name: * robert dicintio - city of melbourne · complemented by architectural innovation. ... super...

Name: *

Email ad

Please in

you wou

submiss

appropr

Date of m

Agenda

Alternat

your wri

uploadin

Please in

would lik

Future M

in suppo

submiss

(No oppofor submCouncil

Privacy a

ddress: *

ndicate which

uld like to ma

ion to by sel

iate button: *

meeting: *

item title: *

ively you ma

tten submiss

ng your file h

ndicate wheth

ke to addres

Melbourne Co

ort of your

ion:

portunity is prmitters to be meetings.) *

acknowledge

R

r

h meeting

ake a

ecting the

*

F

T

6

M

y attach

sion by

here: t

1

her you

s the

ommittee

rovided heard at

Y

ement: * I

p

Robert Dicint

robertd@tren

Future Melbo

Tuesday 19 A

6.1 Ministeria

Melbourne

trenerry_subm

134.46 KB · PD

Yes

have read a

personal info

tio

nerryproperty

ourne Comm

April 2016

al Referral: T

mission_to_t

DF

nd acknowle

ormation.

y.com.au

ittee meeting

TPM-2014-22

the_future_m

edge how Cou

g

2, 185 Rossly

melbourne_co

uncil will use

yn Street, We

ommittee_19

e and disclos

est

.4.16.pdf

e my

caimar

Text Box

Request to speak and item of correspondence Agenda item 6.1 Future Melbourne Committee 19 April 2016

Trenerry Property Group Pty Ltd ABN: 73 066 964 494 ACN: 066 964 494 Phone: +61 3 9421 4932 | Mail & Address: 11 Northcote Street Richmond Vic 3121

ME_129326778_1 (W2007)

19 April 2016 To whom it may concern,

Planning Permit Application: TPM – 2014-22

Nos. 177 – 231 Rosslyn Street, West Melbourne Victoria 3003

We, Trenerry Property Group Pty Ltd are the permit applicant for the proposed mixed use development for the land at Nos. 177 – 231 Rosslyn Street, West Melbourne. The purpose of this letter is to explain our design philosophy and to outline the numerous on-site and offsite benefits envisaged for this strategic site within the heart of West Melbourne. Prior to adopting a design strategy, we engaged Village Well to coordinate a series of ‘Place Making Strategy’ workshops. The workshops provided a valuable opportunity to engage with professionals to gain a better understanding of how to achieve successful developments through the incorporation of key design elements including physical place, community building, retail mix and place activation. These workshops facilitated the design resolution for the subject site to be formulated which is reflected in the current proposal at hand which is to develop a resort like mixed use development for owner occupiers within close proximity to the CBD. The West Melbourne precinct is currently experiencing significant pressure for urban renewal and revitalisation having considered its proximity to the CBD and various public transport services and amenity. The subject site encompasses a land area of approximately 9200 square metres and is largely void of any sensitive interfaces. This substantially sized landholding provides a very unique redevelopment opportunity within the West Melbourne Precinct at a total cost of $300 million. The scale and intensity of the proposal supports a genuinely mixed use development that will achieve a comprehensive urban transformation, ultimately creating a ‘village hub’. Moreover, the proposed development implements a design solution which is complemented by architectural innovation. By any measure, the scale of development is not intensive given in excess of 2500 square metres of the subject site has been retained for open space and place making initiatives and the plot ratio for the development sits at approximately 7.9 to 1. To meet the needs of the future occupants of the site, the proposal involves approximately 4000 square metres of net floor area to be dedicated to retail tenancies. Whilst at this stage the nature of commercial uses has not been confirmed, the layout, size and design of the retail tenancies allows for flexibility and adaptive use of space. As such, an array of commercial, retail and health related services and facilities are possible, including the potential for a medical centre, childcare facility and food and drinks premises, just to name a few.

ME_129326778_1 (W2007)

The proposal includes the provision of a full line supermarket of over 1400 square metres. We confirm that we have a commitment from Aldi Supermarket. The supermarket is located at the heart of the site and is and will encourage increased pedestrian activity through the proposed public plaza and public laneway.

Collectively, these commercial uses will not only cater for the everyday needs of the future residents, but also allow opportunities for the existing West Melbourne community to integrate and contribute to the lively mix.

The proposal also involves the provision of 87 serviced apartments. Ongoing discussions and commercial terms have been agreed with Adina for the serviced apartment component. These liaisons with major anchor tenants such as Aldi and Adina demonstrate a genuine commitment to realising what has been intended for the subject site. In addition to the above, the proposed development scheme will ensure that the future occupants of the site will be provided with convenient access to an array of communal facilities including a 25 metre multi lane lap pool, a gymnasium as well as a generous communal garden landscaped courtyard of over 2000 square metres. These communal facilities will provide additional and meaningful on-site amenity and recreational opportunities. In addition to these communal facilities, the project will incorporate a pet wash facility, super charge station for electric cars in collaboration with Tesla, 24/7 concierge and full hotel service offer for all apartment residents. The proposal clearly aligns with the overarching strategic directions and planning policies to capitalise and encourage development within close proximity to public transport alternatives. Furthermore, consideration with regard to potential traffic and car parking impacts associated with this large scale development have been appropriately ameliorated through the accommodation of 584 on-site car parking spaces. As a result, the proposed development is not anticipated to result in unreasonable detriment including additional pressure to on street car parking and disruption of residential amenity.

The proposal presents a unique development opportunity for the West Melbourne Precinct. The proposal takes advantage of the strengths and qualities of existing conditions and further enhances its character by proposing a development scheme that will undeniably improve the public realm and foster a vibrant and lively community. It is further submitted that the proposal will provide excellent on site amenity for the future occupants of the site and also provide opportunities for the interaction and engagement of the broader West Melbourne community.

We also wish to use this opportunity to highlight that we have been engaged in a process of consultation with the City of Melbourne and the DELWP which has taken more than 20 months. Throughout this process, we consider that we have demonstrated a strong willingness to engage and consult with the relevant key stakeholders.

