts and culture stems from its direct connection to its local community. Council plans and programs to meet local demand and provides key arts infrastructure.
The Whitehorse Centre is an artistic hub for many community based not-for-profit art groups. Many people participate at this community centre as a performer, musician, crew member, patron, ballet student or an attendee to one of the many meetings and functions held within the centre. In the 2015/16 financial year:
§ 77% of all centre bookings were made by City of Whitehorse clients
§ 54% of theatre tickets were issued to Whitehorse residents showing strong local support for this facility
§ 73.6% of bookings were community based not for profit organisations. For example Nova Music Theatre, Babirra Music Theatre, City of Whitehorse Band, Whitehorse Showtime
§ 19.5% of bookings are for Whitehorse based programs. For example Parkland Advisory Forum, Women’s Forum, Midweek Matinee Program, Professional Theatre, Music and Children’s Program
§ 6.9% of bookings were Commercial/Corporate organisations. For example Yarra Valley Water
Whitehorse residents also attend the precinct as festival performers and attendees. The services provided by the Whitehorse Centre directly support Council’s Arts and Cultural Vision and is further supported by the community response to the extensive consultation undertaken on this project acknowledging the value of the centre to the Whitehorse community.
The Problem with the Existing Centre
The existing centre design, layout and overall infrastructure have shown signs of being unable to provide the functionality and level of service required by the community. In recent years the centre has required an increase in reactive repairs and maintenance activities to ensure an acceptable level of functionality. The issues of the existing centre include:
§ Opened in 1986 it is over 30 years old and nearing the end of its effective working life
§ It will become increasingly expensive to maintain
§ It is likely to have more frequent, unpredictable building and equipment failures
§ The building is limiting community event and activity opportunities
§ Research into future needs shows that the building infrastructure requires substantial upgrade and enlargement to serve the Whitehorse community into the future
§ It was built in an era when energy efficiency, environmental sustainability and universal design were not design standards
§ It lacks basic disability access to areas and does not meet current disability access standards.
Examples of building limitations as identified in the Whitehorse Centre Business Case:
§ The function room has no natural daylight and no outlook onto the parkland. Its poor condition compared to other centres means it is not attracting as many users. Its capacity is relatively small, so larger events go elsewhere.
§ The foyer is exceptionally crowded for events. The theatre, functions and rehearsal rooms all open off the one small space. The foyer is estimated to be 68% smaller than desirable (162m2 versus desirable 506m2).
§ The centre lacks disability access in many places including toilet facilities not complying, administration offices (inadequate workstations circulation), door circulation spaces, all backstage areas, orchestra pit, technical areas, and insufficient accessible seating positions and locations.
§ There are insufficient toilet facilities for the number of patrons and the ‘accessible’ toilets do not meet current standards
§ The poor condition of the Soundshell stage makes it undesirable for functions or events. It has restricted natural daylight and does not have disability access. The stage height is less than desirable for the scale of events it holds. The Soundshell stage has limited infrastructure to support production requirements for staging festivals and limits the development of this popular community program. The scale and requirements of modern day festivals would not have been conceived when the Soundshell stage was designed 30 years ago.
§ Backstage facilities are inadequate, especially for large community groups. For instance, there are only two dressing rooms, neither having disability access. Existing facilities are 43% of that recommended needed to meet future needs.
§ The centre needs repairs to some deteriorating building fabric and plant, which are at the end of their working life. These refurbishment costs would not improve the capacity, functionality or overall disability access of the centre.
Council Resolution 18 July 2016
As identified in the 18 July 2016 Council resolution further investigation was sought on the Whitehorse Centre project to report back to Council in April 2017.
That Council:
1. Make public the JWS Research report – The future of the Whitehorse Centre Community Opinion and Research Report
2. Endorse the JWS Community Opinion and Research Report finding that show extensive community support for the retention of the Whitehorse Centre and its arts and cultural service provision and dismisses Option C, that being the closure and demolition of the Whitehorse Centre (Option C)
3. Acknowledge the JWS Community Opinion and Research Report findings that identify a minority quantitative support to undertake essential works to the existing centre with a potential closure in 8-10 years (Option B)
4. Acknowledge the JWS Community Opinion and Research Report findings that identify a majority quantitative support by those who participated in the 600 person telephone survey and the 1292 responses received via the hardcopy /on-line survey to support the redevelopment of the Whitehorse Centre (Option A)
5. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to undertake a detailed facility and site assessment for the purpose of providing a final report to Council by April 2017 for both Option A and Option B including the following information:
a) Facility Asset and Services Condition Assessment
b) Car parking Review/ Analysis Report for the civic, Library and Walker Park precincts
c) Site Assessment of the Precinct
d) Manage urgent repair works to be undertaken to the roof and fire services at the Whitehorse Centre
e) Establish a project plan, governance structure, stakeholder management requirements and timeline for both options for inclusion
f) In a final report for the newly elected Council by April 2017.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Community Consultation Overview
Since 2010 there has been extensive community consultation on the future of the Whitehorse Centre through the following four stages of consultation:
§ 2010 - Whitehorse Centre Feasibility Study (SGL Group)
§ 2013 – Whitehorse Centre Business Case (Williams Ross Architects)
§ 2013 – Whitehorse Centre Business Case Community Consultation on interim findings (Williams Ross Architects)
§ 2016 - Community Consultation on the three options proposed for the future of the Whitehorse Centre (JWS Research)
The following table provides an overview of the extensive community consultation conducted on this project over the past seven years:
Facility Asset and Services Condition Assessment
Every year Council’s Facilities Maintenance Unit undertakes routine maintenance and repair works at the centre to ensure it continues to operate at an acceptable level of service and functionality. The maintenance costs expended for the Whitehorse Centre in the 2015/16 financial year were approximately $80,000.
In February 2017 Council funded major repairs including replacement of the 80mm diameter fire service at the centre. Replacement of the fire service was essential for compliance with Council’s obligations to provide a safe building for public use. The cost of this replacement was approximately $70,000.
The Whitehorse Centre’s roof, specifically the fly tower (the highest point of the roof above the theatre stage), has been maintained over its 30+ years however has now reached the end of its useful life. The roof sheeting material deterioration means that each time it rains there is water on the theatre stage. Work is now required to ensure the facilities can remain safe for use and to prevent further deterioration to the structure. Work will commence in April 2017 with an expected completion date of June 2017. The full cost of these works will be confirmed upon project completion.
