Notice Paper Monday 24 June 2013 at 7: 00 p m. Council Chamber, Stonnington City Centre

4. winifred crescent reserve: fencing

Author: Geoff Ovens

General Manager: Simon Thomas

Purpose

The purpose of the report is to seek guidance from Council in response to a resident request to fence Winifred Crescent Reserve where the reserve abuts Alexandra Ave.
Background
At the Council meeting held on 22 April 2013 under Questions to Council Officers from Councillors, the following matter was raised:

“The Mayor, Cr Koce, said that an attendee at the recent North Ward Meeting raised concerns about the safety of Winifred Crescent Reserve, asking for a fence to be erected along busy Alexandra Avenue. He asked Council Officers to prepare a report.”

This issue was also raised at a previous North Ward meeting held on 28 March 2012.
Winifred Reserve is a small, long and thin reserve situated adjacent to Alexandra Ave. It is largely undeveloped, comprising an open grassed area with a wide variety of trees and a small playground (located at the south eastern end). The area between the playground and Alexandra Ave is currently fenced for an approximate length of 80 metres. This fencing serves to prevent direct access to the busy Alexandra Ave, particularly to manage the risk of children running onto the road. The Park provides an important green space in an otherwise built up environment.
Winifred Crescent is currently a “Dogs on Leash” reserve.
Figure 1 : Photo of existing fence

# Attachment 1 to the report shows the Reserve with the location of the current fence in proximity to the existing playground and the proposed location for potential additional fencing.

Discussion
It is estimated that there is approximately 210 metres of park frontage that directly abuts Alexandra Avenue. Some 80 metres of this length at the south eastern end of the Reserve is already fenced, providing a barrier between the playground and Alexandra Avenue. The resident request is to fence the remaining 130 metres along the full interface with Alexandra Ave to improve perceived safety.
Fencing of reserves is not a standard practice of Council, nor is it preferred. The is on the basis of making public open space as accessible as possible, asset management and risk management. However, it is recognised that there may be some exceptions to this practice based on site specific needs.
In considering this request, the following options should be taken into account:

• 
  A direct response option of extending the fencing and various alternatives for doing so - while the existing fence could be extended, the style and condition of the existing fence is considered inappropriate and not of a standard or quality that such a high profile location should reflect for Stonnington. It would be preferable that, if fencing is to occur at the Reserve, the existing fencing is removed and a new, higher quality and amenity fence is installed along the full length (such as a 1.2m black diamond mesh fence with top rail, or a palisade timber fence, or a feature fence specifically designed to reflect the cultural history of the Yarra River).

  Replacement of the fence is estimated to cost approximately $30,000 for a standard option (1.2m black diamond mesh with top rail) or $50,000 to $75,000 for a higher standard amenity fence, depending on the style.

  
  
  
  

• 
  An alternative option of considering other alternatives for achieving the sense of safety and security sought by the resident, in a non-fenced form.

  The Yarra Biodiversity project that is currently being constructed across Alexandra Ave from Winifred Crescent Reserve is a central consideration to this request. This significant infrastructure project addresses the Yarra River and environs along the 3km stretch that falls within the City of Stonnington from Grange Road to Punt Road, and is based on improving the environmental performance of the River in a location selected for its high public profile so as to provide for the enjoyment of residents and members of the public.

  Retaining visual and physical access through Winifred Crescent Reserve is important in providing a connection to the Yarra River and particularly the Yarra Biodiversity project. Having full fencing along Alexandra Ave will present exclusivity of the Reserve and is not consistent with the objectives of the Yarra River Biodiversity project.
  
  
  

• 
  A combined option. Considering the objectives of the two former options, it may be that a combined approach presents a reasonable alternative. This could be achieved through an appropriate landscape treatment along the balance of the 130 metre unfenced area of Winifred Crescent Reserve while still providing the amenity desired and connection required to optimise the impact of the Biodiversity project.
  

