Thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback ...

What mattersManningham?

Harold Link Reserve Draft Development Plan - Share Your Views

• A part of the reserve beingused informally as a lanewayfor vehicle access to the rearof a number of properties;50 per cent of respondentsasked for the vehicle access tobe blocked, while 20 per centrequested occasional access

• The poor appearance ofthe reserve and frequentoccurrence of rubbishdumping; 30 per cent ofrespondents asked Councilto beautify and landscape theReserve

• An opportunity to improvepedestrian access throughthe reserve. This has beenidentified in a number of

Council strategies and 50 per cent of respondents asked for a safe formal path for pedestrians and cyclists to use between Harold Link Reserve and Koonung Creek Linear Park

• Various drainage issues;35 per cent of respondentsexpressed concern aboutexcessive rainwater draininginto the reserve after heavyrain. Harold Link is a drainagereserve and its intendedfunction is to carry excesswater after rainfall eventsthrough underground pipes andoverland, through open spaceand public land, to preventresidential properties fromflooding.

Return DetailsOnce you have completed the survey:

• Fold where indicated.• Seal the edges with a staple or tape.• Ensure that the postage details are facing outwards.• Place it in the mail by Friday 14 November 2014• You do not need a stamp.

Delivery Address:PO BOX 1DONCASTER VIC 3108

Manningham City CouncilMarketing UnitReply Paid 1DONCASTER VIC 3108

Manningham City CouncilEconomic and Environmental Planning UnitReply Paid 1Doncaster VIC 3108

1. FOLD UP

2. FOLD DOWN

This survey aims to inform you about the proposed changes to Harold Link Reserve. Please return the survey portion overleaf or at www.WhatMattersManningham.com.au by Friday 14 November 2014 to ensure your views are considered. Harold Link Reserve is a Manningham Council owned drainage and sewerage reserve located between Millicent and Alfreda avenues in Bulleen.

In March 2014, Council asked residents to share their ideas about a number of challenges for the reserve. These included:

As a result of the March 2014 consultation and further investigation, Council believes the existing formal condition of Harold Link Reserve cannot remain and needs to be upgraded. Council is now consulting with residents on the way forward. As such, Council has developed a draft Development Plan for Harold Link Reserve, which directly affects adjoining property owners/residents. A report will be prepared for Council on results from this consultation. Council will then make a decision on whether to endorse the draft development plan. The timing of change will be dependent on this process. We will keep you informed on the progress.

Enquiries to: Stephanie Langton, Recreation Planner, Manningham City Council, 699 Doncaster Road, Doncaster p 9840 9171 e [email protected] www.manningham.vic.gov.au

Thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback.To keep informed, please provide your details below.

Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Email: _________________________________________________________________________________________________

Contact phone number/s (optional): ____________________________________________________________________

(Note: these details will not be passed on to any other organisation.)

Attachment 1

Harold Link - Draft Development PlanHarold Link - Draft Development Plan

Through the draft development plan Council is proposing to change the status of Harold Link from a drainage reserve to a road reserve containing a shared zone road. Benefits include:• The proposed road reserve will give all abutting residents legal vehicle access at the rear of their property

via the proposed construction of a shared road

• The proposed shared road will also provide cyclists and pedestrians access to a 3.5 metre wide road witha speed limit of 10 kmh

• To prevent cars from driving through from one end to the other, the proposed shared road will be blockedfrom vehicle access halfway. This should also prevent rubbish from being dumped and encourage cars todrive slowly

• The proposed construction of the shared road will include minor drainage improvements.

It is important to understand that keeping vehicle access through Harold Link will require a financial contribution from property owners abutting the reserve. The cost would be shared between Manningham Council (55 per cent) and adjoining property owners (45 per cent) through a Special Rates and Charges Scheme.

Based on a concept plan, the approximate contribution from each property is estimated to be about $3,300 which could be paid over an extended period. This cost will be confirmed once a detailed costing for the project has been completed.

Alternative proposal – closing the road to vehicle trafficThe only other option is to close Harold Link to all vehicle traffic, either fully or in two separate sections; north of Leslie Street and/or south of Leslie Street. However, this would require the unanimous support of all of the adjoining property owners.

To ensure your views are considered, please complete the survey below, including your contact details and return it to Council by Friday 14 November 2014.

Alternatively, you can complete this survey online, ask a question and/or seek additional information at www.WhatMattersManningham.com.au

We are seeking your viewsDo you support constructing a road with a shared zone as described in the draft development plan? Yes No

If not, do you support the alternative proposal of closing the road to vehicle traffic? Yes No

Comments:Please provide comments to support your answers.

E s t e l l e S t r e e t

M i

l l i c

e n

t A

v e

n u

e

A l f

r e d

a

A v

e n

u e

V a l e n t i n e S

t r e e t

HaroldReserve

Koonung CreekLinear Park

L e s l i e S t r e e t

New 3.5 metre wideconcrete road

New 3.5 metre wideconcrete road

Install bollards to blockthrough-traffic. New widenedconcrete pavement to caterfor u-turning vehicles.

Install bollards to blockthrough-traffic. Newwidened concrete pavementon the north side and southside of the row of bollards tocater for u-turning vehicles.