DISCUSSION
The Future of the Whitehorse Centre
Since 2010 extensive market research, community consultation and business planning has been undertaken to produce two facility options for the future of the Whitehorse Centre. Car parking plans have also been developed to support both facility options. The discussion component of this report is divided into the following three sections to address and consider the facility and car parking alternatives for the future of the Whitehorse Centre:
§ Section One The Facility Options - A & B
§ Section Two The Car Park Plans for Options A & B
§ Section Three The Comparison
SECTION ONE - THE FACILITY OPTIONS
This section first provides a high-level summary of Facility Option A to provide a context and then in response to the 18 July 2016 Council Resolution provides the detailed assessment findings for Facility Option B. Comprehensive information on Facility Option A is then provided later in this section of the report.
Facility Option A - Redevelopment (new centre) based upon the findings of the Whitehorse Centre Business Case – ($67.04 million)
Council engaged specialist consultants to undertake a business case and consultation with the community on the future of the Whitehorse Centre. Highly regarded designers of performing arts facilities, Williams Ross Architects (WRA), lead a team of consultants to undertake market research to produce evidence based findings for the future business needs of the centre as a performing arts and functions venue. WRA developed building components (spaces) to respond to the identified market research findings and the business case reflected the capital and recurrent cost for a new centre. The key Business Case findings following extensive market research identified:
§ The centre is well regarded by hirers and the arts industry
§ The current usage of the centre is high, in particular Thursday to Saturday in the second half of the year
§ Whitehorse Centre has close to 10% higher usage than the national average of similar theatres. (In reference to Australian Performing Arts Centres Association, Economic Activity Report 2013 findings)
§ Due to the current configuration and the need to share a small foyer space the centre is unable to accommodate multiple simultaneous events
§ Foyer space is critical to patron experience and operating success
The Business Case identified key components (spaces) required for a redevelopment:
Facility Option B – Refurbishment (existing centre) to extend its life by 8-10 years based upon a detailed assessment- ($10 million)
The Council Resolution of the 18 July 2016 lead to further detailed assessment of the existing centre and its capacity to meet the functional needs of the theatre and function services. These works have included:
§ Understanding the useful working life of the centre
§ The ability of the centre to provide appropriate service levels for performing arts and function services
WRA were appointed as the lead consultant for the further investigation of the facility refurbishment option acknowledging their expertise in theatre design and their extensive existing knowledge of this facility. The scope of works for the refurbishment needed to adopt the following principles for the Whitehorse Centre:
§ It does not incur unpredictable failures
§ Activities are not disrupted by unscheduled ‘maintenance’ works arising from infrastructure failures/breakdowns
§ Operates with staff confident that there will be reliable services provided by the infrastructure
§ Infrastructure is safe
§ Infrastructure is fit for purpose
§ Reputation is maintained
The following issues need to be addressed as part of the project work:
§ Expansion of the foyer
§ Improvements to the ticket box
§ Resolution of the occupation health and safety issues in the staff office
§ Improved shelter to the northern doorways
§ ‘Opening up’ of the Banksia Room by a wall/doors
§ Rearrangement of the dressing room to improve security, amenity and access
§ Treatment/refurbishment of the faded mural
§ Accessibility to the orchestra pit
§ New fixtures and fittings in the male and female toilets
§ Improved security and access to the back stage door
§ Repainting
§ New lighting
§ New soft furnishings
To provide a context to the following tables:
Facility Option B is a refurbishment option serving 8-10 years. After this point further capital investment or closure would be considered. This option will address some technical, access and infrastructure issues. However, due to compliance requirements Facility Option B will reduce both auditorium seating capacity (26 seats) and the function room size and will not resolve all disability access and building code issues.
It is important to note in consideration of Facility Option B that previous market research conducted in both the SGL Report (first study) and the Williams Ross Business Case (second study) produced almost identical results and identified the current and future performing arts centre and function needs for the Whitehorse Centre. It was determined the size and capacity of the existing centre would be unable to meet community need. This deficiency may result in risk to the reputation of the centre as clients and patrons may seek alternative facilities.
Option B will require the centre to close for 12 months for building works to be undertaken.
The following tables identify what can be addressed and what will remain an issue as part of Facility Option B:
Building Components
Theatre Auditorium Seating Reduction
The existing seating and wheelchair allocation was compliant when installed over 30 years ago but would no longer be Building Code of Australia (BCA) compliant today. The auditorium seating is original and requires replacement. With the re-seating of the auditorium both the seating and wheelchair allocation must be compliant to current BCA standards. The seating calculation assumes that new seats are the same size as the existing and aisle widths remain the same.
The existing six wheelchair seating positions are all non-compliant. To achieve compliance, eight compliant seating positions + 8 carer seats in the existing theatre requires the loss of Row A and further seats in Row B. (subject to detailed analysis - given the dimensional requirements of the BCA for wheelchair seating it is highly unlikely that row A could be retained, and as row B would be substantially taken up with wheelchair positions it is unlikely that there could be a reasonable “part” row). Total seating capacity will reduce to 382 saleable seats for a code compliant situation – a reduction of 26 seats.
Compliance Upgrades
Capital Cost
It is identified that the efficient method to undertake these refurbishment works would be a 12 month closure of the centre at an estimated cost of $10 million. This amount includes a contingency to the budget in recognition of unknown conditions and is desirable because of the unique design and unidentified ancillary works that may be required on a number of components of the project.
|
Option B – Refurbishment (12 month closure of the centre – 2019) |
Capital Cost |
|
Building Works |
$8.1m |
|
Council Project Management & Contingency |
$1.9m |
|
Total Cost |
$10m |
Please note: car parking plans and costs will be discussed in the second section of this report.
Recurrent Cost
The following table identifies the operating budget comparison between the existing centre and the financial modelling projections for Facility Option B (a refurbished centre). It acknowledges the refurbishment will provide some improvements to the centre but will not address all requirements and there will be a decrease in centre capacity.
With a reduced venue capacity in the theatre (26 seats less per performance) this will reduce the venue hire opportunities with a refurbished centre. A hirer’s potential income will reduce with less available seats to sell. The reduced capacity of the function room to accommodate improved accessibility modifications to the centre is expected to also reduce future hire opportunities. The flow on affect is less people in the centre reducing income levels whilst expenditure must still maintain an ageing centre.
Option A - Redevelopment (new centre) based upon the findings of the Whitehorse Centre Business Case - ($67.04 million)
The redevelopment of a new centre is based upon the findings of the Whitehorse Centre Business Case. An earlier report was completed by the SGL Group and their findings were tested in the second study producing very similar outcomes. In the second study, highly regarded designers of performing arts facilities WRA lead a team of consultants to undertake market research to produce evidence based findings for the future business needs of the centre as a performing arts and functions venue. WRA developed building components to respond to the identified market research findings and a business case was produced to reflect the capital and recurrent cost.