ME_129326778_1 (W2007)

In conclusion, we make the following comments in relation to the planning application:

• The design team is a Tier 1 grade design team headed up by ARM Architects; • A significant community consultation program has been undertaken and no

objections were received; • A submission of support has been received from the North West Melbourne

Traders Association; • The bulk and scale of the proposed development is very conservative with a plot

ratio of approximately 7.9 to 1; and • The project design and master plan has been well received by business with pre-

commitments from Aldi Supermarket and the Adina Group.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Dicintio

haneis

Text Box

Name: * Hugh Smyth

Email address: * [email protected]

Contact phone number (optional): 86483500

Please indicate which meeting you

would like to make a submission to by

selecting the appropriate button: *

Future Melbourne Committee meeting

Date of meeting: * Tuesday 19 April 2016

Agenda item title: * 6.2

Please indicate whether you would like

to address the Future Melbourne

Committee in support of your

submission:

(No opportunity is provided for submitters to be heard at Council meetings.) *

Yes

Privacy acknowledgement: * I have read and acknowledge how Council will use and

disclose my personal information.

caimar

Text Box

Request to speak Agenda item 6.2 Future Melbourne Committee 19 April 2016

From: WSent: FrTo: CoMSubject

Name: *

Email ad

Contact

Please in

would lik

selecting

Date of m

Agenda

Alternat

written s

file here

Please in

to addre

Committ

submiss

(No opposubmittemeeting

Privacy a

Wufoo riday, 15 Apr

M Meetings t: Council an

ddress: *

phone numb

ndicate which

ke to make a

g the approp

meeting: *

item title: *

ively you ma

submission b

:

ndicate wheth

ess the Futur

tee in suppo

ion:

portunity is prers to be hea

gs.) *

acknowledge

ril 2016 1:46

nd Committee

ber (optional)

h meeting yo

a submission

priate button:

y attach you

by uploading

her you wou

e Melbourne

rt of your

rovided for ard at Counci

ement: *

6:52 PM (UTC

e meeting su

Mich

mjgk

): 0414

ou

to by

: *

Futu

Tues

6.3 O

r

your

ld like

il

No

I hav

disc

C+10:00) Ca

ubmission for

hael KENNED

kennedy@big

4347537

ure Melbourn

sday 19 Apri

Options for a

fmc_19_

ve read and a

lose my pers

anberra, Melb

rm [#593]

Y

gpond.com

ne Committee

l 2016

a Hoddle Grid

_april_2016_i

acknowledge

sonal informa

bourne, Sydn

e meeting

d Heritage Re

item_6.3_.pd

e how Counci

ation.

ney

eview

df 540.74 KB ·

il will use an

PDF

d

caimar

Text Box

Item of Correspondence Agenda item 6.3 Future Melbourne Committee 19 April 2016

1

CoRBA - Melbourne Coalition of Residents and Business Associations

Carlton Residents Association Inc.; Collins Street Precinct; Docklands Chamber of Commerce; Docklands Residents Association; East Enders Inc.; East Melbourne Group Inc.; Flemington Association; Hardware

Precinct Residents and Tenants Group; Hosier Inc.; Kensington Association; Melbourne South Yarra Group Inc.; North and West Melbourne Association Inc.; Parkville Association Inc.; Parkville Gardens Residents; Residents 3000 Inc.; Southbank Residents Association Inc.; Yarra Park Association; The

Pasley Streets Precinct Group; Wesley Historic Precinct Action Group; Wilkinson Publishing; Yarra Park Association

15 April 2016 Councillors City of Melbourne BY EMAIL Future Melbourne Committee – 19 April 2016 Item 6.3 Options for a Hoddle Grid Heritage Review On behalf of the Coalition of Residents and Business Associations (CoRBA), I make the following submission.

CoRBA strongly recommends that councillors support Option 1 which looks at the entire Hoddle Grid in one study. Why? With the rapid pace of development in the CBD it is critical to have this review done quickly so as to quickly forestall any development that may render this review redundant.

The cost is estimated at $1 million dollars. To put this in perspective the Council spends over $5 million dollars a year on fireworks, several million dollars a year on various forms of self-promotion and other forms publicity. The expenditure of one million dollar to determine the future of billions of dollars of heritage value is a comparatively small expenditure compared to what may be otherwise lost. With regard to the preferred option of council officers, Option 2: this option spreads the review over four years, by the time the review is finished and adopted 5 YEARS will have passed – and the review will be redundant before it’s even finished. As the CoM officer’s report notes: Sites vulnerable to redevelopment that are located in later quadrants, may be demolished or redeveloped before the required heritage review and Planning Scheme Amendment can be completed. Therefore CoRBA recommends that you support Option 1. yours sincerely Michael Kennedy Chair

haneis

Text Box

haneis

Text Box

haneis

Text Box

Name: * William Allan


Contact phone

number (optional):

0415051152

Please indicate

which meeting

you would like to

make a

submission to by

selecting the

appropriate

button: *



Agenda item title: Item 6.3 Options for a Hoddle Grid Heritage Review

Please write your submission in the space provided below and submit by no later than noon on the day of the

scheduled meeting. We encourage you to make your submission as early as possible.

Councillors

City of Melbourne

BY EMAIL

Future Melbourne Committee – 19 April 2016: Item 6.3 Options for a Hoddle Grid Heritage Review

Council is to consider three options for the Heritage Review of the Hoddle Grid. On behalf of the Wesley

Historic Precinct Action Group and in the interests of CBD residents generally, I strongly recommend that

Councillors support Option 1 which looks at the entire Hoddle Grid in a study to be undertaken in one year.

Option 2, apparently currently favoured by Councillors, will take four years; this choice gives the

overwhelming appearance of a delaying tactic designed to allow the current deliberate neglect of the rich

heritage of the CBD to be continued. In the Little Lon Heritage Precinct we have become increasingly

conscious of the rapid encroachment of new, often sub-standard, high-rise developments currently underway

and which threatens residents amenity, chaotic streetscapes, and destruction of the historic legacy of this

part of town. Each community should be able to play an active part in participating in the development of its

neighbourhood, and there is no reason why it should take four years to ensure that heritage protection and

haneis

Text Box


resident par

thoughtful p

The cost of

relation to t

signal of the

neighbourh

I strongly u

Yours since

William Alla

For WHPAG

1005/265 E

Alternatively

may attach

written

submission

uploading y

file here:

Please indic

whether you

would like t

address the

Melbourne

Committee

support of y

submission

(No opportuprovided fosubmitters theard at Comeetings.) *

Privacy

acknowledg

*

rticipation in

protection of

around $1 m

the potential

e low regard

ood participa

rge Councillo

rely,

an

Exhibition Str

y you

your

by

your

cate

u

to

e Future

in

your

:

unity is or to be

ouncil *

No

gement:

I ha

its protectio

f heritage wil

million dollar

ly enormous

that the Mel

ation.

ors to suppo

reet, Melbou

submiss

ave read and

on is encoura

ll not occur-

s is negligibl

loss of herit

lbourne City

rt Option 1.

rne, Victoria

sion_fmc_19

acknowledge

aged. A four-

-or will occu

le in relation

tage value. C

Council hold

3000

42016.pdf 3

e how Counc

-year time sp

ur so late tha

to overall sp

Choice of Opt

ds for either

73.94 KB · PD

cil will use an

pan will almo

t much will a

pending by th

ion 2 by Cou

heritage prot

F

nd disclose m

ost certainly e

already be lo

he Council a

uncil sends a

tection or

my personal i

ensure that

st.

nd in

a very clear

nformation.

Name: * Bill Cook








Agenda item title: * 6.3 Options for Hoddle Grid Heritage Review

Please write your submission in the

space provided below and submit by

no later than noon on the day of the

scheduled meeting. We encourage you

to make your submission as early as

possible.