Widen existing path to caterfor cyclists and pedestrians.New path width 2.5 metres.

Council proposes to:

1. Legally change the drainage reserve to a road reserve2. Construct a central 3.5 metre wide concrete road3. Declare the road to be a shared zone with a 10km per

hour speed limit4. Prohibit parking along the side of the road5. Block the new road mid way between Estelle and

Leslie Streets and construct a widened turnaround oneach side of the blockage

Adjoining property owners will be required to:

6. Be responsible for maintaining the 2.5 metre wide'nature strips' on each side of the road

7. Be responsible for the full cost of boundary fencing8. Be responsible for constructing sealed driveway

connections from the road to their property boundary ifrequired, and

9. Contribute towards the cost of the road constructionthrough a Special Rates and Charges Scheme

Harold Link Reserve - Paths and roadway

Shar

ed p

ath

Carturningarea

Speed limited to10km/hr

Harold Link - Draft Development Plan

Attachment 1

Harold Link Development Plan Response to Submissions Attachment 2

Page 1 of 21

Adjoining property owner or

local resident

Theme Number of submissions

Officer response and recommendation

1. Cost

Adjoining Excessive cost

- Cost is excessive/ Cannot afford to pay for it/ we’re pensioners.

- We will not contribute funds to the development - it’s your land, you pay for it. This should be paid by Council. No extra contribution from property owners.

- As we do not own Harold Link, we must not be liable to pay for the cost of any development.

- This is a public laneway and why should I bear the costs when I don’t use the laneway.

- Not paying for an unnecessary development/ I will not pay for Council mismanagement of the area.

- Costly, expense isn’t justified.

- We have already paid for the sealed road at the front of our property with full access. We shouldn’t have to pay for a road at the rear of our properties that we won’t ever use.

- Given the land in the alleyway is not on my title, I do not understand why I’m being asked to contribute financially, let alone maintaining it.

- I don’t have an issue with the road, however the cost proposed of residents is ridiculous.

- Disregard for the residents, many elderly who will be unable to pay for something they don't want.

- As we do not own Harold Link Reserve, we must not be liable for the cost of any development.

- Residents already have full and proper access to their properties. They or their predecessors paid for the streets which provide this access and it is unreasonable for them to have to pay again for access that they do not want or need.

- We do not want to pay for a concrete road that will not bring any benefit

28 The concerns are acknowledged and it is proposed that Council pay the full cost as part of a revised proposal.

A user pays concept was investigated. Council would need to pay for those residents who did not require initial vehicle access. The level of enforcement required to monitor legitimate and administer future access requests was not feasible.

Officer recommendation: Amend the Development Plan for Council to pay for the full cost of the 3.5 metre shared access construction.


Page 2 of 21


local resident



to us.

- We are not interested in money being spent on wasteful projects that only service a few.

- This laneway should not be expected to incur any costs for the Harold Link development. This is a public laneway and why should I bear the costs when I don't use the laneway. This laneway is owned by Manningham City Council, not me. I pay my rates, l maintain my property, and therefore Manningham City Council must maintain their property and bear the associated costs.

User pays

- Charge those who use vehicle access, not those who don’t.

- Let residents with access incur costs.

Local Excessive cost

- The proposal for residents to contribute to the cost of such an unnecessary exercise is totally unbelievable! If the Council feels that creating pathways and pedestrian access throughout the municipality is a priority, then it ought to be added to and budgeted for in your yearly Capital Works program - NOT funded by stinging selected residents for part of the cost. My mother (the property owner) and several of our neighbours are retirees who simply cannot afford this cost for something they have neither a desire nor a need for.

- How much out of pocket expenses will property owners have to contribute? This does not affect us but feel it is unfair to them. Why can't our rates pay for this?

- Huge expenses for an irrelevant project.

- An expense to Council and residents that is completely unwarranted.

- This a cost setting precedent for future works anywhere in Manningham- everyone could be impacted at some point.

- It is the role of Council to provide works that benefit the community. That’s why we pay rates. If the broader community will benefit, then why

6


Page 3 of 21


local resident



charge the immediate residents.

2. Access

Adjoining No vehicle access

- This laneway should be beautified and provide an area which connects people in a safe way from Thompson Road to the freeway pathways. The wider community currently uses the laneway, not only people in Millicent Avenue and Harold Street. This is a community project.

- The area should be a pedestrian/bike path only, with bollards at each end.

- The area should only have access to pedestrians and bicycles.

- Road should be closed to traffic/ cars.

- I would agree to an all weather footpath (concrete or bitumen) but would prefer no cars as I use this easement as a walking track daily to the park with my dogs. I do not want a street behind my property.

- Council has always made clear its role, particularly by including it in its strategy plans as being for improved pedestrian and cycling use. Residents already have access to their properties from the front streets and any access through the reserve is only a convenience and not a necessity or a right. Only a minority of properties have an established vehicle use through the reserve to their properties. Council could close the reserve to vehicles with only slight inconvenience. If the legal advice is correct and they have some legal claim, then the option still exists to compensate them for the removal of access. Compensation is likely to be minor because the access is not a necessity and is only for a small number of properties. This would be a lot cheaper than building a road. There is also the option of limiting access to the small number of users who could establish a right to enter by instituting a control system. There are a number of simple and effective control systems which are in use around the world, including in Australia.