The design of the new centre will provide a facility with substantially expanded facilities and an increase in functionality over the existing centre. There has been substantial consideration of this proposal with the cost and benefits detailed in earlier reports and presentations to Council. The assessment of the proposal has confirmed the scope of the project with an estimated building cost and project management cost of $67.04 million.
Business Case Key Findings
§ The centre is well regarded by hirers and the arts industry
§ The current usage of the centre is high, in particular Thursday to Saturday in the second half of the year
§ Whitehorse Centre has close to 10% higher usage than the national average of similar theatres. (In reference to Australian Performing Arts Centres Association, Economic Activity Report 2013)
§ Due to the current configuration and the need to share a small foyer space the centre is unable to accommodate multiple simultaneous events
§ Foyer space is critical to patron experience and operating success
Community Use
Facility Option A - the redevelopment will significantly increase the number of bookings and usage in a redeveloped facility in comparison to the existing facility. It is projected that the redeveloped facility will predominantly provide for community not-for-profit groups based upon the following hire projections:
Building Components – Hireable Spaces
The building components required to respond to the identified market research demand include the following spaces in a redeveloped centre:
Benefits of a Redevelopment
Concept Designs
When considering a redevelopment on the existing Nunawading Civic Precinct three principles were of high priority:
§ Contain footprint to preserve open space – leading to a two storey facility
§ Maximise festival footprint based on current site capacity
§ Minimise truck movement impacts on parkland
Concept designs were created to represent what the centre may look like redeveloped. They are concept only and do not reflect what maybe the final design or look of the centre.
Concept venue lay-out plan
Exterior concept view
Cross-section concept
Cross-section concept
Open Space and Vegetation
The Nunawading Civic Precinct is a 5.5 hectare, high-profile and important community and civic space, heavily used for a variety of recreation activities and major events. Over the years the precinct landscape has been heavily modified in order to provide the infrastructure required to support these local and regional activities.
Greenscape Tree Consulting was engaged in 2016 to provide an arborist assessment and report on the condition of the trees located in the Nunawading Civic Precinct between the Whitehorse Centre and Walker Park. The report identified a number of trees spread across the precinct that are of high value worthy of retention. Development of a new facility will impact on the landscape during construction and result in removal of healthy trees. The precinct is of such size that there will be scope to undertake significant landscaping works, including tree planting, to offset the loss of healthy trees and meet both the current and future expectations of the community for that space.
Flood Plain
The existing centre is located in an overland flood path and the existing floor level is below the level of an extreme flood event according to the Irwinconsult Report completed in 2014 and included in the suite of attachments related to the Whitehorse Centre Business Case. Any new development on the site of the existing centre would require the new floor level to be raised by at least 1.2 metres, but will be subject to the design of flood mitigation works that could be constructed on the site.
There are numerous scenarios that could be considered to manage the flood plain. Possible solutions to the flooding issue include construction of an overland flow path around the existing centre site, construction of a retarding basin as part of the car park south of the existing site and upgrade of the existing stormwater network. A further detailed study is required for Options A and B to determine any appropriate measures necessary to manage the risks associated with the centre on the Nunawading Civic Precinct.
Redevelopment Capital Cost
|
|
2019 Estimate |
|
New Whitehorse Centre |
$60.400,306 |
|
Includes allowances: |
|
|
Soil
contamination – Whitehorse Centre |
|
|
Other allowances: |
|
|
Council project costs (legal, probity, risk, etc.) |
$1,990,000 |
|
Project risk contingency (approx. 6.5%) |
$4,650,314 |
|
Total Estimated End Cost |
$67.04 million |
Please note: car parking plans and costs will be discussed in the second section of this report.
Cost Escalation (per year)
3% per annum, compounding: Building (average) +$1.58m pa
Car park (average) +$287,000 pa
Inflation adds about $1.87 million to the project cost for every year that elapses
Why Are Performing Art Centres Expensive?
Theatres are expensive because:
§ Complex, large-span volumes & voids with extensive structure and dynamic live loads in the stage house
§ Lack of repetition, increased construction difficulty and risk for the contractor, attracting a cost premium.
§ Acoustic treatment almost everywhere – walls, ceilings, roofs, plumbing, ductwork, equipment, etc.
§ Intensive building services: substantially larger volume, low speed systems, intensively equipped.
§ Intensive plumbing which cannot be efficiently stacked like an office building
§ Specialist services: technical systems, fire protection, evacuation, stage communications, foyer paging, etc.
§ Theatrical equipment: an appropriate benchmark is 15 – 20% of construction cost (i.e. +$8-$10m)
§ Fully fitted, fully functioning, high standard of finishes, with extensive furniture and equipment complements
§ Higher design fees (many specialists), intensive construction labour / management due to complexity
§ Building ‘in-the-round’ requiring high quality treatment to all facades (no cheap ‘rear-end’)
§ Inflation costs on a long-lived project
Business Case Financial Modelling
The Business Case produced a financial model of the costs and revenues for the first five years of operation. This model acknowledges that any new centre will take some time to re-establish itself in the market with clients and visitors.
Council’s Annual Operating Subsidy for the Whitehorse Centre
When a booking comparison is undertaken a significant growth is witnessed in the use of the facility if redeveloped. The main growth from a redeveloped centre is in community bookings reinforcing the centre is a valued service for the Whitehorse community.
To understand the Council use and subsidy of the centre it is important to note that the Whitehorse Centre hire charges for Not-For-Profit Organisations are subsidised by Council to assist community use and access to the centre. Additionally Whitehorse community groups who fulfil Council’s Discount Support Grants Program criteria also have access to further subsidised support by Council. The patron ticket prices for the theatre and music season and midweek matinee program is also subsidised by Council to provide arts and cultural opportunities in the local area.
Council’s Financial Projection Based on Business Case
Council has also examined a best and worst case operational scenarios in the next graph based upon the commissioned business case. The Business Case provided a fiscally responsible conservative projection for the Whitehorse Centre. Based on this conservative outlook Council has projected a 10% worst case scenario and a 20% best case scenario to indicate alternate scenarios in 2023/2024.
The annual operating subsidy scenario graph indicates that once the redeveloped centre has re-established itself in the fifth year of operation the annual subsidy is similar to the 2015/2016 operating subsidy for the Whitehorse Centre but has an increased booking usage as identified in the previous booking comparison graph. The outcome shown in the better scenario option (green line) is an operational subsidy reduction to the Business Case projection and similar to the current 2015/16 annual operating subsidy.
SECTION TWO – THE CAR PARKING PLANS
This section of the report provides two car parking plans for Facility Option A and a single car parking plan for Facility Option B.