I am submitting on behalf of the North and West Melbourne

Association Inc. It is our view that option 1, encompassing

the whole Hoddle Grid in one study, should be adopted. We

consider that the review should be done as early and

completely as possible, over the whole of the Grid to

maximise the retention and preservation of the diminishing

reserve of heritage infrastructure within the grid, in a timely

and effective manner.




submission:


No



haneis

Text Box


Name: * Yolande Leonardi


Contact phone

number (optional):

0419 390 936

Please indicate

which meeting

you would like to

make a

submission to by

selecting the

appropriate

button: *



Agenda item title:

*

6.3 Options for a Hoddle Grid Heritage Review

Please write your submission in the space provided below and submit by no later than noon on the day

of the scheduled meeting. We encourage you to make your submission as early as possible.

Lord Mayor & Councillors,

I would like to express my support for OPTION 1 which looks at the whole of the Hoddle Grid in one

study.

My reasons:

1/ To have a longer time frame runs risk of losing more heritage sites.We can never recover those

already lost.

2/ Cost will increment significantly over four years and the last quadrant of study would probably cost

more that the whole study itself.

3/ Community would not consider this extravagant should Council borrow $1 million dollars at the

current low rate of interest, to effect a review of such critical importance to our city.

4/ I cannot see why Option 1 cannot be a comprehensive review. (Option 2 is postulated as being the

more comprehensive)

Thanking you,

Yolande Leonardi

CBD Resident

haneis

Text Box

haneis

Text Box


Name: *

Email ad

Contact

Please in

would lik

selecting

Date of m

Agenda

Alternat

written s

file here

Please in

to addre

Committ

submiss

(No opposubmittemeeting

Privacy a

ddress: *

phone numb

ndicate which

ke to make a

g the approp

meeting: *

item title: *

ively you ma

submission b

:

ndicate wheth

ess the Futur

tee in suppo

ion:

portunity is prers to be hea

gs.) *

acknowledge

ber (optional)

h meeting yo

a submission

priate button:

y attach you

by uploading

her you wou

e Melbourne

rt of your

rovided for ard at Counci

ement: *

Gret

carlt

): 03 9

ou

to by

: *

Futu

Tues

Agen

r

your

ld like

il

No

I hav

disc

ta Bird

tonresidents@

9347 1411

ure Melbourn

sday 19 Apri

nda Item 6.3

futurem

ve read and a

lose my pers

@gmail.com

ne Committee

l 2016

3: Options for

elbheritage1

acknowledge

sonal informa

e meeting

r a Hoddle G

9.4.16.doc 3

e how Counci

ation.

rid Heritage

32.50 KB · DOC

il will use an

Review

C

d

haneis

Text Box

caimar

Text Box


The Carlton Residents Association Inc. A0034345G ABN 87 716 923 898 P.O.Box 1140 Carlton Vic 3053 Phone/Fax 9347 1411 [email protected] www.carltonresidents.org.au

Future Melbourne Committee Meeting Tuesday 19 April, 5.30pm Agenda Item 6.3: Options for a Hoddle Grid Heritage Review The Carlton Residents Association unequivocally supports Option 1: Entire Hoddle Grid in one study. Heritage is an investment of absolutely unique value, and speed is the issue. The review has been deferred for too many years, resulting in inestimable loss of Melbourne’s heritage. The officers’ estimated cost of $1million for option 1, to produce the most comprehensive and time efficient outcome, is seen in perspective when considered, for example, against Council spending over $5 million dollars annually on fireworks. Greta Bird Committee Carlton Residents Assn Inc.

Name: * Greta Bird


Contact phone

number (optional):

(03)93471411

Please indicate

which meeting

you would like to

make a

submission to by

selecting the

appropriate

button: *



Agenda item title:

*

Agenda Item 6.3: Options for a Hoddle Grid Heritage Review



The Carlton Residents Association unequivocally supports Option 1: Entire Hoddle Grid in one study.

Heritage is an investment of absolutely unique value, and speed is the issue. The review has been

deferred for too many years, resulting in inestimable loss of Melbourne’s heritage.

The officers’ estimated cost of $1million for option 1, to produce the most comprehensive and time

efficient outcome, is seen in perspective when considered, for example, against Council spending over

$5 million dollars annually on fireworks.

Greta Bird

Committee

Carlton Residents Assn Inc.

Please indicate No

caimar

Text Box


whether you

would like to

address the Future

Melbourne

Committee in

support of your

submission:


Privacy

acknowledgement:

*

I have read and acknowledge how Council will use and disclose my personal

information.

Name: *

Email ad

Please in

meeting

to make

by select

appropr

Date of m

Agenda

Alternat

attach yo

submiss

uploadin

Please in

you wou

address

Melbour

support

submiss

(No oppoprovidedto be hemeeting

Privacy

acknowl

ddress: *

ndicate which

you would l

a submissio

ting the

iate button: *

meeting: *

item title: *

ively you ma

our written

ion by

ng your file h

ndicate wheth

uld like to

the Future

rne Committe

of your

ion:

portunity is d for submitteard at Councgs.) *

edgement: *

Felicity

felicity

h

ike

on to

*

Future

Tuesd

6.3 Op

y

here:

2016_

497.34

her

ee in

ters cil

Yes

I have

inform

y Watson

y.watson@na

e Melbourne

ay 19 April 2

ptions for a H

_04_19_futur

KB · PDF

read and ack

mation.

attrust.com.a

Committee m

2016

Hoddle Grid H

re_melbourne

knowledge h

u

meeting

Heritage Rev

e_committee

how Council w

iew

_hoddle_grid

will use and d

d_heritage_re

disclose my

eview.pdf

personal

caimar

Text Box


National Trust of Australia (Victoria) ABN 61 004 356 192

“Advice and opinions expressed by Trust members and staff are proferred in good faith on the basis that no legal liability is accepted by the Trust or the individual concerned.”

Tasma Terrace 4 Parliament Place East Melbourne Victoria 3002 Email: [email protected] Web: www.nationaltrust.org.au T 03 9656 9800 F 03 9656 5397

19 April 2016

Future Melbourne Committee City of Melbourne GPO BOX 1603 Melbourne VIC 3001

Re: Options for a Hoddle Grid Heritage Review—Report to the Future Melbourne Committee

Dear Councillors,

I write regarding the Report to the Future Melbourne Committee regarding Options for a Hoddle Grid Heritage Review. We commend the thorough work by Council officers in the preparation of this options paper, which confirms the strategic importance of a comprehensive heritage review. In particular, we note that 60% of graded sites (approximately 460 in total) are not located within a heritage overlay. The recent example of the demolition of the C-graded “Robb’s Annex” on King Street as part of the Rialto redevelopment highlights the vulnerability of recognised heritage places under the current scheme.

We strongly urge Councillors to vote for Option 1: Entire Hoddle Grid in one study. Given current development pressures, a heritage review is extremely time sensitive and well overdue. Staging the study over four years would likely result in the loss of further heritage places during the course of the work, and there is a danger that a staged study could be abandoned mid-stream. Undertaking the study according to Option 1 would also provide greater certainty to property owners, developers and potential investors.