6 After they have used the drainage reserve to access the rear of properties for an extended period (approximately 40 years), it is very difficult to take vehicle access away from residents. A number of people who have rear access have indicated they wish to continue using it. The Development Plan proposes a solution whereby residents can continue using Harold Link legally and safely for occasional shared access alongside pedestrians and cyclists. Harold Link would also be improved aesthetically.

There are up to 25 rear vehicle gates and while all may not be in use, compensation would not be a minor or equitable matter. The wider community currently does use Harold Link and it is anticipated that cyclists and pedestrians from the wider community will also use the shared access.

The difference in width between a 2.5 metre all weather footpath and the proposed 3.5 metre shared access is one metre. Signage that alerts vehicle drivers to pedestrians and cyclists using the shared access should increase the level of safety.

Officer recommendation: No change to the Development Plan.


Page 4 of 21


local resident



- We have gates in our fences adjoining the reserve. We have never used them for vehicle access and do not intend to do so. However, if Council implements its draft plan, we will continue to need them for access to the reserve for maintenance purposes and we do not intend to construct crossovers.

Local No vehicle access

- Why do we need car access? Cars, bikes and pedestrians do not mix.

- The concept of a walkway is excellent but no cars. Council need to "bite the bullet" as they should have done many years ago and simply say ‘No garages to the lane’ - no cars to regularly use the lane.

- Walkers and cyclists want to avoid roads. Bollards at each end to prevent vehicles.

- Preference is for a bike track rather than road.

- No need to have a road there. Just place a bollard at Estelle Street and the problem will be solved as this does not need approval or cost money.

5

Adjoining Require access but not prepared to pay for it

- We should still have vehicle access as this is one of the conditions we purchased our house.

- We use rear access occasionally but do not want to pay for it.

- It provides adequate access for the few times I require it without the noise and inconvenience of passing cars.

- I don’t support having a shared path at the rear of my property. I want to have the right of vehicle access just like all the other property owners.

- Have a rear gate of which is used 2-3 times year to bring green waste and other materials out in a stored trailer from the rear. The cost is excessive for the proposal. Leave as is. If this is at Council’s cost and rear access could be provided on an as needs (permit system) basis then would have no issue.

- Don’t have an issue with the road but the proposed cost is ridiculous. A

7 The primary function of Harold Link is a drainage reserve and its current form currently isn’t designed to carry cars and other vehicles. Informal vehicle use also conflicts with the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. A shared path being used by vehicles does not resolve this issue or create a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists. A sealed construction is required to deal with the drainage element during a major rainfall event.



Page 5 of 21


local resident



bike path would be sufficient and still enable rear access on occasional for residents along this area. Support a bike path. Perhaps access can be via key and bollards on a permit system. All residents (except one who uses it daily) use the lane very infrequently and should be able to continue to do so.

- Need to be able to get a caravan out occasionally, as now can do.

Adjoining Support plan

- Harold Link must remain open to vehicles; you have our full support for the project.

- We need access to our property and are prepared to pay for it. One of the main reasons we purchased the property was the rear right of way access.

- Losing access to our property from the rear laneway is not acceptable to us.

- I have a back gate and would like to keep it that way. In no way that privilege should be taken from me. I will accept and support taking full responsibility of the boundary fence, maintaining the nature strip and the construction of sealed driveway. It should be no different to the front of our property.

- We found some of the lobbying by certain residents unfortunate and borderline inappropriate. You have our support.

- Legal access is better than being used informally.

5 Noted

Local Support plan

- Yes. An excellent idea that will improve bicycle & pedestrian access to the Koonung Creek trail.

1

Adjoining Leave it as it is

- People use it for occasional vehicle access and as a walkway with minimal maintenance.

14 The two functions of Harold Link are public open space and drainage. Its present condition isn’t designed to carry vehicles and informal vehicle use


Page 6 of 21


local resident



- It's fine the way it is since the 34 years I've been living here. There is no need to change what's there other than minimal maintenance that was practiced before the council obtained it in 2007.

- Ratepayers have always had free occasional access to rebuild a fence, garden supplies delivery etc.

- The road will be of no benefit to the vast majority of residents.

- Having a very small courtyard with no room for rear access, I derive no special benefit.

- It’s rare to see cars driving through the lane.

- Why impose a road on residents who neither want nor use it?

- A road is completely unnecessary, there is good access already (walkers, family cycling, occasional vehicles) so it has no benefit. Safety has never been an issue.

- We want it to continue to be a walking track with occasional access.

- A road is not necessary for rear access to the properties abutting the Reserve. Vehicle usage by residents is limited, as usage is predominantly recreational.

- We don't want any change to be made on Harold Link as it has served its purpose for so many years just fine.

- Laneway not used by a very large majority of properties.

doesn’t recognise its usage also by pedestrians and cyclists. Vehicle use needs to be formalised. A shared path being used by vehicles does not resolve this issue or create a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists. A sealed construction is required to deal with the drainage element during a major rainfall event.


Local Leave it as it is

- Car use is very important and not a problem. Happy for it to be closed to cars. Vehicles very rarely use the easement, but rear access to properties is necessary for any construction work, especially in the cases where there are two properties on the block.