Facility Option A – Two Car Parking Plans
Plan
One:
Deck Car Parking Plan at the rear of the Police Station - Cost $10.96m
A car parking study prepared by international engineering consultancy, Cardno, in 2014 identified that with the opening of a new centre; there will be a demand for approximately 553 car parking spaces on the Nunawading Civic Precinct. This new centre would require an additional 210 car parking spaces to be provided. These 210 car parking spaces included:
§ 175 new car parking spaces based on an increase of users to the Nunawading Civic Precinct (not including Walker Park) and addressing the current shortfall of car parking spaces already existing on the precinct
§ 35 spaces were also required to address the loss of car parking spaces due to the construction of a new centre and its impact on the existing car park
Construction of a multi deck car park at the rear of 401 – 405 Whitehorse Road, Victoria Police Station site would provide high quality level of parking services for the patrons of a new centre. More than 500 car parking spaces would be within 200 metres of the centre that would satisfy the requirement of users of the facilities for car parking with a clear line of sight to their destination. An earlier plan of positioning a multi-deck car park directly opposite the centre (site of the sheds) was removed following the 2015 community consultation process.
Site Soil Assessment - Environmental consultants, Jacobs, were engaged to assess the soil conditions for contaminants and provide advice on the suitability of the site to accommodate a multi deck car park. The site conditions are quite good and from the information available, suitable for the construction of a multi deck car park and the development of a new facility. There are some areas of the site that contain low levels of contamination and fill material that would require specific management and rehabilitation works to accommodate development. Ground water management works are likely to be required as part of the construction of a multi deck car park.
A multi-deck car park will cost $10.96m and will result in minimum parkland and tree loss and is positioned within 200 metres of the facility for users. The close proximity of the centre is an important feature to consider so people can comfortably access the Whitehorse Centre and Library limiting people’s exposure to weather and any accessibility issues.
Plan Two:
On-Grade Car Parking Plan - $3.5m
There are 573 car parking spaces in the Nunawading Civic and Walker Park Precincts. The existing car parking demand generated by the diversity of Council facilities and sporting, community and arts activities can with the exception of the three major festival days (Spring Festival, Carols Concert and Australia Day Concert), be accommodated within the existing car parks. This on-grade car parking plan uses all car parking spaces on the Nunawading Civic and Walker Park Precincts as identified in the map below.
The map identifies most of the car parking spaces are within a walk of 250 metres and all are within a walk of 500 metres of the existing centre. About 150 of these car parking spaces would not satisfy the preferable line of sight requirement allowing people to comfortably and safely see their destination from their parking space.
With this option, the existing car
parking conditions could be somewhat improved by upgrading pedestrian
pathways, way finding signing, line marking, public lighting and modified
landscaping in the precincts. There may be further parking conditions implemented
for this plan to enable the most effective site management of the available
on-grade car parking spaces to ensure the public users of the precinct can best
access their services. Although workable, this on-grade car parking plan would
be a less desirable alternative to meet the needs of all visitors to the site
when the precinct is at capacity. There would be 175 less car parking spaces
than plan one.
Facility Option B – Car Parking Plan
For the refurbishment of the existing centre there is one proposed plan.
On-Grade Car Parking Plan - $3.9m
A car parking study, prepared by, international engineering consultancy, Cardno, in 2014 identified that at peak time the existing centre had demand for approximately 250 car parking spaces in proximity of the centre. This option proposes no additional car parking spaces on the Nunawading Civic Precinct. The following map identifies these spaces:
This option would provide improvements to pedestrian pathways, way finding signing, lighting, line marking and modified landscaping works. There may be further parking conditions implemented for this plan to enable the most effective site management of the available on-grade car parking spaces to ensure the public users of the precinct can best access their services.
Existing users of the facilities in the precinct require parking preferably with a line of sight to their destination. This on-grade plan would somewhat improve the use of the existing car parking areas that do not have line of sight to the existing centre. It should be noted for some weekday events the site struggles to accommodate a clear line of site and easy access for some older venue attendees.
As the above map identifies there is a need to improve the loading dock and provide a pick-up/set down area as part of a new entrance to provide universal access. The cost for these works is approximately $400,000. This variation is costed for Facility Option B but is already included in the building costs for Facility Option A. The estimated cost for this car parking plan is $3.9m.
SECTION THREE – THE COMPARISON
The Facility Components Comparison
The following table provides a direct comparison of the two proposed options against the existing centre and outlines the variable building components included in these options:
Capital Cost Comparison
|
|
FACILITY OPTION A
Multi-deck car park |
FACILITY OPTION A
Existing on-grade car parking |
FACILITY OPTION B
Existing on-grade car parking |
|
Building Works |
$60.40m |
$60.40m |
$8.1m |
|
Car Park and Precinct works |
$10.96m |
$3.5m |
$3.9m |
|
Council Project Management and Contingency costs |
$6.64m |
$6.64m |
$1.9m |
|
Total Project Costs |
$78m |
$70.54m |
$13.9m |
|
Expected Building Life |
50+years |
50+ years |
8-10 years |
Recurrent Budget Comparison
The following table shows the variance between the projected attendance and subsidy levels (before depreciation) of Option A and B.
The operating subsidy for Options A and B is also shown in graph form:
Councils Funding Strategy
The following provides an update to Council’s funding strategy for these project options:
Council’s updated long term funding strategy now anticipates no borrowing for this project and Council will also seek State and Federal Government capital support for this project.
WHITEHORSE CENTRE RESEARCH HISTORY 2016 - 2010
Council has been investigating the future of the Whitehorse Centre since 2010. The following identifies the research history overview from 2016 to 2010 when the project commenced:
|
2016 |
Community consultation was conducted by JWS Research and the report released in July 2016 |
|
2015 |
A comprehensive Business Case of the Whitehorse Centre was completed by Williams Ross Architect Consortium and released to the public after community consultation was completed earlier in the same year With the release of the Whitehorse Centre Business Case in December Council engaged JWS Research to consult with the community on three possible options for the future of the Whitehorse Centre - Complete redevelopment - Essential Works - Closure and demolition of the existing Centre |
|
2014-2013 |
Williams Ross Architect Consortium conducted a market analysis to determine a comprehensive business case and concept plan design for a redevelopment on the Whitehorse Centre. Williams Ross Architect Consortium briefed Council at regular intervals for the duration of this period. |
|
2012 |
In March Council noted the SGL Whitehorse Centre Feasibility Study Report and deferred endorsing the facility components pending a meeting with Councillors and Officers In April Council noted the outcomes of a meeting on the Whitehorse Centre redevelopment options and approved the SGL Whitehorse Centre Feasibility Study Report. It further allocated a sum to develop a concept plan and business case for the future of the centre In December Council appointed the Williams Ross Architect Consortium to develop a business case and concept plans for the future of the Whitehorse Centre |
|
2011 |
In July Council resolved to note the draft Whitehorse Centre Feasibility Study and defer endorsement until undertaking a further study on the feasibility of a regional facility and seek interest from the Eastern Regional Councils In September the Mayor issued a letter to the Eastern Region Council seeking their in-principle support to request federal funding for a regional facility. Two of the then nine Councils supported this funding proposal. In November the Melbourne Eastern Regional Development Association released a Report recommending the preferred location for a large scale events facility in Melbourne’s east is in the Yarra Valley |
|
2010 |
In August Council contracted the SGL Group and Outside the Square Consulting to conduct a feasibility study on the Whitehorse Centre and complete the Whitehorse Arts & Cultural Strategy |
Previous Project History
This following section of the report outlines in further detail the history of the Whitehorse Centre project from the most recent three options being considered for the future of the centre to the inception of the project back in 2010.