Considering the alternatives discussed previously, it is evident that the range of factors associated with Winifred Crescent Reserve should be considered strategically, in the context of surrounding areas, and in line with the views of other users and surrounding residents. To this end, the most appropriate response to this issue would be to prepare a master plan of the Reserve with the purpose of developing an infrastructure and amenity improvement program for the Reserve. This should be of a scale commensurate with the small, local classification of the Reserve.

Financial and Resources Implications
Funding has not been provided in the 2013/14 financial year for any works at Winifred Crescent Reserve. Budgets could accommodate the preparation of a master plan and development of an improvement program which would include consultation with local residents and users, and conceptual designs for any improvement works. This preliminary work could then inform a budget bid for 2014/15, for improvements to be implemented in 2014/15 (subject to funding).

Conclusion
The request for fully fencing of the length of Winifred Crescent Reserve abutting Alexandra Avenue is deemed to require a strategically considered response, given the high profile of the site and the opportunities provided by surrounding areas to provide a high quality, high amenity and seamlessly connected series of public open spaces.
Safety is a primary objective of all Council planning for improvement works, and the request to fully fence one boundary of the Reserve for safety reasons is worthy of consideration. The opportunity to review options for further addressing safety should be considered strategically, and involve the opinions of local residents and other users of the park.
A strategic response to this request is proposed so as to allow all implications of fully fencing the Alexandra Avenue interface to be reviewed, and for suitable alternative safety treatments that enhance amenity to be identified in the form of a master plan and associated improvement program.

Human Rights Consideration
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Recommendation

That a master plan be prepared for Winifred Crescent Reserve in consultation with local residents and users of the Reserve, to identify issues and opportunities, and plan for improvements within the context of surrounding areas including the Yarra River Biodiversity project.

5.king street, prahran – proposal to undertake a trial closure to through traffic

Author: Peter Kyrkylis

General Manager: Simon Thomas
Purpose
To:

1. Abandon the current proposal for a trial closure of King Street, Prahran from Chapel Street to the property driveways at the west of Little Chapel Street, and

2. Prepare a further report for Council reconsidering the proposal for closure of King Street, Prahran in early 2014.

Background
Part of King Street, Prahran was temporarily closed to allow for construction activity at 256 Chapel Street during 2011/12. The temporary closure(s) had minimal impact on traffic flow in the area, and had the benefit of restricting east/west traffic movement along King St into Greville St which is disruptive for pedestrian and traffic movement in Chapel Street.
Further Chapel ReVision and the Chapel Street Masterplan have both identified the need to establish ‘pause points’ along Chapel Street, and to establish east/west pedestrian linkages across chapel Street.
Based on the observations of the limited impact on traffic patterns and the strategic objectives identified for Chapel Street it was proposed to close off this part of King Street to vehicles as a trial over a 6 month period to provide for a new public space in the Activity Centre, to assess the relative benefits of a permanent closure.
Council at its meeting of 24 September 2012 considered this matter and resolved that:

1. Supports the closure of part of King Street on a trial basis for 6 months as shown in Attachment 2.

2. Supports the development of a plan for open space in part of King Street.

3. Commences the process for the temporary closure of part of King Street following the completion of the road closure process at 256 Chapel Street.
As part of the process Council was required to undertake consultation, in accordance with the provisions of S223 of the Local Government Act 1989.
Two (2) written submissions were received from an adjacent property representative (Watpac Developments) and a nearby employee. Both were opposed to the proposal and 1 submitter (Watpac) requested to be heard in person.
Council at its meeting of 18 February 2013 resolved that:

1. 
   Council delegate to a special Committee consisting of South Ward Councillors, the authority to hear submissions made under the provisions of Section 223 of the Local Government Act, 1989, on the proposal to implement a trial closure to through traffic of King Street, Prahran between Chapel Street and the property driveways at the west of Little Chapel Street for a period of 6 months.
   
2. 
   Following consideration of all submissions by the Committee a further report be prepared for Council consideration.
   
3. 
   The hearing be set for 12th March at 6.30pm in the Council Chamber at the Stonnington City Centre.
   
4. 
   Council advise all submitters to the Section 223 process and all property owners/occupiers previously notified of the decision.
   