- Providing access for vehicles is unnecessary. Millicent Avenue and Alfreda Avenue provide sufficient vehicle access to properties. The streets are quiet and have very little traffic; therefore cyclists should not find it on issue. I've grown up with the easement and I always cycle around or

4


Page 7 of 21


local resident



through the easement with no trouble.

- This plan doesn't affect me but I do not support it. If I had to pay, I wouldn't pay Council a cent.

- There is no need for a road- as usage is minimal. Ratepayers backing onto the easement have always had free occasional access- why pay now. It was always a walking track with occasional car access for 40 years. leave it as is.

Do not use/ need rear access

- We have no use for a rear entrance for our property. In fact, we have recently removed the rear access from our property to the Public Pathway.

- We have gates in our fences adjoining the reserve. We have never used them for vehicle access and do not intend to do so.

- Whilst our property does back onto the laneway, we have no back access (e.g. no gate) and certainly have no need for back access.

- Many, like me, have lived happily in our homes for decades without any wish to access our properties from the lane.

- We have lived at this address for over 40 years and we have never required using this lane for personal access to our property and l do not intend to use this in the future.

- We will not use it.

6

Adjoining Duplication of roadway

- The proposed road duplicates existing access.

- Millicent and Alfreda are sufficient.

- Commuter cyclists can use two quiet streets for high speed cycling.

- Harold Reserve already has adequate direct street access via Alfreda Ave, Harold St and Eama Ct and walking access via Millicent Ave. We do not understand the reasoning behind the need to construct a road to Harold Reserve which stops short and joins Harold Reserve by walking

6 Creating a formal shared access in Harold Link is duplication but as some residents have chosen to use front and rear access from their property for a number of years, this access needs to be formalised.



Page 8 of 21


local resident



track.

- Adequate street access available to the parks.

- Access is already available from road frontage.

Local Duplication of roadway

- If I want to access the Harold Reserve or the Reserve over the Eastern Freeway, I can simply walk out my front door and 4 houses down to the end of Millicent Ave, which is closer to the foot bridge than the lane is. There is more than adequate access between the Harold Reserve and the Freeway Reserve via Millicent Avenue and Alfreda Avenue. To suggest that this laneway need be paved and opened to traffic and pedestrian access is simply not warranted.

1

3. Drainage

Adjoining - This link often floods during and after heavy rain, we have in fact had flood water come onto our property because the drains in Leslie Street cannot cope due to the amount of water coming down the storm water drain and the blockage of drains in Millicent Avenue. Heavy trucks use this laneway during the construction of dual occupancy dwellings, not only compressing the land, breaking trees and drainage pits. A road will reduce land available to absorb water and will increase storm water runoff.

- Shocking precedent for important sewerage, drainage and flood mitigation easements.

- Endangers the lives of residents by increasing the amount and velocity of water flowing overland from regular flood events, Council will be liable for damages.

- Concerned how it will affect properties during the occasional heavy rain pour. Can Council investigate and report on this? Maybe a permeable driveway so the sub soil drains.

- Concerns concreting will increase likelihood of flooding in heavy rains.

12 Storm water infiltration into the soil does not contribute significantly to flood mitigation, especially in areas characterised by clay soils.

Any increase in flow velocity resulting from the proposed works will be insignificant.

Underground pipes already exist underneath many roads, all of which require maintenance at some point. The cost of maintenance following construction of the shared access is unlikely to be significant. The use of a Council reserve during construction works on an adjoining property requires Council permission. In such cases, residents need to apply for a Reserve Crossing Permit whereby a bond ensures reinstatement of the reserve to its original condition when works have been completed.

Drainage in this area has not been acknowledged by


Page 9 of 21


local resident



- A road will reduce land available to absorb water and will increase storm water runoff.

-The underground drainage pipes will need ongoing maintenance repairs and upgrade and the construction of a concrete road over the top will only need to be torn up and rebuilt every time the drains need to be repaired and upgraded adding to Council’s costs.

- I understand only minor drainage improvements are proposed which will not be sufficient for a hard concrete surface onto my adjoining property.

- I lost everything in the Dec 2003 flood; my house was 1 metre under water. I am grateful to Council who installed new drainage which makes me wonder what the risk would be in proposing a concrete road to flooding.

- Drainage and flooding issues have not been adequately addressed.

- The Council has acknowledged for many years that the drainage in this area is inadequate. It is on the priority list for upgrade. Council claims that it will undertake some minor improvements to the drainage system as part of its plan. The works that Council has indicated will exacerbate the drainage problems. Those works include providing additional inlets to the main drain. Water already backs up in the drainage system during heavy rain causing inundation inside private properties. Additional inlets will make this matter worse. The roadway will detrimentally increase the flooding problem. The hard stand will speed up flows. It will reduce the absorption of water and result in flooding occurring sooner downstream and then backing up in the area. As it is a floodway, the construction of a narrow road surface and of crossovers will lead to significant erosion. This will add to safety problems where walkers and cyclists have to leave the roadway to allow vehicles to pass or if they stray off the road. They will come into conflict with eroded crossovers and other ground. In private developments of this type Council would normally require water retention infrastructure. I see no evidence of this in the plan and this would add significantly to the cost. It seems incredible that the Council has not consulted with Yarra Valley Water (YVW) about its plans. YVW have a large main sewerage

Council as inadequate and it is not on the priority list for upgrade.