2016 CONSULTATION AND RESEARCH FINDINGS
Council contracted JWS Research to consult with the community and analyse the response to the proposed three options. JWS Research is an independent organisation that conducts research for federal, state and local Government as well as the private sector. The comprehensive research findings implemented by JWS Research involved many varying aspects that sought to take into account the breadth of views across the Whitehorse community.
Council contracted JWS Research to consult the community on three options proposed for the future of the Whitehorse Centre. The three options are:
Option A Redevelopment of the Whitehorse Centre based upon the 2015 Whitehorse Centre Business Case
Option B Undertake essential works (approx. an indexed $7m+) to the existing centre to continue its operation for another 8 -10 years before a potential closure of the centre
Option C Closure and demolition of the existing centre within the next 2 years
Communications Plan
The community consultation period on the future of the Whitehorse Centre was undertaken during March/April 2016. The following communication plan was implemented to engage with the community:
§ Three Mayoral letters were issued to the stakeholders of the Whitehorse Centre including clients, residents in a 300 metre radius of the centre, patrons and arts organisations – approximately 5000 letters were issued on each occasion
§ Whitehorse News ran feature
articles in the February, March and April 2016 editions
Council updates ran in the Whitehorse Leader following the Council resolution
from late December 2015 until mid-April 2016
§ Media releases were issued on the Whitehorse Centre Business Case and consultation
§ Enews notifications were issued from the Whitehorse Centre, Whitehorse Artspace and the Box Hill Community Arts Centre – issued to approx. 3500 people
§ An article on the Whitehorse Centre featured in the Aqualink Magazine – issued to approximately 2500 people
§ On hold messages advising of the consultation ran on the Council phone system from February to April 2016
§ The Whitehorse Centre Business Case, associated reports and information on how to contribute to the consultation were available on Council and the Whitehorse Centre websites.
Research Methodology
Councillors met with JWS Research on two occasions prior to the finalisation of the research methodology. While the research methods that were adopted were wide ranging, the research findings from this consultation presented relatively consistent results. JWS Research managed and conducted the following:
§ Qualitative research: six focus group sessions were conducted with a representative mix of Whitehorse residents to understand opinions and attitudes towards the three options. In two of the sessions regular users and those who live within 300 metres of the centre were randomly selected for consultation.
§ Quantitative research: a telephone survey of randomly selected 600 Whitehorse residents was conducted to understand the opinions and attitudes towards the three options
§ Quantitative research: an on-line and hardcopy survey was available during the consultation period for anyone to complete and submit to understand the opinions and attitudes towards the three options
§ Qualitative research: public submissions were received as feedback to understand the opinions and attitudes towards the three options
§ Qualitative research: ten interviews with a random selection of Whitehorse Centre clients were undertaken to understand opinions and attitudes towards the three options
Research Profile
The findings from the JWS Research are produced from the following participation statistics:
§ JWS Research conducted a telephone interview/survey of 600 randomly selected Whitehorse residents. Of the 600 Whitehorse residents:
- 85% owned their property (Whitehorse ratepayer)
- 73% had lived in Whitehorse for longer than 10 years
- 7 out of 10 people (or a member of their household) had been to the Whitehorse Centre and/or festival held on the precinct
- 52% women and 48% men
§ JWS Research received 1292 submissions (807 online and 495 hardcopy) of the same survey that was completed by the 600 telephone respondents. Of these 1292 submissions:
- 1142 responses (88%) identified as Whitehorse residents
- 93% owned their property (Whitehorse ratepayer)
- 88% had lived in Whitehorse for longer than 10 years
- 9 out of 10 people (or a member of their household) had been to the Whitehorse Centre and/or festival held on the precinct
39% women and 61% men
§ JWS Research analysed the 123 written hardcopy submissions received from business, centre attendees and the general community
§ JWS Research conducted ten in-depth interviews with Whitehorse Centre theatre and function clients
§ JWS Research conducted six focus group sessions with approximately with 8 to 9 people approximately in each group
Key Findings
Quantitative Statistical Findings
Results shown are ‘considered preferences’ after consideration of arguments for/against redevelopment.
Qualitative Findings
Those in support of Option A see the potential widespread benefits that a redeveloped centre holds and this is a major factor driving their support for Option A. These benefits include:
§ Community Benefit
§ Cultural Benefits
§ Societal Benefits
§ Quality of Life Benefits
Those in support of Option B view things largely through an economic lens making project cost a major factor when considering their preferred option that lead to the perspective that the project cost is too big for the number of future users (with future users viewed as the same as current rather than a broader group). Respondents believed the cost of the deck car park is excessive.
With a lack of support for Option C, preferences for Option A or Option B are split and are generally dependent on how stakeholders use the Whitehorse Centre. From a client perspective it was identified that theatre users are more in favour of Option A and function and event users Option B.
JWS Consultation Research Outcomes
There is little community support identified in the research for Option C, thus it is recommended this option is dismissed. This leads to a decision between Option A and Option B:
§ Opinions are somewhat divided with more overall support towards Option A in the telephone and self-select survey (hardcopy/online).
§ Centre clients and written submissions are evenly split in their preference between Option A and option B.
Those in support of Option A:
§ Appreciate the range of benefits the redevelopment will bring to the broader community
§ Display some concern around the proposed cost especially the deck car park
Those in support of Option B:
§ See the cost of Option A, particularly those surrounding the proposed car park, is seen as so large it is not justifiable.
§ Are looking to be convinced that the benefits of the project will outweigh the cost, and that there is a real community need for the project.