However, the Watpac Developments representative wrote to Council advising that he will be on leave on the scheduled date and requested Council to postpone the hearing for one month to afford him the opportunity to present.

As a result, Council resolved that a Committee of all Councillors be appointed to hear the submissions of those who have requested to be heard at the new meeting time scheduled 6.00pm, on Monday 27 May, 2013 in the Council Chamber at the Stonnington City Centre.
The submitter requesting to be heard was invited in writing on the 13 May 2013.

Although, the other submitter did not wish to present when this was discussed, they were also invited to attend and speak to their submission if they wished. Notwithstanding, the submitter was advised that any report submitted to Council for a decision will outline their submission contents.

Discussion
Written Submissions
A summary of comments received from the submitter who did not want to be heard is provided below:

• 
  No need to conduct trial closure as it was closed during the construction works;
  
• 
  I have been forced to take a longer route to get to work;
  
• 
  Add traffic signals to my trip and I will get caught behind the tram;
  
• 
  Should swap one-way direction of Princes Close and Walker Street;
  

A summary of comments received from the submitter who also requested to be heard is provided below:

• 
  Access concerns to owners and occupiers will be severely compromised;
  
• 
  Is at odds with the strategic objectives underlying Chapel Vision; and
  
• 
  King Street is well-used local connector road providing access
  

Streets Ahead/ Chapel St Traders Association
Council provided a copy of the notification and plan on 14 November 2013 to Streets Ahead and requested them to advise of any concerns or queries they may have. Council received no responses from Streets Ahead.

Hearing 27 May 2013
The concerns raised by the adjacent property representative (Watpac) at the hearing of 27 May 2013 are summarised below:

• 
  Not opposed to the trial closure, however timing is a major issue;
  
• 
  Currently residential component of the development has been fully occupied however the retail component only has 1 tenant and 8 shops are vacant;
  
• 
  There is a lot of uncertainty in the current economic environment;
  
• 
  Currently talking to a few prospective tenants, however need some time to negotiate with prospective tenants;
  
• 
  Proposed trial closure of King Street adds to that uncertainty;
  
• 
  Tenants want to see traffic driving by and parking outside; and
  
• 
  Inconsistent with the Structure Plan (Chapel Street)
  

Watpac’s legal representative who was also present added that other nearby streets may be better alternatives to close and convert to open space.

Legal Advice and Implications
Now that the S223 process has been completed and a Committee of all Councillors were present at the hearing held on Monday 27 May 2013, Council must consider the submissions and form an opinion on their content and merit and determine how to proceed.

Conclusion
All submitters requesting to be heard as part of Council’s Public Notice issued under S223 of the Local Government Act 1989 have been heard at the hearing dated 27 May 2013 and the S223 hearing process has now been completed correctly.
The Watpac representative that attended the S223 hearing on 27 May 2013 stated they were currently not in favour of the 6 month trial closure of King Street, Prahran from Chapel Street to the property driveways at the west of Little Chapel Street as there is a lot of uncertainty in the current economic environment and it would be difficult to lease out the 8 vacant shops on the north side of King Street. They were not opposed to the closure in principle, however timing was a major issue while the shops remained vacant.
In recognition of this it is considered appropriate to abandon the current proposal for the trial closure of King Street, Prahran from Chapel Street to the property driveways at the west of Little Chapel Street for a period of 6 months and to reconsider the proposal in early 2014.


Human Rights Consideration
This report has considered all factors that may have impacted on all parties to this matter and Council considers that it the recommendation meets the responsibilities of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Recommendation
That

1. 
   Having considered all submissions, both written and verbal to the current proposal for the trial closure of King Street, Prahran from Chapel Street to the property driveways at the west of Little Chapel Street for a period of 6 months be abandoned.
   

2. That the potential closure of King Street, Prahran be presented to Council for further consideration early in 2014.
3. All submitters and all property owners/occupiers previously notified of the decision be advised accordingly.