Claims that minor drainage works will exacerbate the drainage problems are unfounded. The proposed works will improve drainage function in minor events and will have negligible impact in major storm events.

The site will be vegetated to minimise erosion and will be maintained.

Council will upgrade the drainage system in the event that such action is warranted by flood mapping study results.

It is premature to be discussing the works with Yarra Valley Water. If the project proceeds to design, YVW will be consulted. The sewer is generally located on the eastern side of the Reserve and is unlikely to be significantly impacted by the proposed works.

Roadways frequently act as overland flow paths. The proposed shared access is anticipated to be of reinforced concrete construction and will be suitable to convey overland flows in more significant rainfall events. A concrete surface will convey overland flows more efficiently than the current partially vegetated reserve surface and as such, overland flow levels would be expected to be marginally lower than flow levels under current conditions.

The impact of the shared access construction on overland flows associated with heavy rainfall on the existing sewerage reticulation and underground drainage systems is expected to be minimal. Council will be responsible for the cost of all future maintenance of the shared access. Council is currently


Page 10 of 21


local resident



system under this reserve and, until Council chose to take ownership of the reserve would have had some degree of responsibility for the reserve. I suspect it still has despite owning it. My discussions with YVW indicate that it would want to take some sort of protection over its assets. This could impose a cost on Council. This could lead to additional costs of the plan which Council might see fit to add to the proposed Special Rate to be imposed on residents. The drain and sewer assets under this reserve are now some 50 years old. They are getting to the age where they could or will require repair, maintenance or replacement. It would be appalling planning if a road were now to be constructed only to by dug up for that purpose. As these are main drains and sewers, it is likely that the whole road would have to be dug up, particularly the sewers, and the road closed for some time. When the decision was taken by the MMBW to use this reserve for its mains sewers it did so specifically to ensure it would not be impeded in getting quick and easy access to them.

responsible for maintenance of the underground drainage system and these arrangements will remain unchanged.


Local - flooding will increase and there will be more run off.

- It will become more dangerous when it rains heavily.

- Many properties are low lying and close to the adjoining fence line with no access or benefit at risk of storm water runoff into yards/homes. Council are legal owners of drainage/ flood easement and are abnegating responsibility.

- Council will only address erosion and minor bogging not storm water runoff from concrete to adjoining properties. breaching Manningham Drainage Strategy 2004-2014 A.7 Performance Objectives to protect all building floors from inundation and protection of properties in an already flood prone zone 5.1 Minimising Flood Risk Manningham Drainage Strategy 2004-2014.

4

Adjoining - The land should be used and maintained by Council for its function as a drainage reserve.

- The area should be cleaned up and left to do the job it was designed to do.

3


Page 11 of 21


local resident



- The primary responsibility for the sewerage and drain should remain.

Local - It is a drainage reserve and should not have a road on top.

1

4. Road safety, security and amenity concerns

Adjoining Traffic safety

- I do not want to encourage vehicles.

- More traffic is a safety concern.

- Combining walking, cycling and vehicles are a safety concern. How will Council police speeding and ‘no parking’?

- No comment on the issue of safety is provided in the Draft.

- A sealed road will encourage ‘hooning’ behaviour/ extra traffic.

- The proposed plan will create a serious pedestrian and vehicle road safety hazard. The concept of a shared roadway was discredited a long time ago. All authorities responsible for roads, including local government, have worked assiduously over many years to separate users, particularly cyclists, from motor vehicles. The speed limit of 10 km an hour will be observed more in the breach, including skate boarders and cyclists. The construction of a roadway will lead to a substantial increase in the use of this reserve, very substantially in the section between Harold Reserve and Leslie Street. This must necessitate the provision of effective road safety measures, including lighting, in essence because it will be a shared roadway. The safety of side fences is an issue because when motor vehicles are travelling on this pavement other users will be forced off the pavement. The whole of the reserve will be a road and walkers, cyclists etc can, and sometimes must, use the "nature strips" taking them close to fences and other structures.

- Bollards are a dangerous hazard in any emergency situation and this would be an unlit road.

12 It is difficult to assess if traffic flow would increase. Traffic flow could increase if the number of properties with rear vehicle access increased over time. However, the bollards preventing through traffic and signs indicating shared access should create a safer environment.

The purpose of allowing rear vehicle access is to allow residents’ occasional access to the rear of their property only. Harold Link will always be a ‘no through road’ preventing through traffic, and parking in Harold Link will be prohibited. Bollards will block the road at two points; between Estelle Street and Leslie Street in the southern section and preventing vehicle access into Harold Reserve in the northern section.

There is no reason to believe ‘hooning’ will become an issue as through traffic will be prevented.

Bollards are installed on our shared paths throughout the municipality and do not present a safety hazard. Reflectors on the bollards make them visible to oncoming traffic.

Signage is proposed at the entry points to the road to maximise safety of pedestrians.


Page 12 of 21


local resident



Local Traffic safety

- How will speed be controlled?

- Building a road is unsafe. It will become more dangerous for children to walk along there to the park.