JWS Research identified there are solid grounds to move forward with Option A. However, given the divide in opinion between Option A and Option B there is potential for some community concern regardless of which option is chosen. A focus of this concern is the cost of the car parking.
The JWS Whitehorse Centre Community Opinion and Research Report and its companion Report of Detailed Findings Research are attached.
December 2015:
At the 14 December Ordinary Council Meeting, the Council resolution was:
That Council:
1. Make publicly available the Whitehorse Centre Business Case.
2. Release the quarantined funds allocated in the 2015/16 budget for Whitehorse Centre project works. Appoint JWS Research to undertake a research project to consult with the community between late February and May 2016 on the following three options:
a) A redevelopment of the Whitehorse Centre based upon the Whitehorse Centre business Case;
b) Undertake essential works to the existing centre (approx. $7m+) to continue its operation for another 8-10 years before a potential closure of the centre;
c) Closure of the existing centre within the next 2 years.
3. The research will assess specifically the following:
- Awareness, attendance and community support of the current centre
- Perceived values and benefits of a new performing arts centre
- Questions, concerns and hesitations to a new performing arts centre
- Level of support for a new performing arts centre and reasons for this
- Profile of the most receptive to and opposed to the development
- Information needs and expectations of the community to the new centre
- Community response in support or opposition to the closure of the centre
4. Receive the JWS Research Report on the findings of the consultation in mid - 2016 for Council consideration.
May 2015:
The draft findings and concepts designs developed for a potential redevelopment of the Whitehorse Centre were released to the community for public consultation.
From Monday 4 May to Friday 29 May 2015 findings of the project were released for public consultation. The consultation plan included;
§ A twelve page brochure outlining the project which could also be downloaded from Council and the Whitehorse Centre websites
§ 5096 letters to patrons, clients, stakeholders and local residents within a 300m radius of the Whitehorse Centre
§ 1027 electronic E-news emailed to patrons
§ Leader advertisement (Council Update) for the 4 weeks during consultation period
§ On-hold phone messages during May on Council’s phone system
§ Distribution of project brochure collateral to key Council sites
§ Displays on the Council and Whitehorse Centre websites (with advice on translation services)
§ Advertised consultation in the Asian Press
§ Two drop-in information sessions
§ Large scale plans displayed in the Council building (civic centre foyer)
§ Hardcopy surveys which were also available in Chinese
The survey findings from the May 2015 consultation identified the following feedback for the proposed redevelopment:
§ A total of 619 people directly provided feedback during the consultation process. This included 559 on-line/hard copy surveys and submissions or letters directly to Council. In addition, a petition with 106 signatures requesting an alternative plan for the car park was received
§ Of the 559 survey responses the key findings include:
- Over 73% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that the Council has an important role in providing cultural facilities and that the Whitehorse Centre is a valued asset.
- Over 50% strongly agreed or agreed that the centre required redevelopment and 37% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the centre requires redevelopment.
- 78% of the survey respondents are residents of the City of Whitehorse.
- 26% highly supported the redevelopment as currently proposed, 18% supported the proposal and 10% somewhat supported the proposal. 45% do not support the proposal. Less than 1% had no opinion.
- 56% of respondents indicated that the redevelopment was an important project for the City of Whitehorse.
- 35% of respondents had attended an event at the Whitehorse Centre.
The deck car park located directly opposite the Whitehorse Centre was identified by local residents to be a serious concern due to its proximity to residential properties. In June 2015, as an immediate response to these concerns a letter from the Mayor was issued to residents in a 300 metre radius of the centre to remove the deck car parking option near the northern boundary fence line. The alternate car park position at the rear of the Nunawading Police Station remains an option and further car parking investigation would be undertaken.
2013-2014 Whitehorse Centre Business Case - Williams Ross Architects
Williams Ross Architects Consortium was engaged by Council to conduct the following works:
§ Complete market testing and needs analysis for performing arts and function services for the Whitehorse Centre
§ Identify the ability of the existing centre to provide these appropriate service levels for performing arts and function services
§ Produce a Business Case for a redeveloped centre
§ Determine the capital and recurrent costs of a redeveloped facility
§ Develop concept designs of a redeveloped facility
Williams Ross Architects Consortium Consultation:
Williams Ross Architect Consortium reviewed previous documentation, conducted building and site analysis and consulted with user stakeholders, to determine the needs of users and respond with a suite of building components to meet the identified need. Consultation included:
§ 59 surveys of existing hirers, local arts and cultural groups and local business
§ 37 interviews with local and Melbourne based arts groups, commercial artists, entertainment producers, event organisers, Arts Victoria, Performing Arts Centre Managers, Councillors and Council Officers
Existing Centre
Since opening in 1986 the Whitehorse Centre has had regular maintenance and minor refurbishments and improvements undertaken to enable a level of service delivery to the community.
The Whitehorse Centre was built in an era when energy efficiency, environmental sustainability and universal design were not as developed as current standards. The centre lacks basic disability access to areas and does not meet current disability access standards, is ageing and will cost increasingly more to maintain. Investigation has shown that it is not practical or cost-effective to upgrade and extend the existing centre based on the future business planning needs.
Building standards and community expectations have changed so much that many aspects of the centre would not comply if today’s codes were applied. Examples of building limitations[1]:
§ The Function Room has no natural day light, and no external outlook. Its poor condition compared to other centres means it is not attracting as many users. Its capacity is relatively small, so larger events go elsewhere.
§ The foyer is exceptionally small for larger events. The theatre, functions and rehearsal rooms all open off the one small space. By today’s standards the existing foyer of 162 square metres should be increased to 506 square metres to accommodate the users of the theatre and adjacent rooms.
§ The centre lacks disability access in many places including toilet facilities not complying, administration offices (inadequate workstations, circulation), door circulation spaces, all backstage areas, orchestra pit, technical areas, and insufficient accessible seating positions and locations.
§ There are insufficient toilet facilities for the number of patrons and the accessible toilets do not meet current standards.
§ The poor condition of the soundshell makes it less than satisfactory for functions or events. It has limited natural daylight and does not have disability access. Its height is less than desirable for the sort of events it holds and has limited capacity and limitations for festivals. The scale of current day events was not conceived during its design 30 years ago.
§ Backstage facilities are inadequate, especially for large community groups. For instance, there are only two dressing rooms, neither having disability access. Existing facilities are 312 square metres versus recommend 732 square metres.
§ The centre needs repairs to some deteriorating building fabric and plant, which are at the end of their working life. Estimated costs for the next five years are projected to be approximately $7 million+ (indexed cost). These costs are purely for maintenance and renewal works and will have marginal impact of the centre’s hiring potential. These works will also not increase capacity, improve functionality or improve disability access of the centre.
§ When compared with the recommended facilities needed to serve the demonstrated future use as identified in the Business Case, the existing centre is only 38% of the recommended facility area (existing 2390m2 versus recommended 6365m2).
These conditions have been confirmed by a physical access audit that was completed in 2012 and a Building Code of Australia audit was completed in 2007.
Key Benefits
The outcome of the research and consultation identified that the centre is well regarded by the community. The Whitehorse Centre Business Case identified benefits of an enhanced facility/range of facilities that include:
1. A demonstrated demand for a larger seating capacity (circa 580-600 seats) for the main auditorium (and increased stage size) that will make it more economic for hirers
2. A studio theatre (circa 200 seats) would enable smaller scale works to be staged. It would support local organisations who prefer a more intimate and lower cost theatre and also provide an excellent space for youth activities
3. Multiple activities would occur simultaneously improving access and utilisation on current levels
4. The ability to cater for larger functions was seen as an important aspect of a redevelopment to broaden the use for community and local businesses
5. Retain and improve the soundshell capability to meet the needs of the community festival season
6. The activity mix of a redeveloped centre remains a high proportion of community use and is projected to be 67%.
Key Findings
Key findings were consistent across both consultant reports, the former SGL Report & the Williams Ross Architects Business Case. The functional space findings include:
Functional Spaces
1. Main Theatre – seating capacity of 580-600 seats & increased stage size
2. Studio Theatre – a 200 seat (approx.) black box theatre space
3. Function Room - capacity of 300 dinner style seating and divisible into 3 spaces
4. Soundshell -integrated into the centre enabling an effective and efficient festival site
5. Foyer space – size critical to the success of venue
6. Studio space - demand shown for increased studio space
Car Parking
• Existing total of on-site car parks – 378 spaces
• Additional parking required – 175-200 spaces approximately
• New site total approx. – 553-578 spaces approximately
Municipal Performing Arts Centre
A Municipal Performing Arts Centre is usually the “peak” performing arts facility in its area providing:
• The highest level of technical capability
• A higher level of functionality and amenity
• Provides a professional theatre experience for participants
Comparison between a municipal performing arts centre and school theatres is a case of ‘apples and ‘oranges’ as:
• A school theatre is usually just one theatre and not always with full capability
• A school theatre does not provide the full range of necessary support facilities as they use adjacent classrooms
The proposed Whitehorse Centre includes five facilities / support facilities:
1. Main theatre
2. Studio theatre
3. Sound shell
4. Studio space
5. Function room * as well as car parking provision
Retention of Existing Building
To meet the function space requirements of the proposed centre the consultants reviewed the existing centre in engineering, theatrical and functional terms and determined:
§ Little of the existing building could be retained without substantial alteration or reconstruction due to required Building Code upgrades
§ The building services and theatrical infrastructure would have to be entirely replaced
§ Many existing spaces are functionally compromised and several required spaces are simply not provided.
The retention of the existing building, or parts of it, would be likely to constrain the future facility without providing a meaningful capital cost benefit. The existing building would have to be brought into full compliance with current building and related codes. This would require an almost complete reconstruction to achieve disability, occupational safety and energy efficiency standards. As well, flood mapping suggests that the floor level will need to be raised. For these reasons retaining portions of the existing building would result in a compromised facility while costing close to a completely new centre[2].
Capital Cost
The estimated construction costs have been escalated (that is, inflation adjusted) to construction completion in 2019 as it would need four years minimum to fund, design and build the centre.
|
|
2019 Estimate |
|
New Whitehorse Centre |
$60.40m |
|
Includes allowances: |
|
|
Soil contamination – Whitehorse Centre Access road works (modification to existing roads) Existing building demolition |
|
|
Deck car park |
$10.96m |
|
Includes soil contamination – car park structure |
|
|
Other allowances: |
|
|
Council project costs (legal, probity, risk, etc.) |
$1.99m |
|
Project risk contingency (approx. 6.5%) |
$4.65m |
|
Total End Cost |
$78m |
Cost Escalation (per year)
3% per annum, compounding: Building (average) +$1.58m pa
Car park (average) +$287,000 pa
Inflation adds about $1.87 million to the project cost for every
year that elapses
Councillors were presented with three concept design scenarios for the Whitehorse Centre redevelopment and four car parking options for the precinct based upon the car parking needs analysis findings. The preferred option was to progress concept design of a ‘new building on the existing site’ and a deck car park to be located at the rear of the former Nunawading Police Station or adjacent to the centre.
10 December 2012:
Following the previous resolution, a tender process was undertaken to contract a skilled consortium of consultants to undertake the business planning and architectural concept design for the project. At the Ordinary Council Meeting, the resolution was:
That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to accept the tender and sign the formal contract for Contract 12018 for the Whitehorse Centre Business Case Development received from Bill K Williams Pty Ltd (ABN 96 005 624 868), of Suite 1, 70 Kerr Street, Fitzroy, trading as Williams Ross Architects, for the tendered amount of $172,700 including GST; as part of the total expected project expenditure of $189,970 including GST, having modified the scope of works to EXCLUDE the expanded / regional model and INCLUDE in the Business Case, options in accordance with the SGL Whitehorse Centre Feasibility Study Report.
16 April 2012: at the Ordinary Council Meeting, the Whitehorse Centre Feasibility Study Report was presented to Council. The resolution was:
That Council:
1. Note the outcomes of the meeting held on the 28 March 2012 comprising the Mayor Cr. Lane, Cr. Daw. Cr. Pemberton, CEO and relevant staff, as per the Council resolution on the 19 March 2012, to discuss the Whitehorse Centre facility redevelopment options and;
a) Approve the SGL Whitehorse Centre Feasibility Study report and allocate a sum of $150,000 to the 2012/13 Budget to further develop a concept plan for the Whitehorse Centre and in addition;
b) Develop a Business Case for an expanded Whitehorse Centre Performing Arts/Function Centre at the Civic Precinct to determine the needs and financial costs of a theatre (of around 600 seats with the capability of future expansion, if required) that may be additional to the existing theatre, and expanded convention capability. The brief for the business case to include (but not be limited to) the matters below and as further detailed in the specification for the brief:
· Number, size and type of performing/audience spaces
· Function and conferencing size, seating, break-out capacity
· Required car parking and associated infrastructure for scale of redevelopment
· Impact on the site, precinct and residential amenity
· Financial analysis of options and staging
· Impact on centre business financial operations
· Impact on capital and recurrent budgets
· Risk management
c) Establish a working group of Councillors comprising the Mayor, Cr Pemberton and Cr Daw, the CEO and relevant staff to develop the Business Case Brief
d) Approve a 2012/2013 budget allocation of $100,000 towards implementing and completing the business case and report to Council
19 March 2012:
At the Ordinary Council Meeting, the Whitehorse Centre Feasibility Study Progress Report was presented to Council. The resolution was:
That Council:
1. Note the Draft Whitehorse Centre Study Progress Report presented to Council in July 2011.
2. Defer considering endorsing the Whitehorse Centre facility components as outlined in the July report until a meeting of the Councillor Lane (Mayor), Councillors Daw and Pemberton, Whitehorse Chief Executive Officer and relevant staff be convened to determine how a staged approach to developing and constructing an expanded Whitehorse Centre could be implemented.