While we acknowledge that Option 1 would require a significant investment in the short-term, the Trust believes that it is vital that this work is incorporated into the budget for the next financial year to ensure that the work is completed in a timely manner.

We support Melbourne Heritage Action’s view that the Hoddle Grid heritage review should investigate:

Unlisted interiors, and the development of formal guidelines for these;

Unlisted ‘objects’ such as former horse troughs and significant artworks, again with formal guidelines;

Unlisted post-war buildings not covered by the 2011 ’99 Buildings’ amendment;

A review of existing heritage precincts to include all buildings contributory to their significance; and

An investigation of the potential for creating new heritage precincts, particularly with an eye to protection of significant laneway areas.

We therefore urge Councillors to act now by voting for Option 1: Entire Hoddle Grid in one study to ensure that Melbourne’s rich and layered heritage is protected for generations to come.

Yours faithfully,

Felicity Watson Senior Community Advocate

Name: *

Email ad

Contact

(optiona

Please in

meeting

make a s

selecting

button: *

Date of m

Agenda

Please w

submiss

provided

by no lat

the day o

meeting

you to m

submiss

possible

Alternat

attach yo

submiss

your file

Please in

you wou

the Futu

Committ

your sub

(No oppofor submat Counc

Privacy a

*

ddress: *

phone numb

al):

ndicate which

you would l

submission t

g the approp

*

meeting: *

item title: *

write your

ion in the sp

d below and

ter than noo

of the sched

. We encoura

make your

ion as early

e.

ively you ma

our written

ion by uploa

here:

ndicate wheth

uld like to add

re Melbourn

tee in suppo

bmission:

portunity is prmitters to be cil meetings.

acknowledge

Ton

pres

ber 902

h

ike to

to by

priate

Futu

Tue

7.1

don

pace

submit

n on

uled

age

as

Plea

y

ading sub

lor_

her

dress

e

rt of

rovided heard ) *

Yes

ement: I ha

info

ny Penna

sident@south

282774

ure Melbourn

esday 19 Apr

Notice of Mo

nations

ase see attac

mission__fm

_watts_greate

ave read and

ormation.

hbankresiden

ne Committe

il 2016

otion, Counc

hed

mc_meeting_n

er_transparen

acknowledge

nts.com.au

e meeting

illor Watts: G

no._79__agen

ncy_in_electo

e how Counc

Greater transp

nda_item_7.1

oral_donation

cil will use an

parency in el

1_notice_of_m

ns.pdf 82.85 K

nd disclose m

lectoral

motion__cou

KB · PDF

my personal

ncil

caimar

Text Box


Name: * Bill Cook


Contact phone

number (optional):

93299775

Please indicate

which meeting

you would like to

make a

submission to by

selecting the

appropriate

button: *



Agenda item title:

*

Item 6.3, Councillor Watts, Greater transparency in electoral donations.



Submission to City of Melbourne ___

NORTH & WEST MELBOURNE ASSOCIATION INC.

A0004909Z ABN 68099241363

For those who live or work in North or West Melbourne

P.O. BOX 102, NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051

[email protected]

www.nwma.org.au

Submission to Future Melbourne Committee 19 April 2016

RE Item 6.3 Notice of Motion, Councillor Watts, Greater transparency in electoral donations.

haneis

Text Box


haneis

Text Box

haneis

Text Box

7.1

The NWMA Inc wishes to strongly support the motion of Councillor Watts to implement a procedure for

greater transparency in electoral donations.

The Association considers that the existing system is totally inadequate in giving voters any clarity on

this issue before they vote and that the effect of some donations in disallowing recipient councillors to

vote on affected matters is not a good look for the Council. There is a strong need to implement a

system that is clear and concise, that is easily enforceable and keeps discretion to a minimum.

Such a system requires the goodwill of all councillors and candidates before and after the election as

well as stronger regulation from the State.

We trust that the resolution will be supported on Tuesday.

Bill Cook

Committee Member

Please indicate

whether you

would like to

address the Future

Melbourne

Committee in

support of your

submission:


No

Privacy

acknowledgement:

*


information.



Contact phone number (optional): 0419 390 936






Agenda item title: * 7.1 Notice of Motion Cr. Watts Greater Transparency in

electoral donations






possible.


Electoral Donations is a "hot issue" with a Council election

nigh, and is of much concern to resident groups across the

City of Melbourne.

I submit, that declaring one's donations in the manner

suggested by Cr. Watts should be acceptable to all councillors

and I hope and expect that the motion be carried.

Yolande Leonardi

CBD Resident




submission:


No



haneis

Text Box


Name: *

Email ad

Contact

Please in

would lik

selecting

Date of m

Agenda

Please w

space pr

no later

schedule

to make

possible

Alternat

written s

file here

Please in

to addre

Committ

submiss

ddress: *

phone numb

ndicate which

ke to make a

g the approp

meeting: *

item title: *

write your sub

rovided below

than noon o

ed meeting. W

your submis

e.

ively you ma

submission b

:

ndicate wheth

ess the Futur

tee in suppo

ion:

ber (optional)

h meeting yo

a submission

priate button:

bmission in t

w and submi

n the day of

We encourag

ssion as early

y attach you

by uploading

her you wou

e Melbourne

rt of your

Julie

carlt

): 042

ou

to by

: *

Futu

Tues

Agen

tran

the

t by

the

ge you

y as

The

mot

in ei

In th

know

elect

Don

rate

inter

Julie

Secr

Carlt

r

your

DOC

ld like No

e Harrison

tonresidents@

8 137 111

ure Melbourn

sday 19 Apri

nda Item 7.1

sparency in E

Carlton Resi

ion, that cou

ither cash or

he interests o

wledge as so

tions.

ations have t

payers we su

rest may exis

e Harrison

retary

ton Resident

future_m

@gmail.com

ne Committee

l 2016

: Notice of M

Electoral Don

dents Assoc

uncillors com

in-kind, ove

of transparen

oon and they

the capacity

urely have the

st.

ts Assn Inc.

melb_transpa

e meeting

Motion, Cr Wa

nations

iation strong

mit to disclo

er $500 on a

ncy, donation

are made, an

to influence

e right to kno

arency.19.4.1

atts, Greater

gly supports

osing any don

public regis

ns need to be

nd certainly

decisions, as

ow where co

6doc.doc 33

Cr Watts’

nation,

ter.

e public

prior to

s

nflicts of

3.00 KB ·

caimar

Text Box


The Carlton Residents Association Inc. A0034345G ABN 87 716 923 898 P.O.Box 1140 Carlton Vic 3053 Phone/Fax 9347 1411 [email protected] www.carltonresidents.org.au

Future Melbourne Committee Meeting Tuesday 19 April, 5.30pm Agenda Item 7.1: Notice of Motion, Cr Watts, Greater transparency in Electoral Donations The Carlton Residents Association strongly supports Cr Watts’ motion, that councillors commit to disclosing any donation, in either cash or in-kind, over $500 on a public register. In the interests of transparency, donations need to be public knowledge as soon and they are made, and certainly prior to elections. Donations have the capacity to influence decisions, as ratepayers we surely have the right to know where conflicts of interest may exist. Julie Harrison Secretary Carlton Residents Assn Inc.

Dear Councillors, Is there any tree more beguiling, more sculptural, with twists, unexpected turns, and a consequent play of shadow and light, than the Lemon Scented Eucalypt? Please do all that you can to preserve these trees where-ever they occur and especially at the gateway to our city at the end of Tullamarine Freeway. Kindest regards, Ray -- Ray Cowling 20 Capel St., West Melbourne VIC 3003 03 9326 8743 m 0438 298742 [email protected]

caimar

Text Box


Name: * Chris Thrum


Contact phone

number (optional):

0422066973

which meeting

you would like to

make a

submission: *



Agenda item title:

*

7.6 Notice of Motion, Cr Leppert: Flemington Road lemon scented gums



This is a written submission in regards to the Future Melbourne Committee meeting of 19 April 2016

and in particular to 7.6 Notice of Motion, Cr Leppert: Flemington Road lemon scented gums

I support this Notice of Motion in regards to the historic and heritage listed lemon scented gums of

Flemington Road.

These trees must be retained, they are of immense heritage value and as native trees they are more

than capable of handling climate change and an increase in the temperature of Melbourne that is

anticipated.

Because the number of lanes at the intersection remains the same in this project it is unreasonable to

remove these trees.

Lemon scented gums of the type discussed here must continue to be preserved and protected.

Yours sincerely

Chris Thrum

would like to

address the Future

Melbourne

Committee

Yes

Privacy

acknowledgement:

*


information.

haneis

Text Box

Request to Speak and Item of Correspondence Agenda item 7.6 Future Melbourne Committee 19 April 2016

Name: *

Email addre

*

Please indic

which meet

you would l

to make a

submission

by selecting

the appropr

button: *

Date of

meeting: *

Agenda item

title: *

Alternatively

you may att

your written

submission

uploading y

file here:

would like t

address the

Future

Melbourne

Committee

Privacy

acknowledg

ent: *

Joseph

ess: j.lang@

cate

ing

ike

to

g

riate

Future

Tuesda

m 7.6

y

tach

n

by

your

citylink

g_19_a

to

e

No

gem

I have

ine Lang

@deakin.edu.

Melbourne C

ay 19 April 2

k_tulla_widen

apr_2016.pdf

read and ack

au

Committee m

016

ningsupportin

f 177.90 KB ·

knowledge ho

meeting

ng_notice_of

PDF

ow Council w

f_motioncr_le

will use and d

eppert_agend

disclose my p

da_item_7.6_

personal info

_fmc_mt

ormation.

haneis

Text Box


Submission to Future Melbourne Committee Meeting 19 April 2016 In support of the Agenda item 7.6 Notice of Motion by Cr Leppert: Flemington Road lemon scented gums I, Dr Josephine Lang of Travancore, support Cr Leppert’s motion: That the Future Melbourne Committee resolves that no work order be made or issued, or permission be granted, for the removal of lemon scented gums near the Flemington Road / Church Street intersection, due to the CityLink Tulla Widening project leaders not demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Council at this time that the trees (at least at the eastern end of the row) cannot be retained. In arguing to support this motion I include the following statement: CityLink Tulla widening – Save our Trees! I’m deeply distressed to learn that our lemon-scented gums are being cut down where the Tulla intersects with Mt Alexander & Flemington Roads, particularly this big one that must be at least 60-80 years old. And seeing this work (see photo I took below) - I’m not the only one. What is the backstory of the tree? How and why was it planted? These trees are significant food trees for the fruit bats and rainbow lorikeets in particular. Isn’t there anyway to save at least this tree? Melbourne’s most iconic streets are those that are tree-lined. Planting new trees in lieu of cutting down these trees is not good enough. How do you compare adult trees with seedlings that have yet to prove they can survive their early years of life, a time of high mortality? We need to re-think our planning and move beyond concrete and asphalt. Deeply concerned local citizen Josephine Lang PhD, Travancore.

Name: * Cheryl Saunders







Agenda item title: * 7.6 Flemington Road Lemon Scented Gum






possible.

If the Council has any authority to save this tree, I urge them

to try to do so. It is the most beautiful tree, which gives a

sense of joy to anyone who looks at is as they pass through

this busy intersection. The reasons for destroying it either

have not been revealed or are exceptionally weak. On behalf

of the residents of the city, who councillors represent, you are

entitled to seek genuine reasons and, in the light of them, to

ask decision-makers to weigh these against the value of this

historic tree. To destroy it in these circumstances is to treat

us all with contempt.




submission:


No



haneis

Text Box


Name: * ian baker






Council meeting


Agenda item title: * proposed removal of lemon gum Church Street, Parkville






possible.

This 90-year-old tree is a living Australian sculpture. Its form

is breathtakingly beautiful. Romance and aesthetics aside, no

logical argument is offered for its removal. It will not improve

traffic flows. Further, the process of consultation was in a

word devious. The MCC should equally apply its firm

concerns with heritage streetscape to this matter. I will not let

this rest.

The Hon Ian Baker

former Minister for Science and Agriculture

former Producer of This Day Tonight.



haneis

Text Box


Name: * Joe Edmonds


Contact phone

number (optional):

0439 455 522

Please indicate

which meeting

you would like to

make a

submission to by

selecting the

appropriate

button: *



Agenda item title:

*

7.6



Agenda Item: 7.6

Submission in support of a motion by Cr Rohan Leppert to the Melbourne Futures Committee meeting

of the Melbourne City Council to be held on Tuesday 19 April, 2016 that Council withhold its consent

to the removal of the Lemon Scented Gums in the median strip in Flemington Road, Parkville West

Introduction

My Name is Joe Edmonds and I am a resident of Manningham Street, West Parkville, a ratepayer of the

City of Melbourne and committee member of and spokes-person for the Royal Park Protection Group

Inc.

We strongly support Councillor Leppert’s motion that Council should not consent to the removal of the

trees for the sake of accommodating the contractor of the Tullamarine Freeway Widening Project. Their

removal will amount to a serious loss of amenity for local residents whose neighbourhood continues to

be blighted by the remorseless expansion of the City’s major road systems. Their retention is small

but precious comfort to us who have to live with the massive increases in health risks associated with

the freeway widenings and the consequent deterioration in air quality and massive increase in traffic

haneis

Text Box

Request to speak and Item of Correspondence Agenda item 7.6 Future Melbourne Committee 19 April 2016

noise.

We want these trees to survive and stand tall in all their beauty and for their natural worth as a

bulwark against a culture that preferences the motor vehicle over the quality of our suburb and the

liveability of our city. They must be retained in the interests of the welfare of our residents and for the

environmental and health benefits they provide to the community. They are the lungs of our city. They

are priceless and irreplaceable.

Background

The six (6) trees in this case are growing in land in Flemington Road, Parkville West reserved for

vegetation and located near or at the intersection of Flemington Road and Church Street. They include

a giant lemon scented native gum tree which is included on the Heritage Register and is over 100

years old.

Flemington Road is one of the busiest intersections in the City of Melbourne carrying enormous

volumes of road traffic into and out of Melbourne heading to and from the northern suburbs and

Melbourne Airport.

The trees are located on the eastern side of Flemington Road and between lanes of traffic entering the

city from Mt Alexander Road, Moonee Ponds and the Tullamarine Freeway which is being widened to

take a 30 per cent increase in traffic movements.

Flemington Road in the carriageway for vehicle and bicycle traffic but also for the busy Route 59 tram

lines and reservation (and mega tram stops) in the middle of Flemington Road, transporting

passengers to or from Moonee Ponds.

The lemon scented gums are well established, mature specimens (one of them heritage listed) whose

canopy and shade provide natural relief and beauty in a virtual sea of stationary or slowly moving

vehicles stretching over some 300 metres and vying for entry to the city of Melbourne at the

Flemington Road and Elliott Avenue/Boundary Road intersection.

Our submission and recommendation

We commend Cr Leppert for this motion and strongly support his submission that Council should

withhold its consent to the removal of the trees on the grounds that it has not been demonstrated that

there is no alternative to the removal of the trees and the median strip in order to achieve the

objectives of the road works.

He has shown decisive leadership on this issue and is standing with the local community in defence of

proper process, accountability and the preservation of the environment. He deserves the support of his

fellow Councillors to ensure that all options and alternatives for retaining the tress are investigated

and the feasibility of recalibrating the road works so as to save the trees. Let Council bring its

considerable engineering expertise and resources to bear on the problem and to help devise the best

solution for pedestrians, cyclists and road traffic from the proposed road works without the loss of

these tress.

Council is not entitled to give away any of its rights or powers but holds them in trust for the

protection and welfare of the community. To fail to assert its rights under its own policies and any

relevant codes of practice amounts to a misuse of power and a serious illegality. Council cannot stand

by and refuse to intervene in the unreasonable or unreasoning exercise by another authority of a

public duty.

Further, we request that Council -

a. support its opposition to the removal of the trees by securing the co-operation of the road

contractor, Vic Roads or any other authority to achieve these objectives and by the issue of an

injunction or other legal process if necessary to ensure that the trees are not removed without

Council’s formal consent to their removal;

b. make all necessary representations to government seeking support for its opposition to the removal

of the trees; and

c. ensure the public is kept fully informed of any decision or action which might affect the trees or

result in their removal or affect their preservation.

Joe Edmonds

2/2 Manningham Street,

Parkville 3052

Mobile: 0439 455 522

17 April 2016

Please indicate

whether you

would like to

address the Future

Melbourne

Committee in

support of your

Yes

submission:


Privacy

acknowledgement:

*


information.

Dear Council Business Officer I would like to speak after Councillor Leppert puts his motion at the Future Melbourne meeting tomorrow on 19 April . I will be supporting his notion. Is this possible as the subject - the removal of a line of Lemon Scented Eucalypts including a tree on the State Heritage Register for the widening of City Link Tulla Freeway - is not listed as an actual agenda item. Secondly if this is possible then I will make a submission and send in later today. I am having problems getting access to the online form on the website. You have said in the past that "the online form asks submitters to read and acknowledge the privacy statement, detailing how Council will use and disclose their personal information." I confirm that I accept that my "submission (including attachments) and personal information will be disclosed on Council’s website (accessible worldwide) for an indefinite period." I look forward to your reply. Many thanks. Yours sincerely Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. PO Box 197 Parkville 3052 Mobile 0408022408

haneis

Text Box




Contact phone

number (optional):

0419 390 936

which meeting

you would like to

make a

submission to:*



Agenda item title: 7.6 NoM Cr. Leppert. Flemington Road Lemon Scented Gums




The Motion implies several trees, but the picture depicts only one of concern. I find this slightly

confusing.

I am not familiar with this area but understand the attachment the locals have for this tree/s.

May I submit that..

1/ We cannot stop important infrastructure - the reasoning seems to deal with the infrastructure issues

rather than a solution regarding the tree/s.

It would seem that the infrastructure must go ahead.

2/ Could Council do as they did with the loss of trees in the Emporium development, and request

compensation in the form of an avenue of lemon scented gums that can be planted to replace all of

those lost, and give beauty and joy to all?

Thanking you,

Yolande Leonardi

CBD Resident

Please indicate

whether you

would like to

address the Future

Melbourne

Committee

No

Privacy

acknowledgement:


information.

haneis

Text Box


From: Wufoo Sent: Monday, 18 April 2016 11:06:45 AM (UTC+10:00) Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney To: CoM Meetings Subject: Council and Committee meeting submission form [#611]

Name: * April Newton


Please indicate

which meeting

you would like to

make a

submission to by

selecting the

appropriate

button: *



Agenda item title:

*

Lemon Scented Gum removal



I object to the removal of the lemon scented gum at the intersection at Flemington road and Church

St. According to Melbourne Urban Forest Visual, this tree has a life expectancy of a further 60 years,

meaning it will long outlive any need for it to be removed. That said, I am dubious about the claim that

there is any need for its removal. There are currently five lanes city-bound, and plenty of room to add

a bike track without cutting down this tree. I am not convinced all other options have been properly

considered, and that such short notice was given suggests to me that proper procedure has not been

followed.

I first saw the notice that the tree was to be cut down as I left for work on Monday. I have since heard

that it was actually scheduled for removal that day before being delayed. I cannot imagine how sad I

would have felt to come home from work to see the tree already removed, without me having a chance

to protest at all. I am glad I have the chance to do so now, and to thoroughly protest this trees

removal. As a resident of Melbourne I would be proud to say my city prioritises native trees over roads.

haneis

Text Box


Please vote to ensure that this is the case.

Sincerely,

April Newton

On behalf of the Newton family.

Please indicate

whether you

would like to

address the Future

Melbourne

Committee in

support of your

submission:


No

Privacy

acknowledgement:

*


information.

Name: *

Email ad

Contact

Please in

would lik

selecting

Date of m

Agenda

Please w

space pr

no later

schedule

to make

possible

Alternat

written s

file here

Privacy a

ddress: *

phone numb

ndicate which

ke to make a

g the approp

meeting: *

item title: *

write your sub

rovided below

than noon o

ed meeting. W

your submis

e.

ively you ma

submission b

:

acknowledge

ber (optional)

h meeting yo

a submission

priate button:

bmission in t

w and submi

n the day of

We encourag

ssion as early

y attach you

by uploading

ement: *

Chri

cwes

): 041

ou

to by

: *

Cou

Tues

Moti

the

t by

the

ge you

y as

I wil

pres

Beca

hopi

3 mi

Than

Chri

r

your

I hav

disc

stine West

[email protected]

5440193

ncil meeting

sday 19 Apri

ion by Cr Lep

l email to yo

sented by my

ause we will b

ing that we m

inutes in tota

nk you

stine

submiss

ve read and a

lose my pers

om

l 2016

ppert re. Lem

u the PowerP

yself and Dr A

both be addr

might be able

al (if necessa

ion_presenta

acknowledge

sonal informa

mon Scented G

Point present

Ann Read.

ressing differ

e to speak fo

ary)?

ation_mcc.pp

e how Counci

ation.

Gums

tation that w

rent points, I

or a little long

ptx 3.37 MB ·

il will use an

ill be

I am

ger than

PPTX

d

caimar

Text Box


18/04/2016

1

Pleasedon’t cut down ourLemon Scented Gums(especially not the big one)

Christine WestFlemington Road resident/property owner since 1992,living just metres from these trees on the East side.

Dr Ann ReadFlemington Road resident/property owner since 1994,living just metres from these trees on the West side.

First of all…

• No community consultation

• No options offered

• Barely a week’s notice, with only a handful of local residents notified

• Not previously flagged on CityLink Tullaproject website, or published updates

• Denial of plans when questioned

Why the complete removal of this median strip and its trees is unwarranted

• No extra car lanes are planned

• Already enough room to relocate bike path from median strip to carriageway

• City‐bound traffic will not need to lane‐change along this section of road

Existing kerbs emphasised with yellow lines

Pink stars = trees

Plenty of extra room here to widen

if necessary

Why these trees areimportant to us

• They beautify and addgreatly to the amenity of the area

• They have symbolic value and cultural significance

• They mitigate pollution

• They provide pedestrians, tram users and residents with protection from summer heat and UV rays

18/04/2016

2

Look at all this glorious shade!

Evening shade(all this from the Lemon Scented Gums!)

Midday shade for tram travellers too

Safety

• The traffic island provides a valuable refuge for pedestrians when crossing the road(it has actually saved resident’s lives!)

• Crashes unrelated to trees/median strip

Compromise?

Name: * Felicity Watson







Agenda item title: * 7.6 Notice of Motion, Cr Leppert: Flemington Road lemon

scented gums






possible.

Verbal submission in support of Notice of Motion, Cr Leppert:

Flemington Road lemon scented gums.




submission:


Yes



caimar

Text Box

Request to speak Agenda item 7.6 Future Melbourne Committee 19 April 2016

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.(PPL VIC)

Submission to the City of Melbourne Future Melbourne Committee Meeting on 19 April 2016 Opposing Removal of the Lemon-Scented Gum Trees in Flemington Road Parkville

I am speaking for Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc, a coalition of community groups formed to defend environmental and heritage sites of significance. We heard, indirectly, only weeks ago the rumour that contractors working on the CityLink Tulla widening project planned to remove a line of lemon-scented gums (Corymbia citriodora) on the median in Flemington Road on the corner of Church Street. (Plans are to turn them into park furniture.) This line of 5 trees includes a famous 90 year old tree inscribed on the National Trust Register of Significant Trees. (Few trees of the species are inscribed on this register.) We agree that this tree is of great significance to the people of Melbourne and must be saved at all costs.

Our organisation supports the statement made by Councillor Rohan Leppert in his resolution to the Council tonight and also that of Mr Joe Edmunds for the Royal Park Protection Group Inc. This will save repetition of important points.

We would like to point out that consultation by the City of Melbourne has been non-existent and, by the CPB contractors, deficient. Apparently they met, in March, a number of representatives of different groups whose names were supplied by the City of Melbourne but simply advised - as a fait accompli - the works to be undertaken on the Mt Alexander Road/Flemington Road intersection. (Our organisation was not contacted.)

The CPB contractor provided a “Flemington Road Fact Sheet (City Link Tulla Widening Flemington Road/Mount Alexander Road Upgrade” dated November 2015 which I obtained but it does not mention removal of the 5 Lemon-Scented Eucalypts in Flemington Road. (It does have a sentence: “As design is still ongoing this, this information is subject to change.” But that was November last.)

We consider it shameful that the City of Melbourne should not have asked for a redesign of the project at the entrance to Flemington Road. This is given the City’s record of the excellent Streetscapes Improvements Program and the outstanding Urban Forest Strategy which mapped over 77,000 trees throughout the city. It was implemented in 2012. The Urban Forest Visual, created by architect and data visualization specialist Professor Greg Moore, provides information on each tree’s botanical identity, location, health and life expectancy. Hence we cannot understand why given this regard for the importance of Melbourne’s trees, the City of Melbourne should not have demurred about the axing of this significant tree and indeed the whole line of trees in Flemington Road.

Are Councillors aware that under the Urban Forest Strategy each tree is assigned an identification number and an email address, to allow citizens to report potential problems such as tree decline, vandalism and dropping branches. The Chair of the Environment Portfolio, Councillor Arron Wood, reported that people did more than just report issues - they wrote directly to the trees, which have received thousands of messages - everything from greetings and questions about current events to love letters and existential dilemmas. Councillor Wood is quoted as saying: “The email interactions reveal the love Melburnians have for our trees,” And the trees reply!

The Lemon-Scented Gum in Flemington Road has an identity number 1020559. A Melbourne cyclist wrote to this tree: “I admire your spectacular trunk every time I ride past. I wish there were more of you along Flemington Road.” The tree responded:” I would also love [it] if there were more of my cousins in my hood!” This is quoted in the National Trust citation.

One wondered if anyone has told this Lemon Scented Gum that it was due to be axed a week ago until residents intervened and might well be chopped down tomorrow unless the City of Melbourne Councillors take a stand and request contractors and the State Government to redesign the road plan in this section to leave the line of lemon scented gums standing according to the wishes of Melburnians. Signed Julianne Bell Secretary PPL VIC 19 April 2016

caimar

Text Box


10 Church St

Parkville 3052

18/4/2016

TO: Melbourne City Council

Re: Traffic Island and Trees in Flemington Road opposite Church St

We wish to protest most strongly at the proposed removal of the Traffic Island and the associated

trees opposite the tram stop at the intersection of Church St and Flemington Road Parkville

As regular observers of the peak hour traffic chaos at this piece of roadway approaching the

Racecourse Rd and Elliott Ave intersection I can only view this as a crazy piece of traffic

management.

There are 2 lanes of traffic coming from Mt Alexander Road and three lanes of traffic coming from

CityLink.

The City link traffic then attempts to find its next direction - some moving across to the right hand

lanes to proceed into the city or Abbotsford St, some aiming for the centre lanes heading for the

city, hospitals etc, and some aiming for the left lane to travel Elliott Ave ... likewise the traffic from

Mt Alexander Rd aims either for the right lanes to the city or Abbotsford St ... or the centre lanes

aiming for the city, hospitals etc, or the left lane aiming for Elliott Avenue. For some 5 hours of a

morning this merging and mingling really does cause traffic chaos. The planned removal of the

traffic island can only accentuate the problem

The Traffic Island provides a "refuge" for people aiming for the tram stop - it is a very wide gap

between the pavement on Flemington Road and the tramstop, and often people need to stop there

and wait for the next light, or for the traffic to stop. The absence of that island would cause

significant difficulties for tram travellers - particularly those with mobility issues.

Finally the removal of the trees will significantly impact on the liveability for the nearby residents of

Flemington Road and Church St ... the trees are a great barrier to the significant noise and pollution

that the traffic in that area creates The residents would suffer quite significantly as a result of their

removal. And their removal would significantly diminish the attractiveness of that pocket.

Furthermore they are magnificent trees of historic significance and great beauty. Their removal

would be an act of civic vandalism

What is even more annoying is the fact that there would appear to be virtually no traffic

management benefit from the proposal. In fact, as a regular observer ofthe traffic in this area it

would seem to me have only the potential for worsening a very bad peak hour situation

I strongly urge the council to reject this ill-considered proposal which has negligible value, and

considerable downside - particularly for the residents but also for the traffic management in the

area.

Yours faithfully

Denise McNamara

haneis

Text Box

haneis

Text Box

haneis

Text Box

haneis

Text Box

Dear all,

I refer to the removal of the Lemon Scented Gum trees planned on Flemington Road as part of theCity Link changes.

The Parkville Association is bitterly opposed to their removal particularly the 100 year old tree that ison the Register of Significant trees. The City has lost many special trees over the years and given itssignificance we wish to register our residents feelings in the strongest possible way.

We request the Council do all possible to retain this wonderful part of Melbourne’s history.

Regards

Rob Moore

Rob MoorePresidentParkville AssociationMobile 0418325624www.facebook.com/ParkvilleAssociation

Item of Correspondence Agenda item 7.6

Future Melbourne Committee 19 April 2016

haneis

Text Box

From: Kaye Oddie <[email protected]>Date: 17 April 2016 at 17:23:24 AEST To: Beverley Pinder-Mortimer <[email protected]>, Jackie Watts <[email protected]>, Ken Ong <[email protected]>,Kevin Louey <[email protected]>, Robert Doyle <[email protected]>, Rohan Leppert <[email protected]>, Arron Wood <[email protected]>,Richard Foster <[email protected]>, Susan Riley <[email protected]>, Stephen Mayne <[email protected]>, Cathy Oke <[email protected]>Subject: Future Melbourne Committee Agenda Item 7.6 - Flemington Road Lemon-scented Gums

To Chair & Councillors Future Melbourne Committee Meeting April 17 Agenda Item 7.6 – Notice of Motion Flemington Road Lemon-scented Gums

The CityLinkTullaWidening (CLTW) works in the environs of Flemington Bridge will result in a veritable concrete and asphalt jungle - no doubt a road engineer's delight, but a visual and environmental disaster. A more intelligent and sympathetic approach must be taken to allow the nearby Lemon-scented gum trees in Flemington Rd to be retained to mitigate the ugly expanded expanse of roads – for which we have already seen the removal of the vegetation around the ‘ornamental pond’ to make way for new freeway ramps and bridges and removal of 150 mature trees and shrubs opposite Travancore Park.

The City of Melbourne must provide the necessary expertise to find a better solution, because the CLTW project engineers can only see the asphalt and the concrete. I ask that you support the motion to enable this to be undertaken.

Kaye Oddie Resident



haneis

Text Box

To The Honorable Lord Mayor, Robert Doyleand esteemed Councillors.

Enough axing of trees in this, my area of Parkville West. Each one is needed to offset the appalling over-development which continues in this little pocket of Parkville.

The magnificent, giant, Lemon Scented Gum is right up there with one of artist Namatjira's finest works. It's importance is noted, by being on the Significant Trees register.

The small row of eucalyptus is a beautiful and truly Australian showpiece to this gateway to Melbourne....far nicer than the humungous, ugly, yellow, Great Wall of China.

More and more bitumen; more and more car pollution... these trees become part of the vital, natural means of purifying our air... at no cost to Council.

I live just 100 metres, or so, from the Flemington Rd / Church St intersection. Who'd have thought the Tulla widening project would encroach on us... not just ripping out these trees, for the benefit of cars and trucks... but also closing off the "to Lennon" st.. which is our ONLY exit to Mt Alexander Rd, Racecourse & Boundary Rds and CityLink in the other direction.

Look after your own residents; their health, their clean air and their right to enjoy their own homes.

I object to the removal of these Lemon Scented Gums - specifically the majestic, giant specimen.

People, residents, trees and public transport before roads.

Re-read "The Lorax" by Dr Seuss& "Last Tree in The City" by Peter Carnavas. I know I've sent copies to some of you, on previous occasions.

Regards, Marg Jungwirth 9329 2105 16 46 Manningham St (right by the corner of Church St) Parkville West (resident, ratepayer and voter at Council elections)



haneis

Text Box

haneis

Text Box

haneis

Text Box

Subject: Significant specimen tree in the City of Melbourne, Flemington Bridge area Parkville, that is at risk and needs your immediate attention and if possible your voice, your support and our enduring protection.

Hi there, A National Trust listed significant Lemon scented gum tree on the median strip in Flemington Road Parkville, near Flemington Bridge overpass is being threatened by the Tulla widening project

This registered tree which is located in the median strip is a truly magnificent gum. If you have driven along Flemington Road from the Tullamarine Freeway to the city I'm sure you will have noticed and been impressed by its elegance and grandeur.

The tree is growing on a median strip which belongs to Vic Roads and the trees themselves on this lmeduan strip are under the control of the City of Melbourne.

The stand of trees and importantly the registered specimen tree is under threat and needs to be safe guarded and preserved as a significant feature of this local streetscape.

The group of trees and the more than 90 year old significant lemon scented gum proudly stand at one of our northern entry points to the city. A great city voted the most liveable city from competitors across the world.

For international visitors and people in general traveling into our city, on the freeway from the airport, this beautiful specimen, with its grand presence is a treasure in an other wise drab and ugly Flemington Bridge road way area and intersection.

This tree an important and significant part of this local community area and a symbol of the importance of preserving and maintaining what we have of our natural environment across the city and across our State.

In the same way as the supporting structures under the Flemington Bridge are being worked around in this project, this significant tree a truly Australian feature in this streetscape needs to be worked around.

The bridge structures are costly to remove and the significant specimen tree needs to be viewed in a similar way and not be taken from this area because it's removal is measured as a cheap and easy fix.

If the bridge supports under the Flemington Bridge overpass can be worked around then so can a registered specimen tree of significance to this local area.

I hope that you can look into this situation and investigate all avenues available to ensure the protection of this significant tree in this streetscape at this very critical time.

I look forward to receiving your feedback and your response on this issue.Your sincerely, Sue Freeland



name: * robert dicintio - city of melbourne · complemented by architectural innovation. ... super...

Documents