- A road would create a haven for hoons.

- With the road being along the back of properties. I think could lead to people thinking they can speed along this stretch.

- 10 km per hour speed limit in an unpoliced shared zone cannot be sustained proposing noise, safety and security issues for adjoining properties especially for the many close to the adjoining fence line with the increased through traffic.

5 The road will be a shared space for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Signage will ensure vehicles and cyclists must give way to pedestrians at all times on the proposed road.

The width of the proposed road will enable a vehicle to safely pass a pedestrian or cyclist. The need for passing bays can be considered should they be warranted. Driveways can also be used for vehicles to pass each other.

Officer recommendation: No change to Development Plan but signage will be specified in more detailed plans.

Adjoining Street lighting

- If all house owners are able to use the new road many more could build garages at the back fence hence more cars will use the lane so it is a must to have street lighting. Also if there is a road and no street lighting there could be more dumping of rubbish from an unlit road.

- It would be safe if it’s well lit with street lamps/light.

- If you have a road you need street lights.

- No I do not support the draft in the way the Council has prepared it. There are many problems with the draft, no electricity to the lane, no need to have a road, no gutters…..

- This must necessitate the provision of effective road safety measures, including lighting, in essence because it will be a shared roadway.

5 Lighting the proposed road reserve is not included in the Development Plan but as pedestrian and cycling is being actively encouraged on the shared road, it will be considered in the detailed design.

Officer recommendation: Further consideration will be given to security issues through CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) at the time of design, which may include signage and lighting.

Local Street lighting

- If all house owners are able to use the new road many more could build garages at the back fence hence more cars will use the lane so it is a must to have street lighting. Also if there is a road and no street lighting there

1


Page 13 of 21


local resident



could be more dumping of rubbish from an unlit road.

Adjoining Security Concerns

- Less secure against thieves/ thieves will have easier access to properties.

- Attract vandalism of fences and thieves.

- I do not want my two metre fence replaced with a standard wooden fence giving burglars easy access and loss of my own privacy.

- Safety for my children/family. We haven't asked for change, especially our backyards.

9 The pathway is presently unsightly with potholes, uneven spots and boggy areas, made worse from vehicle traffic and does not look like a safe, well used pathway. Creating a safe and attractive shared access enables increased usage and feelings of safety for walkers and cyclists.

Officer recommendation: Further consideration will be given to security issues through CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) at the time of design which may include signage and lighting.

Adjoining Loss of Amenity

- Loss of quiet enjoyment of their back yards as this proposal for a roadway can lead to unauthorised use i.e. dumping, hooning, noise and criminal usage.

- Also will have to stand more noise from traffic.

- A road will encourage noise and reduce amenity.

- Increased noise, disturbance and night use.

- The road with turnaround will detract enormously from the appearance of the reserve.

5 As the reserve will not be a thoroughfare, it is anticipated it will remain relatively quiet and residents will not lose the quiet enjoyment of their backyards.

While there will be a concrete shared access in place, the laneway can still be attractive with some landscaping including additional trees planted.


Local Loss of Amenity

- I feel if there is a change with this easement, it takes away the Bulleen characteristic with a plain concrete slab. Do not take away our peace of nature.

1

Adjoining Improve property values

- In long term it also increases the value of surrounding properties. 3

Noted.

Officer recommendation: No change to the


Page 14 of 21


local resident



- It is an opportunity to improve this area's land value/further development.

- Will increase property values by enabling dual access to all properties.

Development Plan.

5. Improve the appearance, amenity and safety

Adjoining - The condition of the existing drainage reserve is not welcoming or pleasant. It devalues the properties immediately adjoining the reserve. Having an upgrade would encourage the use of the reserve and provide security. Vehicle traffic would be limited (by bollards) so traffic would not increase.

- Improve the reserve appearance, become tidy and neat.

- We fully support the Harold Link Reserve Development Plan as this would beautify the surrounding landscape; reduce the chance for some people using it to dump rubbish.

- It (proposed road) should be maintenance free for years to come.

- Could potentially provide our children with a safe area to play. Would combat 4x4’s and motor bikes that frequently fly up the rear of way?

5 Noted


Local - It would be safe if it’s well lit with street lamps/light.

- It will clean up and make more accessible an area than is currently untidy and an eyesore.

- A gravel or concreted path with grass on the side would make a pleasant walk. Shrubs on either side.

3

6. Nature Strips

Adjoining - Cannot maintain nature strip at rear if we do not have rear access.

- If people were responsible for maintaining their own nature strips, the area would quickly become degraded and ugly.

- Can’t expect us to maintain Council land.

- Will not agree to mowing it.

9 Inability to maintain a nature strip without rear access is a valid point and the plan has been amended to retain maintenance of the shared access as Council’s responsibility.

Officer recommendation: Amend the Development


Page 15 of 21


local resident



- Will not maintain it/ disagree with maintaining nature strip. Plan to retain Harold Link as a Council owned drainage reserve. Local

- I would also like to know how the Council proposes we maintain any nature strip constructed in the laneway when we and our neighbours do not have back gates.

- They will be required to maintain a ‘nature strip’ outside their house. I would hate to see the elderly residents with no rear gate get their lawnmower all the way around the block to do that.