3. That this matter comes up for discussion at the next Council meeting (16 April 2012).
November 2011:
The Melbourne East Regional Development Association released the report. “An audit and market assessment of arts, cultural and meeting venues in eastern Melbourne”. The report recommends “that the preferred location for a large scale (particularly events and functions) facility in Melbourne’s east is the Yarra Valley”.
29 September 2011:
A letter from the Mayor was issued to the then Eastern Region Councils seeking their in-principle support to request federal funding. Two of the then nine Councils supported this funding proposal.
18 July 2011:
At the Ordinary Council Meeting, the Draft Whitehorse Centre Feasibility Study Progress Report was presented to Council. The resolution was:
That Council:
1. Note and commend the work to date on the draft Whitehorse Feasibility Study
2. Defer endorsement and approval to proceed to the next stage until:
a) Council undertakes a further study on the feasibility study of a regional facility as per the details in the report under “Regional Facility Study and Indicative Costing”, subject to seeking, with RDA Melbourne East support, federal funding of $162,000 to undertake the further study
b) Eastern Region Councils and Regional Development Australia Melbourne East have been consulted seeking their interest on a joint cooperative venture for a Regional Performing Arts Facility and Convention Centre in the City of Whitehorse, based on a regional approach
3. Further seek opportunities for joint Local Government, Federal RDA, and State Government funding for building the facility and operating/maintaining
4. Establish a Council steering group for this project comprising Cr’s Daw and Pemberton and relevant Council officers
August 2010:
Council contracted consultants, the SGL Group and Outside the Square Consulting to conduct the Whitehorse Arts and Cultural Strategy and the Whitehorse Centre Feasibility Study. The feasibility study identified the future requirements and development opportunities for the Whitehorse Centre.
The consultation undertaken by SGL Group and Outside the Square Consulting included:
§ 500 person, randomly selected and independent of Council telephone survey
§ 200 Whitehorse Centre user surveys
§ 22 arts and cultural group surveys
§ 18 focus group sessions
§ 11 stakeholder interviews
§ Demographic review / operation review of the centre / facility bench marking
In 2011 the SGL Feasibility Study identified the following outcomes:
§ The Whitehorse Centre is a highly valued community asset and is integral to the provision of performing arts within the City of Whitehorse.
§ The architectural review of the precinct and the centre identified that the precinct lacks a sense of identity for the municipality’s performing arts centrepiece.
§ The structural review of the facility confirmed that the building is generally of sound structural condition. The extensive market research and consultation however identified that the facility is functionally and design-wise out-dated and ‘tired’. It is in need of redevelopment and expansion to meet the ongoing demands of a municipal performance and function venue.
§ The facility at 28 years is reaching its optimum lifecycle capacity in terms of both its efficiency and effectiveness and current benchmarks for facilities of this type. The functionality of a number of key areas within the facility is poor, impacting on the programming opportunities, visitor experience and ongoing sustainability of the centre.
§ Based on market testing the functional spaces required for a redeveloped centre are:
1. Main Theatre – seating capacity of 580-600 seats & increased stage size
2. Studio Area – 3 to 4 rehearsal/presentation spaces
3. Function Room - capacity of 470-600 persons and divisible into 3 spaces
4. Soundshell -integrated into the centre enabling an effective and efficient festival site
5. Foyer space – size critical to the success of venue
§ Given the significant refurbishment required there may be the “tipping point” between refurbishment and total rebuild of a purpose built performing arts and functions facility to meet the needs of the Whitehorse community for the next thirty years and beyond.
CONSULTATION 2010 TO PRESENT DAY
From 2010-2015 Council commissioned two research and consultation projects on the proposed Whitehorse Centre redevelopment with two independent consultants both concluding similar project recommendations. In 2016 Council commissioned JWS Research to consult with the community on the three options considered for the future of the Whitehorse Centre.
Approximately 3500 people have contributed over the past six years to the consultation and this does not include the hundreds of people represented by specific users groups. The extensive community consultation on the future of the Whitehorse Centre has occurred in four stages:
§ 2010 - Whitehorse Centre Feasibility Study (SGL Group)
§ 2013 – Whitehorse Centre Business Case (Williams Ross Architects)
§ 2013 – Whitehorse Centre Business Case Community Consultation on interim findings (Williams Ross Architects)
§ 2016 - Community Consultation on the three options proposed for the future of the Whitehorse Centre (JWS Research)
The following table provides an overview of the extensive community consultation conducted on this project over the past seven years:
PROJECT GOVERNANCE
Experience of major projects has enabled the development of in-house expertise in the establishment of appropriate project governance and risk management when Council approves investment in major projects. The following governance process applies:
Option A
Council would be the decision maker at key milestones including:
§ Appointment of architect and builder
§ Appointment of Councillor Reference Group
§ CEO appoints Project Sponsor, Project Manager and establishes Project Control Group
§ Terms of Reference within groups focus to deliver the project with minimisation of risk time and on budget to deliver high quality services to the community
Option B
Council would be the decision maker at key milestones including:
§ Appointment of architect and builder
§ CEO appoints Project Sponsor, Manager Major Projects to oversee works
§ Manager Major Projects and Buildings ensures necessary resources for the project delivery and reports to Council through the Capital Works Program reports
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Council has allocated significant funds to investigate the options for the future of the Whitehorse Centre. Option A has an estimated total cost of $78 million with a multi deck car park and $70.4 million for an on-grade car parking alternative. Option B requires funding of an estimated $13.9 million.
The cost of a redevelopment or refurbishment can be funded within Council’s Strategic Resources Framework and the Long Term Financial Plan. The following provides an update to Council’s funding strategy for these project options:
Council’s updated long term funding strategy now anticipates no borrowing for this project and Council will also seek State and Federal Government capital support for this project.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The provision of a performing arts centre and its possible redevelopment supports Council’s Vision (2013-2023), Council Plan (2016-2020) and Arts & Cultural Strategy (2014-2022).