6.street trees, lawnhill road, malvern survey results

Author: Mark Phillips

General Manager: Simon Thomas

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the outcomes from the survey that was undertaken with residents of Lawnhill Road, Malvern in response to a resident petition requesting the removal of the three (3) recently planted Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) street trees and their replacement with Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtel Crabapple).

Background

Lawnhill Road is a small dead-end street coming off Elizabeth Street, Malvern, approximately 100 metres in length. The street is residential with predominantly large dwellings on small blocks with little or no garden at the front.

The street is planted with 13 Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple) of various ages and the 3 Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) planted during winter 2012. The trees are planted in the naturestrip along the street.
In winter 2012 the owners of a new dwelling at 2a Lawnhill Road, requested the replacement of the street trees at this address. Following an inspection of the site and discussions with the owners, the Council arborist agreed to replace the 2 x Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple) that were in very poor condition with 3 x Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash).
Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple) is the suggested tree species for Lawnhill Road (City of Stonnington Street Tree Strategy 2005) however after considering the changes to the streetscape over recent years Council’s arborist and the property owner agreed on the planting of a medium sized evergreen tree species, Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash).
Following the planting of the new trees Council was contacted by the owners of 5 Lawnhill Road who expressed concern about the planting of a tree species other than Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple).
Council contacted the owners of 2a and informed them that there was opposition to the planting of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) and that Council was considering replacing them with Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple).
On 26 September 2012 a group of property owners petitioned Council asking for the removal of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) and their replacement with Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple).
On 27 September 2012 the owners of 2a Lawnhill Road, wrote to Council expressing concern about the possible replacement of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash).
This matter was reported to Council at its meeting of 4^th February 2013 at which it was resolved that:

1. 
   The residents of Lawnhill Road, Malvern are surveyed to determine the level of support for the removal of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) and their replacement with Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple).
   

2. 
   The author of the letter accompanying the petition and the owners of 2a Lawnhill Road to be advised accordingly.
   

Discussion
Lawnhill Road has 11 single dwellings and 1 property of 8 units. Surveys were distributed to the 19 residents (every rateable property) of Lawnhill Road in early April 2013. The following provides an analysis of the survey results from Lawnhill Road.

Survey results (19 properties fronting Lawnhill Road)
Total no. respondents - 16	12 from single dwellings (11 property owners and 1 tenant) and 4 from the block of units.
Responses for tree replacement – 9 residents	9 from single dwellings (all property owners)
Responses against tree replacement – 7 residents	3 from single dwellings (2 property owners and 1 tenant) and 4 from the block of units.

The survey results indicate there is majority support for the removal of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) and their replacement with Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple).

Conclusion
When making the decision on this issue the following factors need to be taken into consideration:

• 
  The level of support for the replacement of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) as opposed to the level of support for their retention;
  
• 
  That the planting of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) occurred with the support of Council officers following discussions with the owner of 2a Lawnhill Road;
  
• 
  That Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple) is the suggested tree species for Lawnhill Road (City of Stonnington Street Tree Strategy 2005) and is planted in all sites along Lawnhill Road except in front of 2a Lawnhill Road;
  
• 
  That Lawnhill Road has changed significantly over the last decade with the subdivision of larger lots, the loss of neighbouring gardens and the construction of multi level dwellings.
  

Having regard for all of these considerations, it is apparent that the majority of resident responses support replacement of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) and it is recommended that this occurs.

Human Rights Consideration
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Recommendation

That;

1. 
   The results from the survey of Lawnhill Road, Malvern residents be noted.
   

2. 
   Based on the survey results the removal of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) and their replacement with Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple) be supported
   

3. 
   The residents of Lawnhill Road be advised accordingly.
   

n) Confidential Business

1. 
   consideration of proposed property purchase
   

(Author / General Manager: Geoff Cockram)
Confidential report circulated separately.

1 Note that s.79(1)(a) of the Act requires Councillors to disclose the nature of a conflict of interest immediately before the relevant consideration or discussion.