- How will people who don’t have gates mow the grass?

- Forced nature strip upkeep from adjoining properties with no access is unfeasible.

- More problems caused as people without gates won’t be able to maintain the lane.

5

7. Fencing

Adjoining - Do not want to pay for fencing.

- Council doesn’t want to maintain lane and pay for boundary fencing.

- Do not agree to full costs of boundary fences.

- Surely if my fence borders Council land, you are my neighbour and as such, responsible for dividing the cost with me, that is my understanding of the Fence Act.

4 Changes are proposed to the Development Plan whereby Harold Link is retained as Council Reserve which will ensure fencing costs will be paid 50% by Council as per the existing policy with council owned land. Officer recommendation: Amend the Development Plan to retain Harold Link as a Council owned drainage reserve. Local

- Footing the entire bill for boundary fencing is a laugh.

- Forcing full cost of boundary fencing. 2

Adjoining - Will driveway access be provided to properties with an existing garage?

1 Property owners can elect to construct a vehicle crossing to connect to the proposed road to facilitate vehicle access to the rear of their property, at their cost.

In cases where there are existing permanently


Page 16 of 21


local resident



constructed, sealed vehicle crossings which require adjustment to suit the new access road, these works will be undertaken at no additional cost to the abutting property owner.


Adjoining - Given the different use and nature of the north and south sections of the drainage reserve it would make sense to treat them differently. The drainage easement north (of Leslie Street) section does not justify conversion to a road reserve as it is largely grass and vegetation and residents infrequently gain access to the rear of their property. The south section would justify a conversion to a road reserve given the informal development and the more frequent access to the rear of their properties.

- The North of Leslie Street is rarely used for vehicles. I do not wish to pay for and maintain a useless road.

- If some property owners are to be compensated because they will lose access to the reserve, why not compensate some or all other property owners to enable at least part of the reserve to be closed off to vehicles. This would obviate rezoning part of the reserve, particularly the section between Leslie Street and Harold Park. There are no properties that need access to the south of the proposed bollards between Leslie and Estelle Streets. This section could also be retained as a sewerage and drainage reserve.

3 Adjoining residents were given an alternative proposal of a shared path and no vehicle access. However, as Council has been advised, residents may have some rights to vehicle access, there needed to be 100% agreement in favour of the alternative proposal. This was not achieved; residents in both the north and south sections requested vehicle access.


Adjoining - No feedback form but expressed objection to plan through joint letter.

3 Noted.

8. Wildlife and landscaping

Adjoining - Plant Australian natives – low maintenance, attract native birds.

- Make the lane a treed, green space.

- Will a garden be planted on that side of the (existing) driveway?

6 Landscaping details will be included in the detailed design of the Development Plan. Any landscaping undertaken in the proposed road reservation will need


Page 17 of 21


local resident



- At least two families of Tawny Frogmouths have continued to make this laneway their home in the quiet grassy laneway.

- Re-greeening the laneway would further enhance the area, a peaceful haven for birds, walkers and families to enjoy.

- Many native birds are attracted to the rural feel and grassed areas.

-This reserve has been enjoyed by local residents for many years as a quiet, green area. This reserve currently provides a nesting and feeding area for Tawny Frog Mouth Owls, green parrots and other species of Native Birds.

to take into account the drainage function of the land and will not be permitted to obstruct sight distances when exiting properties or at intersections.

Access to existing garages will be retained and no landscaping will take place that will impede access to existing garages.

As there will be minimal vegetation removal and potentially additional trees planted, there is no detrimental impact on any wildlife anticipated. There are very few trees in Harold Link and the birds rely mostly on existing backyard trees. There is also green open space at Harold Reserve and along the Koonung Creek Linear Park. The biggest impact on urban wildlife is from unrestrained cats.


Adjoining - I would like to see those huge trees in the lane cut down.

1 There are no plans to remove any more of these trees than necessary to provide rear access to properties.

Officer recommendation: No change to the Development Plan but detail regarding tree removal will need to be given in the detailed design phase.

9. Council

Adjoining Consultation process

- Disappointed as to how Council has handled this matter.

- Proposal is based on the responses of 20 people from the March consultation.

- Work with residents, not against them.

4 The feedback form did state the draft Development Plan was a result of the March feedback as well as further investigation. It also stated that there would be further consultation to seek a resolution on the way forward.


Page 18 of 21


local resident



- We do not believe the small number of initial responses represents an adequate response. Council should have written to all affected residents seeking further feedback before preparing the draft plan.

- As a result of the information that has been provided generally, and as a result of the planning and “consultation” process that has occurred, I express our concern about the inadequacy of the process and of the draft plan. We consider that there has, in fact, been an abuse of process in the way that this whole issue has been administered. We ask that the draft plan be withdrawn or, at the very least, that the closing date be extended to enable full and proper planning and consultation to occur. Council’s maladministration of the reserve goes back nearly 50 years. A few more months of consideration to include all possible options and ensure a sound outcome would be sensible. The current plan has angered nearly all residents/ratepayers and to bulldoze it through would be poor planning practice.

Consultation undertaken in March 2014 and November 2014 has been part of a long process of resolving Harold Link through consultation. Consultation not only involves residents but Council officers with various expertise and organisations such as Yarra Valley Water who will also be involved as necessary when required.

