Author: MBCL Member (name withheld)

Date: early June 2002

Submission regarding Mordialloc Future Plan

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this extensive plan for Mordialloc. Although we are pleased at some of the proposed changes, overall, we find the extent of the changes quite overwhelming; it seems that barely a stone is to be left in place.

Mordialloc has enormous charm, which is largely the accidental result of its natural environment and its history. Mordialloc, as it is, is unique, and we should remember that, however well meaning we are, in attempting to change Mordialloc we risk destroying the very qualities we wish to enhance. Our greatest concern is that Mordialloc's peaceful, friendly, unsophisticated fishing village charm, and natural habitat (for people, and for flora and fauna), is about to be changed forever into a busy, yuppie, touristy, overdeveloped seaside centre, where the natural environment may no longer nourish the soul.

The natural foreshore and creek environment and habitat that we have in the City of Kingston should be retained at all costs; far too much damage and loss has occurred already. Mordialloc is lovely as it is, and already attracts many visitors who value it as it is, very little needs changing or improving and, in our view, many of the proposed changes are unnecessary and damaging to Mordialloc's character and natural environment. We want to keep Mordialloc's salt of the earth, warts and all character, along with its natural environment; that is its charm.

General Comments:

It is essential that we retain a flexible approach to the future development of Mordialloc. We believe that the outcome of the current process, on which we have all worked so hard, should be Mordialloc Future Plan - A Guide for the Future of Mordialloc. We should all be working toward a set of guidelines for enhancement, not a set plan for Mordialloc. In this way, we retain flexibility to consider each future change as it is proposed. Other specific comments follow:

· Steering Committee and Stakeholders. We strongly object to the composition of the Steering Committee, which includes four KCC staff, two consultants, and two Councillors, but not a single Mordialloc resident or businessperson. Please ensure Mordialloc residents, businesses, and conservation groups are also involved in the Steering Committee and in future planning and implementation. Perhaps, then, there will be a better balance between human activity and conservation of the natural environment.

· The 'vision for Mordialloc'. We strongly object to your 'vision for Mordialloc'. This 'vision' is an attempt to condition the reader into accepting proposed changes to Mordialloc without properly considering whether they are sensible or appropriate. The reader should be left to judge the Mordialloc Future Plan on its merits, and should not be subjected to influence from this kind of marketing propaganda. The City of Kingston or its agents should play no role in 'persuading' the community to support the Mordialloc Future Plan, against the wishes of many to keep Mordialloc as it is. It is unprofessional conduct.

· The history of Mordialloc. Mordialloc has a long history that should be given recognition in the Mordialloc Future Plan. It was recorded in 1841 that a fishing community already used Mordialloc Creek as a harbour. Mordialloc was the last place on the Peninsula where significant numbers of aborigines lived. The last local full-blood aborigine of the Bunurong, Jimmy Dunbar and his lubra Eliza, lived by Mordialloc Creek.

· Recognition of aboriginal heritage. We find it disturbing that aboriginal heritage in the Mordialloc area has been ignored in the Mordialloc Future Plan, except for a brief mention of Koori heritage on page 22. Even the Bunurong memorial garden, opposite the Bridge Hotel, is described only as an indigenous coastal planting area with no reference to the significant aboriginal community that lived here. How did this happen? We want to see aboriginal heritage feature in the Mordialloc Future Plan, with interpretive signage about the Bunurong territory and lifestyle; the aboriginal reserve by Mordialloc Creek, opposite the Bridge Hotel; foreshore middens; the former Carrum Carrum Swamp, etc. The City of Kingston has all this information. Aboriginal heritage is part of Mordialloc's history and should be acknowledged along with other historical developments.

· Protecting the natural environment. The Mordialloc Future Plan virtually ignores the need to protect the natural environment. Threats to the natural environment are mentioned briefly under SWOT, then forgotten, with commercial enterprises proposed in or near fragile environmental areas and open spaces.

· Lighting effects. There seems to be an obsession with night lighting for effect—up lights, down lights, security lights, flood lights. This is environmentally irresponsible because, 1) it sets a poor example in unnecessary waste of power and it contributes to global warming, 2) it disturbs nocturnal creatures, and 3) makes it more difficult to see and enjoy the night sky.

Mordialloc Foreshore, Pier, Creek & Island:

We support the view that 'few, if any opportunities exist in Metropolitan Melbourne for the public to access water and boating facilities in a village atmosphere'. Therefore, it is vital to maintain Mordialloc's unique village atmosphere, and the unsophisticated, even untidy, qualities that contribute to this character. We agree with some of the proposals, particularly coastal indigenous planting wherever they occur, and improvement in creek management and water quality. Other comments and suggestions follow:

· Eating places by foreshore, creek and island. No more are needed. Mordialloc already has an abundance of restaurants, cafes, kiosks and takeaway food outlets—currently 25—18 in and around Main Street, 3 at the Bridge Hotel, and 4 on the foreshore and Hazel Pierce Park (including kiosks). The recent opening of Latitude has clearly stressed some of the existing food businesses because there are insufficient patrons to go round. Further, the many additional eating places, proposed in the Draft Plan, all take away parts of our parks and natural environment. Flora and fauna will not benefit from this, except for the European rats and silver gulls, which are already very numerous, and are adversely affecting the local ecological balance.

· Litter bins. Litter may be reduced if more litterbins are provided in this area, especially on or near the pier.

· Hazel Pierce Park. We do not want any more cafes here; there are already two kiosks in this park. We disagree with moving the existing bluestone toilet and kiosk because they are convenient next to the car park. It would be cheaper and more environmentally responsible to improve the appearance of the existing bluestone building, but without increasing its footprint. The stands of indigenous trees would be enhanced by low coastal plantings.

· Blue Line boat hire. Please keep the Blue Line boat hire and kiosk where it is. This is an obvious location for boat hire, near Beach Road and the car park. Blue Line attracts visitors to Mordialloc, and it is unlikely to survive if moved further upstream.

· Swing bridge over creek entrance. We disagree strongly with the proposal for a swing bridge here. It would be 1) very costly; 2) impractical for creek users; 3) may impede creek flow; and 4) it would be a bulky structure that unnecessarily intrudes on the natural views. However, better pedestrian access to North Aspendale beach does seem a good suggestion. We believe that better access could be achieved by two aligned foot bridges at the southern end of the island, one from Hazel Pierce Park, and the other to Bowman Street, to connect with the negotiated right-of-way to North Aspendale beach. The ugly existing private bridge would then be unnecessary and could be removed.

· Car parks. All car parks need indigenous shade trees and coastal plantings.

· Coastal plantings by the sailing club. The south side of the creek in front of Mordialloc Sailing Club could do with coastal indigenous plantings.

· Moorings. A variety of types, sizes and duration should be available for casual or permanent, low income or wealthy users. Kingston residents should pay a lesser mooring rate.

See other comments under 'Foreshore' and 'Mordialloc Island' below.

Foreshore:

· Former tennis court conversion to car park. We accept the conversion of tennis court to car park (despite Mark Woodland's promise to residents, 3 years ago, that the tennis court area would revert to foreshore with indigenous plantings). The new car park will need softening/screening from the road, preferably with coastal planting. A new path from this car park to the toilet block would be needed but no others are necessary.

· Access road off Beach Road to Windows on the Bay. We disagree with the proposed realignment. This access is adequate already, so realigning the road seems an unnecessary expenditure, especially as no clear reasons are given. We do not want any of the foreshore reserve to be taken, nor must the existing access road and car park footprint increase.

· Palms on the foreshore. We believe the Canary Island Palm theme should be restricted to Main Street. We consider that the existing palms on Pier Road should be removed and used to augment or replace palms on Main Street. We would like to see the indigenous coastal tree and vegetation theme here, as at present near Windows on the Bay. This would add variety and contribute to the wellbeing of the local flora and fauna ecology by excluding exotic vegetation.

· Peter Scullin Reserve. We strongly support the proposal to remove part of the car park that presently separates the reserve and the foreshore. This would improve pedestrian safety and amenity by connecting the two areas of Peter Scullin Reserve, if part of the existing car park were returned to foreshore. Only one path is needed to Pier Road, not two, because unnecessary paths negate the net gain to the foreshore reserve, and they require more maintenance.

· Rotunda (picnic gazebo). The rotunda was built for the Mordialloc Brass Band and other performances, and also serves as a lookout. We disagree with the proposed seven connecting paths around the Rotunda because they unnecessarily dissect the foreshore and increase maintenance costs; three paths would be sufficient—to the promenade, car park and Windows on the Bay kiosk.

· Pier Road. We agree with the proposal to shorten Pier Road, if the area gained is returned to foreshore. There is no need for a roundabout at the end of Pier Road—it would perform no function. We disagree with the proposal for an additional access road to the car park off Pier Road because it would be an unnecessary reduction of the passive recreation area in Hazel Pierce Park. Please relocate the exotic Canary Island palms along Pier Road to Main Street (for reasons given above) and replace with indigenous coastal trees and vegetation.

· Pier Road/Hazel Pierce Park car park. We do not want more of Hazel Pierce Park taken for car parking.

· Pier entrance. We strongly disagree with the ridiculous suggestion for a kiosk and/or toilet block as a 'gateway' to the pier. The pier already has a 'gateway' in the form of seating within the octagonal area. It does not need a kiosk (or a toilet!) to define the entrance to the pier. A building here, however attractive, would be too intrusive on views and tranquility. More importantly, we need to keep kiosks and cafes away from the pier because their presence would increase the already serious problem of rats and silver gulls around the pier due to food waste left on the rocks, beach and in the water.

· In addition, please restore the sandy, passive recreation area and coastal vegetation in the strip of land between the pier entrance and creek, and prevent vehicle access. Before vehicles used this area, it was a tranquil place for pedestrians and fishers to 'get away from it all' and be with nature—a necessary antidote to the noise and stress of our modern world.

Lambert's (Mordialloc) Island:

· We consider that the island is a very significant feature in Mordialloc, and unique in Port Philip Bay. Mordialloc Creek is the only creek entering Port Phillip Bay with an island near the mouth. Therefore, we strongly oppose the option of filling in the canal between the island and mainland.

· Island usage and access. We believe the island is Crown land and that it should not be for private use alone. There has been no public access for many years, so perhaps it is time to return it, at least partly, to public access. We suggest the Motor Yacht Club and Sea Scouts have new buildings on the north end (or an upgrade of existing buildings). And we propose that the south end have a picnic area with public access via connecting narrow (2m or 3m wide) footbridges to Hazel Pierce Park and Bowman Street (see footbridge comments under Mordialloc Foreshore, Pier, Creek and Island). The existing ugly private bridge could then be removed.

Should public access lead to security problems, then our second preference would be for the island to remain as it is but that the appearance of the existing buildings be improved. Please include indigenous coastal planting in any upgrade or change to the island.

· Eating places. The island is an inappropriate location for a kiosk, café or restaurant, because of litter and food waste problems, and the inappropriate increase in commercial dominance of the creek.

· Boardwalk: This would be costly and unnecessarily take up creek space.

Maritime Village:

The entire Maritime Village plan needs rethinking, taking into account the existing values and problems of the area, including the tidal nature of the creek, which the Consultants have totally failed to do. Other comments follow:

· 'Clean up' of the boat works area. We disagree strongly with the 'clean up' or removal of the existing informal boat works area by Mordialloc creek, and the proposed café, which would look onto a car park! This informal boat works area next to the creek constitutes one of Mordialloc's unique and appealing features. We have here an attractive and fascinating activity that other localities (and tourist venues) lack, so why not build on the existing appeal of the area with painting and repair to the buildings, rubbish and weed removal, and a few picnic tables. Let's enjoy it; not destroy it, as the Consultants propose to do. This is our overriding consideration in relation to the Maritime Village proposal.

· The café complex. We strongly object to a new maritime workshop/interpretation centre/café replacing Pompei's boat-building barn. The building and surrounds are untidy, but that is part of its function and charm. We consider that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make this both a tourist attraction and a functioning, profitable boatyard for many practical reasons, including issues of safety and security.

· New car park and bus parking area by Pompei's. This proposal is too formal next to an informal boat works area. A vehicle turn-around is fine, but informal grass, gravel and indigenous shade trees are more appropriate than formal parking bays with a sealed surface. Currently, the road verge near the roundabout is used to park cars and trailers, not as boat storage.

· Monterey Cypresses. It would be a mistake to extend the existing line of Monterey Cypresses along Nepean Hwy to meet the palms. Their presence near the palms would confuse two very different themes. Better to leave a gap between the Canary Island Palms and the Monterey Cypresses, or introduce coastal indigenous plantings as proposed for the roundabout. This would give more aesthetic emphasis to both of these themes, and prevent visual conflict and a muddled look.

· Railway verge maritime sculpture, and boat storage and repair yard. It may be a good idea to utilise the railway verge for a display boat/maritime sculpture, providing it is an informal style in keeping with the existing. Otherwise, this area just needs to have rubbish and weeds removed.

· Creek-side boardwalk, picnic area, and Pompei's boat ramp. We strongly object to removal of the boat works and boat sheds (leaving only one dry dock), and grassing of the vehicle area, for reasons given above. We do not want pseudo heritage/maritime structures replacing real heritage and working maritime structures. Please restore the approximately 100-year-old boat hut next to the creek. The consultants propose removing the existing boat ramp and building another a little upstream where it appears there would be no vehicular access and no boat-trailer parking. This will not be a functioning boat ramp. Pompei's boat ramp is convenient near the parking area, and it is a waste of effort and money to move it.

· Pedestrian railway underpass. David Digby's tentative plan for Attenborough Park includes a footpath alongside the creek on the north bank, under the railway bridge, from the former Port of Melbourne Authority depot. This would be a much more attractive and functional option than widening the existing concrete underpass, as proposed in the Draft Plan. We consider that the existing pedestrian underpass and narrow path between the railyard and railway should be closed, not widened. This is likely to be supported by the rail authorities as it would reduce access by train vandals and help prevent the ongoing problem of vandalism to trains. The existing footpath along the creek should be continued under the railway alongside the creek. This could swing north on the eastern side of the railway to meet the existing path near the end of the railyard. Disabled access would be easy, the path could be very attractive with suitable indigenous plantings, and it could lead directly to the proposed Park Street car park. (Note: the GHD plan is incorrect—the railyard extends almost to where the railway crosses the creek, and the underpass is actually a little further downstream than shown.)

· Pedestrian bridge to Attenborough Park. We agree with this proposal, but suggest it be located further upstream and aligned with our preferred position for a pedestrian underpass next to the creek and with our proposed position for a footpath/vehicle access across Attenborough Park. (See comment above and under 'Attenborough Park', below.)

· Park Street assorted commercial buildings and yards. These are shabby and could do with some tidying. We wish any development to be limited to 2 storeys. A new road access from Park Street to the railway car park is quite unnecessary, as there is an existing access just around the corner in Bear Street.

· New car park in Park Street to replace timber yard. The Action Plan has an important error. It does not show the existence of the grotty narrow pathway beside the rail sidings from the proposed Park Street car park to the equally grotty pedestrian underpass under the railway. Because of this, the walk from the car park to the creek would be most unattractive, and few people would use it. Also the proposed car park may not serve commuters as it is rather far from the railway station. A small car park may be useful, but it would need indigenous shade trees and screening from the road with indigenous plantings.

· Nepean Hwy bridge and rail bridge. What to do about the ugly Nepean Highway and rail bridges? The consultants have not made any suggestions. Our thought is that local schools might be involved in working out ideas for beautifying both bridges. This could be exciting and educational for the kids involved, and would give them a sense of 'ownership' and pride in the area.

Attenborough Park:

We consider that this area needs much more thought. Some months ago, we spoke to David Digby about this. He agreed that a committee of interested local residents, traders, and community groups should be set up to consider future usage of Attenborough Park and what might be the most appropriate overall plan to achieve these purposes (as we are presently doing for Drills Land). It is widely agreed that there need to be changes to the parking area, toilets, footpaths, lighting and plantings, and that there has to be a new focus for the park, which might possibly be an eating place. However, we consider that GHD have not given sufficient time and consideration to the future needs for Attenborough Park but have merely applied standard formulas to create a very superficial plan. Therefore, we strongly reject the proposed Action Plan for Attenborough Park in its entirety.

However, we feel compelled to make specific comments as follows:

· Indigenous Garden. This area is currently a memorial to the Bunurong! An indigenous garden would be excellent, but only if a memorial to the Bunurong and interpretive signage are incorporated. This is the last site of Bunurong occupation, and must be acknowledged and included in interpretive signage about local history. (Could local Kooris be consulted?) We suggest a larger indigenous garden with informative signage about local fauna and flora and their importance to the Bunurong, and about the Bunurong lifestyle and lives of the last full-blood aborigines of the Mornington Peninsula who lived in a camp right here. This indigenous garden could be an important educational and tourist attraction.

· Commercial eating places, and existing toilet block. We strongly oppose the loss of park to a restaurant, café and kiosk complex. We agree that some upgrade to the existing bluestone toilet block may be appropriate.

· Shared boardwalk. The proposed boardwalk under Nepean Hwy is impossible because Mordialloc Creek is tidal and the boardwalk would be under water twice daily. Essentially there is insufficient space between the creek level and the road-bridge for a boardwalk. There could be a sealed walkway similar to that under the north end of the bridge. Also there is no reason for a boardwalk alongside the creek east of the Nepean Highway, because a simple footpath along the creek bank is cheaper and more appropriate for many reasons. Shared paths are problematic, so we suggest a separate bicycle path some metres back from the creek.

· Car park. The car park, as shown on the Draft Plan, divides the passive recreation and events area into two—this is not a good idea because it limits future usage (it is the same mistake as was made in Peter Scullin Reserve). Car parking alongside the railway may be appropriate, but this should be considered in relation to a complete rethink of the future of Attenborough Park, as mentioned above.

· Dividing Attenborough Park. We suggest a clear separation be provided between the indigenous garden/aboriginal memorial and the passive recreation/events area, by a pedestrian path linking the proposed footbridge to Nepean Hwy, and/or an access road to the car park.

· Picnic area. We agree with an upgrade to picnic areas, but please include indigenous shade trees and vegetation.

· Boat users, and mooring. The Draft Plan appears to provide no car access for boat users. These boats do not require trailer access, but they may require vehicle access for materials, tools, etc. We agree with mooring improvements, but suggest both permanent and temporary moorings are made available.

· Public creek-side access behind the Bridge Hotel. We strongly support public, pedestrian access along the creek here.

· Nepean Hwy pedestrian crossing. The road crossing should be suitably positioned in relation to the footpath across the park. (See note above.)

Groves Reserve:

· We strongly oppose housing development on the Spastic Centre site; it is it is too noisy a location for housing to be sandwiched between Station Street, the railway and Nepean Hwy. And the development may threaten the remnant coastal banksias, and the aboriginal shield/scar on the Mahogany Gum tree.

· We suggest the Spastic Centre become a car park for a Sunday market or other events in Attenborough Park, and for beach users. Or the facilities could be used for a library or community centre.

Central Mordialloc—Commercial Core and Main Street:

· Commercial Core site sections. The Commercial Core site sections are highly inaccurate and give a grossly distorted impression of what is proposed. For example, according to the Commercial Action Plan, Centreway actually has 3 or 4 storey buildings on both sides for almost its entire length—this is not indicated in the 'typical section B-B'. This 'typical section' gives a very false impression of how Central Mordialloc would be.

· Building heights and setbacks. We strongly object to the proposed 4 storey maximum building heights and zero setbacks, because they will overwhelm and change Mordialloc's old fishing village character. We consider 2 storeys with zero setbacks rising to 4 storeys to be far too unfriendly and imposing along Beach Road, Centreway, and Owen Street (where 3 and 4 storeys would overlook residences down Montgomery Street). Beach Road has enough 2-storey buildings with zero setbacks already. We want to see a 2-storey maximum with setbacks to allow for canopy trees, gardens/courtyards, wherever new commercial development occurs, preferably with 1 storey rising to 2 storeys in a stepped and staggered manner.

· Centreway. We strongly disagree with 3 to 4 storeys along Centreway. Centreway would become a dark, unwelcoming, windy canyon, and icy in winter, because offshore winds would be funneled between the tall buildings. We suggest cafes and/or beach themes are appropriate for Centreway, and art themes more appropriate for Owen Street. The curb outstands and shade trees, although attractive, could impede Safeway customers and deliveries.

· Multi-level carpark. A multi-level car park is more space-efficient and less intrusive here than extensive street level car parking bays. But the multi-deck car park should be no more than 2 storeys plus a basement level, and its bulk should be screened and softened.

· Arts/culture precinct. Owen Street has an intimate feel compared with Centreway or Beach Road, and is more suitable for an arts/culture precinct, with the Diversity bookshop already setting the tone. A pedestrian mall between Montgomery Street and Main Street would also contribute to the atmosphere. Beach Road does not have the right ambience for an arts precinct.

· Plaza. Mordialloc needs a plaza for people to relax and watch the world go by. We suggest a plaza between Owen Street and Centreway behind Main Street shops. This would more strongly connect Owen Street to central Mordialloc.

· Beach Road community housing. Low-income residents have a right to live in and enjoy Mordialloc as much as anyone, and the residents should be asked whether they want to move. Perhaps the gardens and fencing could be improved.

· Beach Road office block. This ugly, bland building monopolises the best position for views in Mordialloc. It needs a better façade, and a better use.

· Spanish Mission character. The proposed Spanish Mission theme for parts of Central Mordialloc is not at all appropriate. Spanish Mission style of the ex-RSL building on Beach Road has been largely removed by development of the Latitude café. The former style was a one-off and is not representative of the general fishing village character. We suggest old photographs of Mordialloc be studied to find suitable architectural styles for Central Mordialloc.

· Old police station. Please limit any development height to 2 storeys. This is a good position for a small hotel, museum, art gallery or theatre.

· Shop facades. Mordialloc’s old character could be enhanced if restoration of original shop facades was encouraged in and around Main Street.

· Main Street roundabouts. We do not see a reason for a wire mesh barrier on the roundabout at the north end of the village—there is no barrier at present. There should be indigenous coastal vegetation on both roundabouts.

· Main Street medians. We disagree with the full closure of the median opposite Bear Street in front of Safeways. There needs to be a second access point to the service road near Safeways for north bound traffic only, because traffic entering the service road at the first access point could cause congestion at the roundabout nearby. Also potential shoppers could miss the first access point and not bother to stop if there were no second access point. The southbound service road access point, opposite Owen Street, needs to be modified to prevent the dangerous practice of motorists shooting across Nepean Hwy to Owen Street. We prefer medians retained in full or, better still, the broader medians to be reinstated in full, and parking spaces relocated to the multi-level car park. We also prefer bluestone kerbs to the medians, as they suit Mordialloc's old character better than concrete kerbs.

· Street furniture. This does need improving. Regarding planters, the bluestone itself is good—it adds a distinctive old character to Main Street—but the planters have been poorly constructed, poorly planted and poorly maintained, and some planters are under shop awnings so receive little rain.

· Civic clock tower and Canary Island palms lighting. We feel that usage of night uplights should be limited in the village because they have more impact if fewer lights are used, and for reasons mentioned under General Comments.

· Civic map. Relocate the Civic Map from outside chemist to the civic clock tower, or to the station forecourt, or both.

Railway Station:

We support most of the proposed improvements to the railway station and its environs. Other comments follow:

· Heritage railway station. Please retain the existing railway station as part of a welcoming village atmosphere.

· Railway plaza/forecourt. We agree with the proposed upgrade to the station forecourt. The focal Canary Island palm should be surrounded with grass and bluestone to match those in Main Street.

· Plaza bookends. The height level must be limited to 2 storeys, because 3 storeys would hide and overwhelm the attractive heritage station.

· Bear Street pedestrian access. Please keep the peppercorn trees.

· Car parks. All need shade trees, and we prefer indigenous plantings.

Nepean Hwy/North Gateway:

We are generally in agreement with the proposals, especially improving the area around the railway overpass with colour and coastal vegetation. Other comments follow:

· Medium density housing. Medium density housing in-fill is increasing rapidly in and around Mordialloc and does not need promoting, especially as it creates an undesirable uniformity and an unnatural community with fewer children. We believe a mix of housing types—low, medium and high density to 2 storeys only—is more appropriate for a balanced community and for housing aesthetics.

· Signage. We suggest 'Welcome to Historic Mordialloc' signs between the railway overpass and Main Street top roundabout and at the Nepean Hwy bridge over Mordialloc Creek.

· Canary Island palms. We agree with a new line of palms by the Kingston Club, but disagree with night uplights, for reasons mentioned under General Comments.

· Kingston Club. Please limit any expansion to 2 storeys, and protect neighbours' amenity.

George Woods Reserve (District) Playground:

We strongly oppose the retrograde step to remove neighbourhood playgrounds and parks, and the installation of fewer but larger district playgrounds. The trend to reduce the number of playgrounds means that many children will be denied frequent access to a playground. It will also result in a net loss of much needed green, open space, which is one of the amenities we pay our rates for. Therefore, we do not support the expansion of the George Woods playground. However, we do suggest a skateboard/bike ramp near J. Grut Reserve and the Old Wells Road and Governor Road intersection, because teenagers in and around Mordialloc have few recreational outlets.

Governance:

We strongly object to the appointment of a Mordialloc Place Manager and Task Force. A manager and task force would have to create reasons and ways to change Mordialloc in order to justify their positions. This could cause even more of Kingston's rates revenue to be used for projects in Mordialloc that are unnecessary or ill conceived.

Our Conclusions:

There is some good in the Draft Mordialloc Future Plan, but very much of it has not been well thought through or simply is inappropriate for the historic village character of Mordialloc. Most sections of the Draft Plan are really still in a very early stage and should certainly not be considered as anywhere near final. Much more thought needs to be put into what is best for Mordialloc residents; for those who work or shop or run businesses in the village; for the ecology of the area and, most important of all, to ensure that the next generation will inherit a Mordialloc with all its present-day charms intact.

Whatever form this proposal for the Future of Mordialloc finally takes, there will always be some uncertainty whether the best choices have been made. This is inevitable, and it is why we believe that even in its final form it should be no more than A Guide to the Future of Mordialloc.

Yours sincerely,

Name Withheld.

Back to the MBCL Resource Page