Officer recommendation: A concerted effort has since been made to ensure Harold Link communication from Council is clear.

Adjoining Lack of Maintenance

- Council should maintain it.

- There is lack of Council maintenance, Council has failed to maintain it and it has degraded over the past three years.

- Unacceptable that we have to maintain Council land.

- With mowing and minimal expense, the reserve could be returned to its previous attractive appearance.

- The drainage reserve is not properly maintained as it should be.

- And you expect us to maintain this area and still expect us to pay our rates – I don’t think so. It’s your land.

- This proposal generally would result in Council abrogating its responsibility and costs for this reserve.

- It is an unreasonable condition to make residents responsible for maintenance of the reserve when they do not have easy access to the reserve. Will Council build gates in peoples’ fences at its cost for this

12 Council has maintained Harold Link with regular mowing and removal of illegal tipping since taking ownership in 2007.

The following factors have also contributed to Harold Link’s unattractive appearance in the past few years:

• The disrepair of some boundary fences.

• The presence of dumped garden clippings and builder’s rubble.

• The long term private vehicle access (over 40 years) through the Reserve as it was not constructed to function as vehicle access. The Reserve is presently unsightly with potholes, uneven spots and boggy areas, made worse from vehicle traffic.


Page 19 of 21


local resident



purpose and absolve them from having to build crossovers? Officer recommendation: Change the Development Plan to retain Harold Link as a Council owned drainage reserve in which full responsibility for maintenance is retained by Council.

Local Lack of Maintenance

- Clean up the lane regularly and place two bollards at Estelle Street to stop cars using the lane to drive up and down. As the Council has had control of this lane since 2007 when will the Council undertake normal maintenance and make the lane safe without asking residents to pay for its upkeep?

- The move appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to avoid responsibility of Council owned land and push costs and continued maintenance onto abutting residents. The proposal speaks of the unkempt nature of the easement which is interesting given it is council’s job to maintain it.

- Abnegating Council responsibility is not treating residents fairly.

3

10. Rubbish

Adjoining - Rubbish dumping is not an issue.

- A road will encourage rubbish dumping.

- Rubbish dumping would stop with a little care from Council.

- This will add more use of the area as a dumping and hooning (area).

- Having an obscure roadway running into children’s playground area poses several safety issues and creates a security risk area for residents’ homes.

- In 30 years, rubbish dumping is rare but a road would make it more convenient for access to dump rubbish.

- This reserve has become a convenient dumping site for building rubbish from developments in and around the area. Trucks using the reserve have caused damage to the footpath, crossover and drainage pit.

8 While illegal tipping is not the only issue relating to Harold Link, it does occur and requires attention.

In the past four years, Council estimates annual bobcat hire, plus 3-4 smaller rubbish collections, throughout the year.

In order to issue infringements for illegal tipping, the offender needs to be identified and be seen dumping the rubbish. Rubbish dumped in a quiet area at the rear of properties makes this difficult. Creating a ‘no through road’ may deter illegal tipping.


Local - If Council has concerns or is sick of dealing with complaints about rubbish being dumped in the laneway, then Council ought to deal with and 4


Page 20 of 21


local resident



issue infringements for those residents who are the culprits. Paving this laneway is not the solution to that issue.

- There has been no evidence of rubbish being dumped in the easement.

- More rubbish will be dumped.

- Dumping of rubbish is not an issue, only from those home owners developing their land occasionally.

Adjoining - A shared path would ensure there would be no dumping of rubbish.

- A road will ensure there is no rubbish dumping. 2

Noted.


11. Other

Adjoining - This road could lead to subdivision of properties that have this reserve as their source of access. Even if it does not, it will prove to be a convenient access to properties being rebuilt or where dual occupancies are being constructed with access to the front street.

This will lead to more traffic and its use by large trucks and other vehicles. Concrete trucks, trucks delivering bricks and other construction materials and earth moving equipment. Council has said that there will be no weight or size limit and that the road is to be designed for small delivery vans. It will quickly deteriorate and be a waste of money - our money. Council has mismanaged this reserve for some 50 years. It has concluded that, because of this it has no option but to rezone and build a road. Council should therefore meet all costs and continue to accept responsibility for maintenance as it always has and therefore spread this burden on all ratepayers as it would for any other option that could be considered. The estimate of cost of the road appears to be a considerable underestimate. Given that we will have to meet the end cost, whatever that is, will Council please make its cost estimate available so that we might have confidence in them?

1 The Development Plan has been amended. Retaining ownership of the land gives Council control over primary access from Harold Link and limits inappropriate development.

Council infrastructure, including crossovers, footpaths and roads is protected from building works through an asset protection permit submitted by the property owner or contractor when undertaking building works. This ensures repairs to or replacement of damaged infrastructure is undertaken.

There is no reason to believe Council has underestimated the cost of the shared access. The next phase of the project involves a detailed design which includes submission of quotes.

Officer recommendation: Amend the Development Plan to retain Harold Link as a Council owned drainage reserve and Council to pay for the full cost of the 3.5 metre shared access construction.


Page 21 of 21


local resident



Thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback ...

Documents

Transcript of Thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback ...