P a g e 1 | 117

WRITTEN STATEMENTS

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

22 December 2020

P a g e 2 | 117

Item 10.1 Response to Petition - request that Council place on hold plans for

redevelopment of the Bayside Netball Centre in Holloway Road,

Sandringham, pending consultation with residents (page 5)

1. Mr George Reynolds

2. Miss Stephanie Batten

3. Mr Paul Langley

4. Mrs Dana Meadows

5. Mrs Susan McCombe

6. Mr Steve Malcolm

7. Mr Tim Green

8. Mrs Rubee Carter

9. Mrs Kylie Charlton

10. Mrs Sarah Murray

11. Mr Renato Fonti

12. Ms Gail Bergmann

13. Mr Alan McCombe

14. Mr John Douglas

15. Mr Malcolm Bursell

16. Ms Kellie Tighe

17. Mr Tony Taggart

18. Ms Jalpa Dattani

19. Ms Susan Parks

20. Ms Anita Reynolds

21. Dr Amy Touzell

22. Mr Julian Hine

23. Mrs Julia Muller

24. Mrs Nicole McDonald

25. Mrs Amanda Heron

26. Mrs Penelope Zissis

27. Ms Karen Kimber

28. Mrs Leigh Brittain

29. Ms Sue Forster

30. Mrs Stephanie Green

31. Mrs Tanya Jones

32. Mrs Michelle Ayyuce

33. Mrs Anna-Louise Brown

34. Mrs Tatyana Dankevych

35. Mrs Kathrin Baumann

36. Mrs Eve Walsh

37. Ms Robyn Johnstone

38. Mr Stefan Baumann

39. Ms Jenny Terzic

40. Mr Harley Johnstone

41. Mrs Gita Pearce

42. Mrs Sonja Johnson

43. Mrs Anna Beynon

44. Mr Brad Chubb

P a g e 3 | 117

45. Ms Katrina Roach

46. Ms Kimberley Andrews

47. Ms Felicity Frederico OAM

48. Mrs Sarah Sime

49. Ms Robyn Johnstone

50. Mr Andrew Sime

51. Mr James Atkinson

52. Ms Rachel Visser

53. Mrs Katrina Earle

54. Ms Brooke Phillips

55. Ms Kris Pierce

56. Mrs Alison Brown

57. Mr Trevor Gibson

58. Mr Shane Peters

59. Dr Helen Green

60. Mr Murray Collins (on behalf of East Brighton Vampires Netball Club)

61. Mrs Kathryn Harby-Williams

62. Dr Caroline Baker

63. Mr Pathik Mehta

64. Mr Ian Celantano

65. Mrs Samantha Barrow

66. Ms Sally Jovanovic

67. Mrs Georgina Fliedner

68. Mr James Carroll

69. Dr Marie Feletar

70. Mrs Angela Moscati

71. Mr Greg Hagger

72. Ms Tania Walker

73. Mrs Emma Masteran

74. Mr Michael Norris

75. Miss Emily Fraser

76. Mr Peter Meadows

77. Mr Oliver Maass

78. Mr Kirsten Fengler

79. Mrs Michelle Morgan

80. Ms Carolyn Dea

81. Mr Graham Scull

82. Mrs Sharon Anderson

83. Mrs Joanna Fletcher

84. Mr Ian Fullagar

85. Mr Andrew Charlton

86. Ms Amanda Mannion

87. Mr Adam Touzell

88. Mrs Jade Ghoukassian

89. Mrs Sue Langley

P a g e 4 | 117

Item 10.2 Pennydale Structure Plan abandonment – access and movement

actions, advocacy feasibility update (page 88)

1. Mr Rodney Strange

2. Mr Fraser Gibson

3. Mr David Rothfield (on behalf of Bayside Climate Crisis Action Group)

Item 10.3 Hampton Community Infrastructure Feasibility and Masterplan

(page 96)

1. Mr Tony Batt (on behalf of Hampton Neighbourhood Association)

2. Ms Michelle Osborne

3. Mrs Jan Garratt

4. Mr Joseph Tiong

5. Mr Tatiana Stemmer

6. Mrs Rina Leeuwenburg

7. Dr Jonathan Nightingale

8. Mr Peter & Mrs Helle Collins

9. Miss Leanne Karlich

10. Mr Michael Vanderheide

11. Mrs Lindy Fagan

12. Mrs Susie Sedgwick

13. Mrs Lorraine Lyzdorczyk

14. Ms Lindy Tribe

15. Mr Robert Blair

16. Mrs Mary Bean

17. Mr Warren Miller

18. Mr William & Mrs Gillian Stubbs

19. Ms Sally Manson

20. Mrs Rosanne Osborn

21. Mrs Roseann Lenihan

22. Ms Marlene Johnson

23. Mr Graeme Woolard

24. Ms Gabriele Buzatu

25. Mrs Margaret Balmer

26. Mr Tony Shepherd

27. Mr Geoffrey Fagan

28. Mr Ian Spence

29. Mrs Roslyn Berry

30. Mr David Osborn

31. Mrs Tegan Minson

32. Mr Dean Varndell

33. Mr John Dulfer

34. Mr John Stanford

35. Ms Felicity Frederico OAM

P a g e 5 | 117

Item 10.4 Economic Development and Tourism Strategy update

No Written Statements received.

Item 10.5 Update on the performance of the Community Nursery under the current

Civil Infrastructure and Open Space Management service delivery

contract (page 112)

1. Ms Pauline Reynolds

Item 10.6 Council Proposed Bayside Community Reactivation Grants Program

No Written Statements received.

Item 10.7 Sustainable Infrastructure Policy update

No Written Statements received.

Item 10.8 Application of Council's Seal to a notice (in relation to the removal of

library trust at Higinbotham Hall)

No Written Statements received.

Item 10.9 CONTRACT CON/20/99 Reconstruction of Beaumaris Reserve Sports

Pavilion, Beaumaris

Item 10.10 CONTRACT CON/20/125 Reconstruction of Sandringham Athletics Track

at 149 Thomas Street, Hampton

Item 10.11 CONTRACT CON/20/128 Construction of Five Playgrounds

Written Statements not permitted to items 10.9 to 10.11

Item 10.12 2020–21 1st Quarter Performance Report (July–September) (page 114)

1. Mrs Caroline Lawton (on behalf of Beaumaris Conservation Society)

Item 10.13 Council Action Awaiting Report

No Written Statements received.

P a g e 6 | 117

Item 10.1

Response to Petition –

request that Council place on hold

plans for redevelopment of the Bayside

Netball Centre in Holloway Road,

Sandringham, pending consultation

with residents

P a g e 7 | 117

1. Mr George Reynolds

QTC 221220.

Have your Say – agenda Item 10.1

Councillors, the proposal to move the Netball Centre to land under the control of another party is

not a function that gives Council any ownership or rental potential. It is plainly wrong to supply

ratepayer funded services to ventures that fail to bring benefit the municipal community. The

resolution of the 2016-2020 Council, made at the September 15th 2020 meeting (Agenda Item 10.1)

to support a state government funded project was plainly unlawful. Reasons are:

1. The 2020-2021 budget allows only $227,000 to be spent on this capital item. The power to enter

into a development agreement, and commit expenditure up to $15million, was improperly

delegated to the CEO, as unbudgeted spending is ultra vires, and

2. The CEO has already authorised for $750,000 to be spent and a further $2,250,000 to be spent in

February 2021. This is an activity that is prohibited by Council’s Procurement Policy, and

3. To authorise this spending, a revised budget must first be put before Council (complete with s223

process) and approved. It is only then that any purchasing commitment may be made, and

4. The source of funds document in the budget shows funds allocated to the venture being sourced

from Council Cash. The only source of Council Cash available to Bayside Council, which is

unrestricted and available for Council’s discretionary spending, is to be supplied from any surplus

funds generated from Own-source Revenue. and

5. The budget omits the presentation of an Own-source Revenue statement

HENCE , there is no valid budget provisions (or intended allocation) for the Bayside Netball Centre.

Councillors, The choice is yours. You may continue to support this improper conduct delegated to

your control by the previous Council. You will then inherit responsibility for the unlawful activity. It

may have an outcome in the Courts.

Alternatively, you may wish to bring the disastrous Netball Court activity to an end. This may restore

the reputation of Bayside City Council to one which meets the high standard of integrity expected

from an elected Councillor.

P a g e 8 | 117

2. Miss Stephanie Batten

I am writing to object to any proposal to relocate the Bayside Netball Centre project to Holloway

Road site.

The impact from traffic, light spill, parking, noise, court reflection and shadows will be huge.

There is no way that the Holloway site can accommodate what is proposed.

School traffic is enough.

You clearly thought the original site was good enough until someone realised the budget was

going to be a bit too high! Did you not think to test the site extensively before deciding on a site.

Well you did, as according to the council site:

'The test results confirm the site is suitable for the construction of the new netball centre and the

project can proceed to the next stage.'

It would make much more sense to build this project in the industrial area, not a residential area.

Most projects of this size are built away from residential.

The original project had a proposal for 300 car spaces, now it's 114 (shared with the school) and

suddenly you don't need that many carparks.

You also seem to believe that you'll be able to restrict the amount of whistles to game day, I have

no idea how you would police that. We know that once this is built, it would be of no concern to

council.

The current area is used extensively by all walks of life day and evening. It is a link from Bay

Road to the Merindah Park trail and dog park. The Tjilatjirrin Reserve will be overcrowded and

what happens when Baseball returns.

Where will the football clubs train, where will weekend cricket be moved to. All you’re doing is

moving one sport in so other sports have to move out. It doesn't make sense. More sport will

have to be relocated somewhere else.

How do the school feel giving up any space they may have to grow. They are bringing extra year

levels over to this area, which means more teachers, more students to pick up and drop off, more

foot traffic.

The council are hiding behind the VSBA's powers to build without consultation. Which in itself is

ridiculous. Considering it is an old school in an older area.

I mean did the council think they own this land - or do the school??? The council maintain the

area on the basis that the community can use it outside of school hours.

Get your definition of community right - the community is the community - not the netball

community, not the school community.

It would be a huge impact on the Bay Road heathland sanctuary, birdlife and all the beautiful

flora and fauna. There is already plenty of rubbish littered along the walkway beside the reserve.

Why haven't SDNA been asked to comprise? Why can't Thomas Street be upgraded to support

this project. The netballers come and go - they don't have to try live and function with this outside

their bedroom window.

How do you plan to mitigate the number of calls you'll get from residents if this goes ahead with

noise complaints.

What is reasonable for residents to have to deal with every day. 61.5 hours of netball, school

traffic (foot, bike, car), cricket traffic, unauthorised soccer traffic.

P a g e 9 | 117

When do we get respite from hustle and bustle. When do the residents in the aged care centre

get respite.

Once you remove green space you can never get it back.

P a g e 10 | 117

3. Mr Paul Langley

Council Meeting 22 December 2020 – agenda Item 10.1 – Response to petition that Council

place on hold plans for the re-development of the Bayside Netball Centre

Councillors, the proposal to move the Netball Centre to land under the control of another party is

not a function that gives

Council any ownership. It is plainly wrong to supply ratepayer funded capital works or services

where the benefit is not received by the municipal community. The resolution of the 2016-2020

Council, made at the September 15th 2020 meeting (Agenda Item 10.1) was plainly unlawful.

Since July 1st 2020, Council is obliged to follow the service performance principles set out in

s106 of the Local Government Act 2020. In s106(2)(b) “services should be accessible to the

members of the municipal community for whom the services are intended”. In the case of the

proposed Netball Centre, the nominated public land manager is the Dept. of Education. Any user

agreement between the land manager and Sandringham and District Netball Association or

Netball Victoria is not an arrangement to allow the land to be freely accessed by the broader

municipal community. Funds raised by rates from the municipal community cannot be spent on

assets to be placed in the control of third parties.

To provide access to school property for after- hours use by a 3rd party by way of an exclusive

lease, would not be seen by members of the municipal community as the “good value demanded

by s106(2)(c).

Council has suitable land, away from residential areas. A $24 million restricted access facility that

will be operating 40-45 hours a week is not a suitable substitute for the green playing fields, in

this residential area, which will be destroyed, by the proposed development. For Council to be

using community rates is a seriously wrong act against the municipal community. Councillors are

encouraged to look to the Local Government Act 2020 at s106(2)(a) and recognise the obligation

this Act places on them to not proceed with this development.

4. Mrs Dana Meadows

The traffic report carried out by Qantum can not possibly be taken as evidence into designing this

centre and traffic flow as it was done when schools and activities were not even In place during

lockdown. Why would you not be diligent and hold all proceedings on the project until an

accurate report is done in mid to late February so it is completely accurate? Saying you can

tweak the outcomes once another report is done if approvals have already been given is

completely irresponsible and negligent. Also I request the report be done by a completely

impartial firm who don’t do the majority of council reports currently to ensure accuracy and

honesty.

P a g e 11 | 117

5. Mrs Susan McCombe

We implore council to put an end to the proposed Netball Centre on Holloway Road. Our streets

are already dangerous, as evidenced most recently on Friday afternoon, with yet another serious

motor vehicle accident on Bay Road. The hastily prepared traffic report, based on historical, pre-

COVID lockdown information, and not considering any input from the very residents that KNOW

and understand traffic flow the community, cannot possibly be in any way an accurate predictor

of traffic flow and future safety of our streets for our residents. The recent accident highlighted in

no uncertain terms, the dangerous effect of traffic incidents in our streets as they are now. Add to

this, the significant increase to those traffic levels, and we light the fuse for escalating danger

levels. This cannot be allowed to happen. The streets WILL be clogged with netball players and

visitors, 7 days/evenings per week, with no respite for the residents of our community. If there

happens to be an emergency, not necessarily at the netball, but involving one of our neighbours,

how will emergency services reach our citizens? Cars continuously parked wherever possible on

the streets, more than likely avoiding the car park, traffic driving up and down looking for parking;

all this while the residents struggle to get into and out of their own homes. Then there is the

noise, 5 evenings per week, and all weekend. When are we to have any respite? Whistles,

sirens, cheering, cars.....unrelenting noise, 7 days per week. My final point is in relation to

parking for residents and our personal visitors.... Where will visitors to our homes park? How will

we enter and exit our own driveway safely? With cars constantly parked anywhere available, and

the heavy stream of traffic moving through our streets? It comes back once again - THIS IS A

DANGEROUS PROPOSAL AND MUST BE STOPPED. We beg you not to look at this from the

perspective of the money being offered, but think of the human factor for the greater community -

the people of our neighbourhood, the people that BCC claim to represent. By continuing with this

proposal, you are NOT representing anyone in our community.

6. Mr Steve Malcolm

QUESTION 1...

Cooke St is currently subject to peak hour weekend restrictions such that cars are limited to

parking on one side of the street. This was put in place a number of years ago by BCC for safety

and traffic flow reasons and, despite requests by local residents for it to be removed, BCC have

insisted it remain as recently as the last few months.

The proposed parking restrictions to support the requirements of the netball centre not only

remove this restriction (thus allowing parking on both sides of the street during peak times) but

include additional peak times on Mon-Fri during which parking on both sides of the street is

allowed.

What has materially changed in terms of safety and traffic flow such that parking on both sides of

the street is now recommended during peak periods?

QUESTION 2...

Would vote “yes” to this proposal if, between the peak hours of 4pm-9:30pm Mon-Fri and 8am-

9:30pm Sat-Sun (i.e. 54.5 hours per week) you were faced with constant whistling and shouting

from 9 outdoor netball courts within 10m of your living area?

If you answer yes to this question then please provide the associated rationale

P a g e 12 | 117

7. Mr Tim Green

Statement of Objection to Item 10.1; RESPONSE TO PETITION - REQUEST THAT COUNCIL PLACE ON

HOLD PLANS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BAYSIDE NETBALL CENTRE IN HOLLOWAY ROAD,

SANDRINGHAM, PENDING CONSULTATION WITH RESIDENTS

At this meeting, after dismissing the validity of the petition, Council plan to reaffirm their

commitment to the proposal to co-develop a Netball Centre with the VSBA at the SSC oval on

Holloway Rd.

BCC has recently launched a high visibility initiative extolling the virtues of transparent and honest

community consultation and engagement. Yet at this evening’s meeting you have disclosed that you

have already paid $750K to initiate design process for the new development and that a further

$2.25million will be paid likely in early Feb 2021. How does this align with Council’s commitment to

community engagement, when we right in the midst of that process for the proposed Netball Centre

development. Council must not have any vote this evening that reaffirms anything regarding the

Netball Centre until the community engagement process is complete. Anything less than this would

make a mockery of Council’s recent pledge.

Tim Green

8. Mrs Rubee Carter

What rights do the council have over the netball courts? I believe I read it’s a 20yr lease. What

happens after that lease expires? Can any changes be made to the courts and buildings without

VSBA approval? As in if they want to add or change things.

Is there a risk that the school eventually needs the land to expand and takes it back, leaving

Netball without a home in Bayside. With so many apartments being built the demand for school

places will increase.

I’ve asked before and still haven’t got an answer as to why the council is not keeping the Thomas

St Courts. Isn’t this new development still short of the number of courts Bayside Netball needs?

Also It’s not uncommon for teams to play in different locations. Keeping Thomas St would give

bayside netball enough courts to grow into, and traffic would not be as bad in both locations.

Maybe we wouldn’t need parking restrictions added to our streets.

If there is already night lights at Thomas St, then it could reduce the need for lights at the

Holloway Rd. And the bronze wing will be less affected. Instead of daily light at night it might only

be needed for bigger competitions. Or they could choose to use the courts further from away the

reserves at night. We need to do all we can to protect our endangered wildlife.

Could the delivery systems for leaflets and emails regarding the netball courts be reviewed, as

not all netball news is arriving on time or at all in some cases.

Thanks.

P a g e 13 | 117

9. Mrs Kylie Charlton

Ban the backyard fire pit had a total number of 3-5 complaints and Council consulted the

constituents.

This Netball project in 4 days created 138 submissions of which only one was read out (That is

not council process for Request to be Heard protocol). Why weren’t all read out? We submitted a

petition of over 700 names and signatures against the project in 4 days - it was ignored. How can

council’s consultation response to these issues be so drastically different?

I would like some public explanation of why Council intend to spend $10-$15m of ratepayer

money on a project that is on state government land. Ratepayers/council will have no access nor

control over the project yet we are paying for the privilege of the noise and traffic havoc this will

bring to our streets.

Parking permits will be granted to residents, however, please explain to me how I will continue to

entertain (as I love to do) when people cannot visit my home on a weekday or weekend for more

than one hour OR they have to park on Tulip Street. It is absurd to expect this. Further the

council’s suggestion we can order visitor parking permits and pay $81 for the privilege was taken

as a complete insult.

My three children will soon all be driving as will many other children from households in this quiet

little pocket. Where would Council intend for them to all park? The traffic plan has been

generated through COVID and Quantum themselves suggest that it will need re-addressing.

To mitigate the noise and traffic congestion I respectfully ask you all to consider refurbishing the

7 courts at Thomas Street Hampton and add only a small amount of courts at Sandringham

Secondary College. I understand the Sandringham District Netball Association would like to have

a central hub, however it will be to the detriment of the residents, of which most in this quiet

pocket are ratepayers. There are 200 car parking spaces for 7 courts in THomas Street (not

including on street residential parking) and 98 (or 114) spaces for 12 courts at Sandy College.

The traffic cant cope already at Thomas Street. Why would you consider bringing it to a dead end

street?

I am very concerned with the way in which council has addressed this matter and in fact I do

believe the true process has been compromised by a “just shove it anywhere” approach.

I believe we will all be looking back with regret when kids have been killed and the congestion

gets worse and worse.

P a g e 14 | 117

10. Mrs Sarah Murray

Dear Councillors,

I am writing to inform you of my grave concerns regarding the proposal by the Bayside

Council to collaborate with Sandringham Secondary College to build a 12 Court netball

centre on the school grounds at Holloway Road. I have followed this project since it was first

publicly announced and given constructive ideas and suggestions. However, even with all

the new permit proposals, I know that these narrow residential roads will not handle the

amount of traffic that the 3000 netballers will bring on a weekly basis. I have submitted my

concerns on individual issues in the survey but regardless of all the issues council have tried

to address with this project, I still have the following concerns;

1. How are nine outdoor netball courts going to help the school community? The school

does not have a netball team and the only game they will be able to play on there is

netball. They will not make the courts multi-purpose because then State Netball will

not be able to play on them.

2. The school is growing rapidly with the whole of the school moving to the Holloway

Road campus (apart from year 9). This may be valuable land needed in the future to

build extra classrooms and facilities that will benefit all the students.

3. The accessibility to the site is totally inappropriate and not safe. The narrow deadend

road already services two schools, a scout hall, and a Japanese school so is at capacity

as it is. The safety of the children not only at the schools, but also from the surrounding

residents, is compromised. There is no way of making any road safe when you have up

to 350+ cars coming down it an hour after school and during the weekends, not to

mention the proposed number of netballers that will be utilising the courts during

school hours.

4. The parking provisions are grossly inadequate. 98 carparks are not going to service

over 3000 netballers a week plus the school community.

5. The Council intends to use the Wangara Road acoustic report dated 28/10/2019 for the Sandringham Secondary College, this now being the proposed site of the Netball Centre. It clearly states that the noise levels from all sources exceed acceptable levels and therefore will profoundly affect nearby residents.

The nearest neighbouring residences are approximately 60 -70 metres from the nearest outdoor court to the homes on George Street. At the Sandringham Secondary College site they are at a distance of 17 metres. Given this information, why does Council not see the need to commission an acoustic report for the Sandringham College site?

P a g e 15 | 117

6. Bayside Council need to demonstrate how they think they are adhering to the Local Government Act 2020 in relation to Community Engagement Policies for this and other projects as their conduct to date and at present does not reflect this potential adherence.

7. There will be $15,000,000 of ratepayers money put towards a project that is on state land. Ratepayers will have no access to the facilities, yet it is our rate money that is paying for traffic havoc and noise pollution (through constant whistles and sirens) that will have an enormous impact on our quality of life and have an affect on our mental health.

8. The parking permits given to each household are inadequate. This is a quiet family area that has, and will have, teenagers that will need parking spaces. We moved to this area for the space and ease of life (knowing that there is traffic disruption during school hours). Outside these hours we should be allowed to have parties/guests without having to seek permits from the council. That is not what Sandringham was about when we moved here and this quality of life should not be allowed to be compromised.

We have two children that currently attend Sandringham College and one in grade five so

we don’t speak only as a local residents. The school desperately needs more facilities but

not a monstrous sized complex that is of little service to the school and will have a

detrimental effect on the local residents and school communities. Three indoor multi-

purpose courts would be a massive boost to the school sporting facilities, that could be used

by the many diverse sports that the children all enjoy playing in the area. The remaining

outdoor courts should be moved to the Wangara site where there is room to expand an

extra 12 courts in the future. $10,000,000 is not a lot over a thrity year period to address

the landfill area.

We really do ask you to consider moving this complex back to Wangara Road or refurbish

the Thomas Street courts. As it currently stands, Netball is no better off, simply replacing

eleven Thomas Street courts with twelve Holloway Road Courts and where traffic issues will

be even more horrendous than the current courts. There is still a shortage and will cause

enormous adverse implications to so many school and residential communities.

Kind regards,

Sarah Murray

P a g e 16 | 117

11. Mr Renato Fonti

I am objecting to this use of the Holloway Sporting Grounds as an indoor/outdoor Netball venue.

My objection to this on a number of grounds, namely these include : -

* The noise factor from the activity on playing days will be enormous, just visits Thomas St on a

Saturday when games / competition are on, the noise will adversely impact residents at

SandyHill apartments & residents at the Aged care facility.

* Floodlighting issue – there will be spillage of light into neighbouring residential accommodation,

with best intentions this will happen. Local native wildlife will be impacted, many are nocturnal &

the noise & lights will drive them away from the greenbelt.

* The parking & traffic congestion will be awful – Holloway Rd. is a single narrow road & the

traffic will be unmanageable, just observe Spring St Oval on Soccer training nights or Thomas St

on Athletic meets – Holloway Rd. is worse as it is a court & entry needs to be via Bluff Rd. or

spillage into Cooke St,

* The loss of sporting fields within Bayside is awful – the Council continuously says they have

lack of grassed sporting facilities – this field should be maintained for grassed sporting activity./

* Many people use these grounds as off leash dog walking, these grounds are ideal for this

purpose, this will further push more activity to Park Rd or the Spring St ovals.

* The views from apartments at SandyHill & the Aged Care George St Complex will be

permanently altered – looking at roofs & building structures.

* A facility like this is better served in a quite non residential area – like somewhere like a light

industrial area – similar to the Moorabbin Rugby Club in Keys Rd. Moorabbin.

12. Ms Gail Bergmann

There has been a fundamental lack of due process and resident consultation in relation to the

proposed netball complex in Holloway Road. A significant number of affected local residents are

against the development on the grounds of parking issues, traffic management, child safety,

noise and light pollution and yet all concerns appear to have been ignored. This development is

unacceptable and irrevocably impacts our ability to enjoy our local environment. Residents do not

want this and our voice should be heard and our concerns acknowledged.

P a g e 17 | 117

13. Mr Alan McCombe

I implore on the Bayside City Council to re-consider their proposal to develop the new Netball

Centre in Holloway Road, Sandringham.

What is to happen to the original location in Wangara Road? Council has paid out the driving

range operator, so is it going to be left as it is? It will soon become an eye sore and potentially

even be vulnerable to graffiti. If it is to be remediated why not now rather than wait several years

and it cost even more.

If the Council wants to work with the VSBA and take advantage of State Government land as part

of the Sandringham College Master Plan, why not establish the Netball Centre at the College's

Bluff Road campus as 75% of their students are moving to Holloway Road campus.

As far as the Traffic Management Plan is concerned where is the reference in that document as

to what impact the Saturday morning language school and the additional students from Bluff

Road will have on the Netball traffic?

Also I note in the picture taken in the Traffic Management Plan shows a boat and trailer parked;

are such activities taken into consideration.

I have also just discovered that Council are suggesting that ratepayers will have to purchase

visitors parking permits.......this is simply rubbing salt into the wound!

14. Mr John Douglas

Mr Mayor and Councillors. The Sandringham Secondary College site is totally unsuitable for a

Netball complex of the proposed magnitude planned. We are fortunate to have both a Primary

School and the Secondary College in our well settled residential area, bounded by Bluff Road to

the west and Merindah Park and the Urban Forest to the east. We are used to increased traffic in

the mornings when people are leaving for work and parents are dropping off children at the

schools. The same occurs in the afternoons after school.

District Cricket matches cause little or no disturbance at weekends. To construct and operate, a

"commercial" style Netball Complex on Education Department land, is just not the right way to

spend ratepayers' money. The College is indeed, most fortunate to have their own green playing

fields. These are used frequently by not only Sandringham East Primary School, but other

nearby Primary Schools that are not as fortunate to have their own. They regularly arrive for

sport by bus.

Once this valuable asset has gone, it will be gone for ever. Turning half the Oval into Netball

Courts is one thing, but turning a large proportion of the remainder into a roadway and a Car

Park is ludicrous.

With the expected 3,000 players a week, parking is a huge problem, but even more so, will be

the frequent movement of vehicles arriving and departing or cruising about, looking for

somewhere to park, whilst watching the clock for the start time.

The associated noise that accompanies Netball is quiet unbearable with sirens and whistles. This

is a huge loss of amenity to all the ratepayers and residents who live in the immediate area. We

have been told that our property values have dropped considerably in the last few months and

several properties have already been sold or are on the market. Evidently the Secondary College

have NO Netball teams. The Tennis Courts are used all the time, but they are to go. I strongly

recommend that a suitable site is found in an area that is compatible with net ball and where the

associated traffic and noise will not cause pain and suffering to residents.

P a g e 18 | 117

15. Mr Malcolm Bursell

I require that the proposed Netball project proposed at Holloway Rd Sandringham be cancelled

immediately and a more suitable location be used.

16. Ms Kellie Tighe

Ban the backyard fire pit had a total number of 3-5 complaints and Council consulted the

constituents.

This Netball project in 4 days created 138 submissions of which only one was read out (That is

not council process for Request to be Heard protocol). Why weren’t all read out? We submitted a

petition of over 700 names and signatures against the project in 4 days - it was ignored. How can

council’s consultation response to these issues be so drastically different?

I would like some public explanation of why Council intend to spend $10-$15m of ratepayer

money on a project that is on state government land. Ratepayers/council will have no access nor

control over the project yet we are paying for the privilege of the noise and traffic havoc this will

bring to our streets.

Parking permits will be granted to residents, however, please explain to me how I will continue to

entertain (as I love to do) when people cannot visit my home on a weekday or weekend for more

than one hour OR they have to park on Tulip Street. It is absurd to expect this. Further the

council’s suggestion we can order visitor parking permits and pay $81 for the privilege was taken

as a complete insult.

My two children will soon all be driving as will many other children from households in this quiet

little pocket. Where would Council intend for them to all park? The traffic plan has been

generated through COVID and Quantum themselves suggest that it will need re-addressing.

To mitigate the noise and traffic congestion I respectfully ask you all to consider refurbishing the

7 courts at Thomas Street Hampton and add only a small amount of courts at Sandringham

Secondary College. I understand the Sandringham District Netball Association would like to have

a central hub, however it will be to the detriment of the residents, of which most in this quiet

pocket are ratepayers. There are 200 car parking spaces for 7 courts in Thomas Street (not

including on street residential parking) and 98 (or 114) spaces for 12 courts at Sandy College.

The traffic cant cope already at Thomas Street. Why would you consider bringing it to a dead end

street that will attract over 6000 cars each Saturday and Sunday?

I am very concerned with the way in which council has addressed this matter and in fact I do

believe the true process has been compromised by a “just shove it anywhere” approach.

I believe we will all be looking back with regret when kids have been killed and the congestion

gets worse and worse.

P a g e 19 | 117

17. Mr Tony Taggart

Sara, I will keep this brief and in point form because neither of us has the time for long-winded

notices

1) I’ve completed the survey despite the fact that it is biased in favour of a favourable outcome

for the Bayside Council. This email forms part of the answers to questions that I have in relation

to the survey. It must be read in conjunction with my survey submission.

2) Even with 90+ car spaces being provided on the site there will 100’s of other cars all looking

for a space to park. Traffic in Holloway Rd, Holloway close, Cooke St, Green Pde, Reno Rd,

Spring St, Park Ave, Clark St and Miller St will be chaotic. The intersection of Holloway Road and

Bluff Rd will be a nightmare and will cause build-ups of gargantuan proportion.

3) The traffic study of 108 pages is completely wrong because the underlying premise is false.

It’s false because it was predicated on traffic flows in Holloway Rd in October when there were

no schools and we were in lockdown because of Covid -19 restrictions. To use this report is a

travesty.

4) I don’t think that the Council has taken the time to establish the human impact of the 9 outdoor

and 2 indoor courts. The ebb and flow of human beings will be enormous. My calculations of the

increased numbers for each week are: i) 4752 people a week coming through the center, ii) it will

require 1188 additional car movements a week. Add to that the number of students at both the

primary and secondary schools and the chokehold that the cars to service that population

already has, fills Holloway Rd, Park Ave, Cooke St, Green Pde, Clarke St, Miller St now. Add to

that the number of residents who have 2 to 3 cars per household at least 1 of which has to be

parked in the street. Just where are the additional 1188 cars a week going to park? Certainly not

in the 90 car spaces being provided on the school property. Every street in the area is narrow,

making bus, garbage truck and emergency vehicle movement problematic at best and impossible

at worst. Deaths of excited children and the failure of emergency service vehicles to maneuver

will be the result of road congestion. You will be responsible for those deaths.

5) The amount of traffic in an area where traffic is already incredibly congested just cannot

absorb any more. To introduce more will completely decimate the ambiance and village

atmosphere which exists between existing residents now. This is exemplified by the massive

opposition raised by the residents of the immediately affected areas.

6) If you have ever been to the Thomas Street Netball center, you will have measured the Db

level of the whistles and sirens? The suggestion that noise will be mitigated by staggering the

start times is a furphy because all games have to be played by reference to specified start times

and staggering those start times will create chaos on the field of play because applying sirens to

games where the siren is not required at that game will result in utter confusion and will result in

great anger. It is impossible to mitigate the sound of an umpire’s whistle unless you have found a

way that all umpires blow their whistles at the same time or that you have found a way that only

players and nobody else can hear it. Both propositions are, of course, nonsense.

7) What do you say about the Bayside Council Budget for the project of $227,000 but the actual

spend as per published reports shows that $750,000 has already been spent in 2020 and a

further $2.25m is to be spent by the end of February 2021. Upon what is the additional money to

be spent and under what section of the Local Government Act 2020 enables the Council to

spend money on projects on land that the ratepayers do NOT own or in which they have no

interest?

8) It may seem to be clever for the Council to suggest that the State Government is funding the

proposed netball development: the reality is that if the State Government own the Property and

pour money into it the outcome is then a State-owned asset and Bayside Council have no say in

the matter. What is your answer to this?

9) Please provide a complete list of the Sections of the above-mentioned Act and all other Acts of

P a g e 20 | 117

Parliament that govern the operational dealings of Council Councillors, that provides a clear path

for this Council to continue with this project! By way of example; please tell me how the

provisions of S106(2)(b) as it relates to service delivery to ratepayers, who are simply not the

beneficiaries of the development, can be lawfully satisfied.

10) Please advise how the Council’s Funds Statement which covers the source of cash can show

that all cash received comes from Ratepayers when we have been told publicly that that is not

the case? Does this not mean that the Funds Statement is not only wrong but deceptive, false,

and misleading in that it is recording a flow of funds, not from ratepayers or any ratepayers’

functions, for a project over which the ratepayers through its representative Council has no

control, interest or ownership?

11) Please advise what sections of the relevant Acts provide indemnity to elected councillors for

their continuation of dealings that have been shown to them to be unlawful in the opinion of

ratepayers.

Have Your Say – Agenda Item 10.1

Councillors, the proposal to move the Netball Centre to land under the control of another party is

not a function that gives Council any ownership. It is plainly wrong to supply ratepayer-funded

capital works or services where the benefit is not received by the municipal community. The

resolution of the 2016-2020 Council, made at the September 15th 2020 meeting (Agenda Item

10.1) was plainly unlawful.

Since July 1st 2020, Council is obliged to follow the service performance principles set out in

s106 of the Local Government Act 2020. In s106(2)(b) “services should be accessible to the

members of the municipal community for whom the services are intended”. In the case of the

proposed Netball Centre, the nominated public land manager is the Secretary of the Dept. of

Education. Any user agreement between the land manager and Netball Victoria is not an

arrangement to allow the land to be freely accessed by the broader municipal community. Funds

raised by non-voluntary contributions from the municipal community cannot be spent on assets to

be placed in the control of third parties.

To provide access to the services in the manner proposed, in a residential area, doubling the

times of operation of the adjoining school, is not seen by members of the municipal community

as the “good value demanded by s106(2)(c).

It would seem that an appropriate commercial arrangement involving the Council is that of a

Beneficial Enterprise. (s110 and 111 of LGA2020). Such an arrangement would allow shared

financing between the users with Council role being to obtain government grants (as with a

recent golf course) and arranging a self-financing loan for the remainder of the cost. Siting on

Council land and renting out daytime usage to a range of schools would improve the financial

viability of the venture. The City of Glen Eira has followed a successful model in this regard.

Council has plenty of suitable lands, with appropriate planning zoning, away from residential

areas. A $30 million public use facility that could be operating 80-100 hours a week is not a

suitable substitute for the green playing fields, in a residential area, which will be destroyed, by

the proposed venture. For the Council to be misappropriating money from the community rates

and charges is a particularly grievous insult to the municipal community. Councillors are

encouraged to look to the Local Government Act 2020 at s106(2)(a) and recognise the obligation

This Act places on them to cease work on the venture.

Yours faithfully

Tony Taggart

P a g e 21 | 117

18. Ms Jalpa Dattani

I would appreciate if Bayside Council could address below concerns:

1. How and when will community consultation be done?

2. What steps Council intends to take to allay concerns regarding traffic congestion, parking,

noise?

The parking suggestion for allowing one visitor parking is not fair with a fee of $81. How are we

supposed to have friends/ family over when all the streets will be full of Netball parking? These

are residential streets and we have kids and friends and families visiting all the time. One visitor

per household doesn't do justice, plus where are they meant to park when there is no space. If

this project goes ahead, then no streets should be compromised. There is limited car parking

anyways with the Soccer and hence Netball parking should be created at another location and no

residential streets should be compromised as these are full with the current sports like Soccer,

cricket and the weekend Japanese school.

2. The traffic report should be conducted by another independent agency and not the one

appointed by Council. Also a new report should be conducted for the Holloway road facility and

not to be assumed from the Wangara Road site. These are narrow residential streets and an

influx of more than 300 cars will create a havoc in the traffic not making it safe for residents.

3. Same with the Noise levels. They are residents on all sides, not to forget the Aged Care. The

apartments are so close that the noise levels are going to be nuisance for everyone living

around. Due consideration needs to be given before the Holloway Road is considered for the

new Netball stadium.

I am concerned the way Council has approached this without any community consultation and

other factors as highlighted above.

Thanks

P a g e 22 | 117

19. Ms Susan Parks

As a resident of The Reserve at the Sandy Hill development, I am wrtiting to you again to

express my deep concern over the proposed Netball centre development. I have bought into a

very tranqil environment living at the rear of the Reserve apartments at Sandy Hill. The proposed

massive overdevelopment would destroy the amenity for me and for all residents at Sandy Hill

and also for people living in the surrounding streets on the other side of the school oval. There

would be a major increase in noise in the form of talking, shouting, cheering, whistles being

blown and increased traffic noise. I understand this would occur until 9:30 pm on weeknight and

for much of every Saturday. In addition the visual pollution caused by lights blazing from the

outdoor courts would further reduce comfort and amenity.

The considerable increase in traffic would certainly make driving more difficult, frustrating and

dangerous than it already is on busy Bay Road, Bluff Road and Holloway Road. This would

cause additional risk of traffic accidents with potential injury to school students, drivers and other

pedestrians including residents living on both sides of the current school oval. The recent very

serious accident in the area is an example of the already chaotic traffic we experience. The

report you provided by Quantum actually states that the predicted traffic movements will need

further testing after the traffic returns to normal following the COVID pandemic and I am certain

that traffic numbers will only increase if this Netball Centre is constructed at the current proposed

site.

In addition, parking spaces for residents and visitors to the Sandy Hill development and to

residences in Holloway Road and Wangarra Road would likely be taken up by people playing or

attending netball. There would also likely be large numbers of people walking through the Sandy

Hill development or on the path beside the Heathland sanctuary to and from cars parked in

surrounding streets.

I believe Council genuinely reconsider all the sites that have been previously condsidered for this

Netball centre and understand that Council previously rejected the Holloway Road site for this

development due to it being in a residential area. This is clearly still the situation now more than

ever and therefore the same rationale should still apply. I also believe council should not be

spending ratepayers' money on a project sited on State Government land as ratepayers and

Council will not have control of the development.

This massive development should not go ahead on the Holloway Road site.

P a g e 23 | 117

20. Ms Anita Reynolds

Again we implore you to postpone any further commitment to this nearsighted development in a

totally unsuitable location.

Previous use of SSC oval has always been passive recreation NOT aggresive which will be

severely deterimental to the surrounding environment.

SSC oval lies in the same water basin as the Wangara Rd site therefore the contamination which

is draining westward plus being closer to old Dunlop factory site increases the likelihood of soil

contamination as declared by EPA to be present in SSC oval. No testing has been done. Bayside

Council needs to clean all affected sites up as per the EPA recommendation including all

properties west ward.

Holloway Rd plan is a nearsighted version of the Wangara Rd plans, its a bandaid fix!. It will just

transfer all of the current Thomas St problems to Holloway Rd with no benefit to the ratepayers

and little benefit to SDNA after Council spending over $15 million ratepayer dollars.

- the development does little to cater for the reported needs of SDNA to carry them beyond 2030

as required. The extra courts cater for what is needed now not the future! Requirements 3 indoor

courts, 15 outdoor courts and full time access with no restrictions which is totally impossible in

Holloway Rd.

- Council is relying heavily on using ON street parking for patrons. Where do other users of the

Oval including cricket teams, soccer matches, nearby school students, Mini Golf players, Green

Belt dogwalkers, visitors to residents, Scout/Guide Hall, staff from SSC and students park their

cars etc,? Forgot to mention SEPS basketball usage and their Japanese school on Saturday

mornings and both schools have various functions like concerts, parent/teacher interviews,

grandparent days etc that will all require parking and clashing with netball. There is no parking

scheme for residents that live in Holloway Rd!

- Traffic data used in outdated 2017-2018 (due to covid) and is based on theory and is not

accurate. On street parking has been calculated into the numbers but as we all know that is hit or

miss and cannot be relied on. Residents have to park their cars also and most houses definitely

have more than 1 car. Parking is also calculated on the current usage and does NOT allow for

the acutual usage which will increase with extra players and teams if this sport is so popular. All

parking for this venue should be off site for the safety of netballers and community. Notice

entry/exit routes to Holloway Road are all residential narrow streets except George St. No major

roads or controlled intersections traffic kaos.

- Further expansion of future courts will be where? Take the SSC oval? At another location? Well

why wasn't this done NOW by upgrading Thomas St and access to say Highett School campus

where there is already courts plus indoor area and repurposed some buildings for SDNA. SSC

plans on moving students to Holloway Rd and Year 9 to Bluff Rd so what happens to all the

facilities that have been updated there? Would be alot cheaper than $15million + !! Basically the

whole campus could be turned into the new SDNA at a fraction of the cost!!

- How will they be community use when set behind SSC fencing and used exclusively by SDNA?

Netball cannot be played on multi use courts they have to have netball court markings only!

- Proposed hours are totally insensitive to such an heavily populated area 1000+ residents will be

affected.

P a g e 24 | 117

- Boom gate access will lead to traffic build up in surrounding streets

- All tests that were conducted regarding the Wangara Rd site CANNOT be used as guidelines

for Holloway Rd site. 2 totally different sites with the main factor being alot closer to residents

and poorer parking. All tests need to be redone and not guess work that could lead to serious

health & safety factors for all concerned.

- Why is Council spending over $15 miilion dollars of ratepayers money when ratepayers cannot

use it, it is being built on State land (school grounds) which will have restrictions for usage. Who

collects the rent money wont be Council they dont own it and cant guarantee a long term lease.

With increased population predictions SSC will need it for their own expansion!

I am very concerned with the way in which council has addressed this matter and in fact I do

believe the true process has been compromised by a “just shove it anywhere” approach. Proper

community consultation has been the bare essentials and I still have not received any written

notification of the proposal as a resident directly affected.

This bandaid approach will lead to a dangerous situation for all involved and rushing it through

just to work to VSBA timeframe will lead to costly mistakes maybe even fatal. No pedestrian

safety is indicated in Holloway Rd and we all know drivers get very frustrated and abusive when

running late and cant find a park.

Please delay and thoroughly investigate all aspects of this proposal and do the right thing by the

community that elected you.

Regards

Reynolds Family

P a g e 25 | 117

21. Dr Amy Touzell

My concern is that Bayside City Council has NOT performed due diligence on researching this

project or the impact it will have. It has has therefore NOT informed local residents of the

implications of the project and thus any "community consultation" (however poor) is irrelevant, as

appropriate feasibility studies have not been undertaken.

1) The traffic report is outdated and does NOT reflect current traffic flow. The traffic report, based

on an extrapolation of data from four years ago, does NOT include:

*Japanese school on Saturday mornings - 500+ students

*Years 7&8 on campus at Sandringham College

*Increased number of local residents working from home, thus increasing local traffic

*Proposed use of remaining oval for sporting commitments

The proposed 'staggered starts' for traffic management are not in line with any netball

association in Australia, and are not practical and unlikely to be adhered to by the SDNA.

The netball court proposal needs to be postponed until an accurate traffic report is completed,

due to the risk of danger to local children as well as those using the courts.

2) The lighting and acoustic reports were done ONLY on Wangara Road, which has completely

different demographics. The lighting and acoustic reports need to be repeated at Holloway Road

- in particular for the residents who live 17 METRES from the proposed courts.

The netball court proposal needs to be postponed until accurate, independent sound and lighting

reports specific for the proposed area have been completed is completed, so that the BCC, local

residents and tenants (SDNA) are aware of the potential impact for the surrounding residents

and wildlife.

3) The hours of use are completely unreasonable. It is proposed the courts will be used until

10.30pm at night, every SINGLE NIGHT OF THE WEEK. This is an enormous disruption to a

quiet, local area bounded on three sides by residential zoning including two nursing homes.

Those using the courts will be walking to their cars, cheering and making noise until well after

10.30pm. As this facility is built in the middle of residential zoning, it is expected the EPA

Guidelines for Residential Noise should apply, and these times grossly violate these guidelines.

These courts should NOT be used after 8pm weeknights and should NOT be used after 5pm

weekdays (as recommended by the VCAT ruling for appropriate noise use when Firbank

attempted to build only three courts in 2017 - see http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-

bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2019/1985.html

4) Parking provision of 98 onsite carparks is grossly inadequate. Allowing one-hour parking in

surrounding streets simply encourages those using the courts to clog up the local streets rather

than use Wangara Road and George Street as suggested. To mitigate this, parking should be

permit-only in surrounding streets from 4pm weekdays and all weekend.

5) Council collaboration and communication with local residents has not met their own, nor the

VSBA, standards. Letterbox drops have NOT been received, the 'have your say' queries have

not been answered, emails are not reposnded to in a timely fashion, a ONE HOUR Q&A session

did not provide any avenue for interaction and feedback, and the time frame for 'community

consultation' has been incredibly short. The wellbeing of the local residents has been

compromised by the unilateral consultation process and lack of engagement, creating mistrust

and a sense of disempowerment during a year that has been incredibly stressful for local

residents (who are not all employed with the security of a stable pubic service job). This has

resulted in a poor working relationship between local residents, council and the SDNA which

could have been improved, and can be improved moving forward, by better communication and

two-way consultation.

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2019/1985.htmlhttp://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2019/1985.html

P a g e 26 | 117

I propose this council POSTPONES further development for the Bayside Netball Facility until

appropriate due diligence has undertaken. I suggest the idea of 'split courts' be investigated with

the indoor courts as part of the school redevelopment, and outdoor courts either at a

redeveloped Thomas St site or Wangara Rd site. Urgent civil engineering reporting needs to be

undertaken at Wangara Rd to investigate the costs of outdoor courts only at this venue, which

would also mean the millions of dollars paid to evict existing Wangara Rd tenants, and

investigating the site, would not be wasted.

P a g e 27 | 117

22. Mr Julian Hine

My daughter loves netball in Bayside. She is presently taking part in a camp across 21-23

December and so enjoyed herself today after a year without much netball. She is also looking

forward to improved facilities to help progress her game. Please support the proposed netball

facility as advocated by SDNA.

23. Mrs Julia Muller

I have been made aware that our long awaited (and discussed) indoor/outdoor netball facility is

once again being treated as a minor priority. To say we’re disappointed would be an enormous

understatement. This has been so long coming, and we started to get excited this year as it

seemed the matter was finally being taken seriously and could even come to fruition at last! It

was an exciting development in an otherwise horrendous year! And now this.

We are begging you, please don’t push this important issue down your list of priorities, as it is

very much needed in our community. I trust you will listen to your people and carry this matter

forward, as it deserves to be.

Kind regards

Julia Muller

P a g e 28 | 117

24. Mrs Nicole McDonald

Dear Councillor

I am writing to you as a Bayside resident, parent of children schooling in the area, and a very

interested party to the Bayside Netball Community.

Many years ago, when we celebrated the announcement of the new facility site in Wangara Road

and the Federal Government funding, I was beyond excited.

At the time, I was a local netball club president, and was turning girls away from playing sport

with their friends, because Bayside did not have the facilities to support them in their sporting

interest. So this announcement was an extremely welcome relief.

Bayside is a collection of family suburbs still, and with that comes children and all things

associated with them. Including childcare, schools, and sporting facilities. I believe there are 9

secondary schools in the area- that would strongly demonstrate that families are wanting to live

in Bayside. We have the schools, but do we have the extracurricular facilities for these children?

In a time when online screen time soars amongst our youth as do the issues that go with this eg

online bullying leading to suicide, self esteem issues, and a raft of other health related issues, I

hated that I could not provide a sporting community where children could belong, to better their

health and their sense of place.

If COVID has taught us anything, it has shown us the importance of our kids playing sport, and

the positive impact this has on their mental wellbeing.

Netball is the single largest female participation sport in this country, and Bayside City Council is

capping how many of its residents can play because there are simply not enough courts. The

lack of courts and access to those courts means that every year we force players to leave the

sport…the exact opposite to what we should be doing.

I ask you, on behalf of my children, to support the development of netball courts in Bayside.

Yours Nicole McDonald

25. Mrs Amanda Heron

Bayside residents need access to indoor and outdoor netball facilities. These courts will give

players access to permanent and affordable facility. Sport is so important to our community spirit.

I can’t wait to see my daughters play netball with their friends.

P a g e 29 | 117

26. Mrs Penelope Zissis

Netball courts are needed in the bayside district. Participants playing the sport netball are

disadvantaged as the courts at Thomas st are not up to the standard of a competitive level. In

our bayside area we have some very talented young children who are not being given the

opportunity to play on the best facilities.

we need one site so as families can watch all their children throughout the day at one site.

parents cant be at 2 games in different streets but can be at 2 games standing between 2 courts

watching both children.

logistics, costs and to build 2 different sites would make the costs to council and the

Sandringham Association expensive like Wangara had blown out to. We also need to remember,

that netball is an affordable sport for families and a fantastic team sport for participants. the new

site would allow us to have participants in all aspects. In our district we have participants From all

abilities to 18yrs of age but with the new site we would be able to offer over 18yrs of age instead

of people travelling kms away to do this and also walking netball for all ages and abilities. No

other sport is offering this in the area.

As a council you are doing an injustice to the sport that is the largest played sport in our country

Australia for all genders and abilities.

the federal government was behind the project and as a local council you are not supporting the

future young stars of the sport by giving them the best opportunity.

P a g e 30 | 117

27. Ms Karen Kimber

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

Re: 10.1 RESPONSE TO PETITION - REQUEST THAT COUNCIL PLACE ON HOLD PLANS

FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BAYSIDE NETBALL CENTRE IN HOLLOWAY ROAD,

SANDRINGHAM, PENDING CONSULTATION WITH RESIDENTS

There currently exists two successful private partnerships between the MCC and the Education

Department of Victoria at Beaumaris Secondary College (Bayside City Council) and Elwood

College (City of Port Phillip). These partnerships provided a unique opportunity for students and

the local community to access world-class sporting facilities, which will be used by students

during school hours and by the MCC’s sporting teams and local sporting groups outside of

school hours.

Regardless of age, gender and ability, anyone can play netball, have a great time and learn skills

to take into their everyday life. The number of young people playing Netball in Bayside has

surged post Covid to become one of the biggest team sports’ and the highest participation sport

for girls.

As netball is a team sport, children learn valuable social and communication skills as they work

with others as part of a team to achieve a common goal. There are seven different positions

within the game that each require different skills and abilities that challenge players of all abilities

to develop teamwork, coordination & fitness. Along with valuable life skills, keeping young people

connected and fit is important for their positive health and well-being.

The planned partnership between the Federal Government (Tim Wilson), State Government

(Sandringham Secondary College) and Bayside City Council will provide a wonderful multi-

purpose sports facility for the School which will address their need for modern sports facilities

while providing opportunities for Council to access fit-for-purpose sports infrastructure. This

project seeks to provide a recreational and sports related area to use for all school related

activities and hours, including unfettered access at recess and lunchtimes. The SDNA, through

BCC, will have the opportunity to have a facility far superior to those currently available at

Thomas Street which have been long overdue for an upgrade.

The Bayside Community has been extensively consulted via the “Have your say page”, a zoom

to address the concerns of residents by Director of the Environment, Recreation & Infrastructure,

Adam McSwain and received the results of a traffic impact report (attached to this meeting

agenda) to address the concerns of the Holloway Road residents.

Please continue to do the right thing by the community of Bayside and provide dedicated spaces

for the community to participate in organised sport.

I hope that the majority of Bayside City Councillors will reaffirm its support for the proposed

netball development at Sandringham College, Holloway Road campus.

Regards,

Karen Kimber

P a g e 31 | 117

28. Mrs Leigh Brittain

I request for the Bayside City Council to not put on hold plans for redevelopment of the Bayside

Netball Centre on Holloway Road.

My daughter plays netball as part of the SDNA for a number of years now. It is concerning to us,

as parents, that all netballers in this district are under-provided for netball as a sport in our

community.

Our facilities at Thomas Street do not need the current and future needs of this sport - both from

access, tenure, capacity and affordability considerations..

We have had a number of delays in securing the right facilities to support this sport -please do

not delay this further. Let’s continue these plans, engage with the broader community to address

any concerns and find a way to support these sports people in enjoying their netball - just like we

do for all sports in our community.

Thank you for considering this request.

Leigh

29. Ms Sue Forster

I believe the rationale for the proposed 11-court community-use Netball Centre at Holloway Road

is that there are currently insufficient courts in Bayside to meet the demands of a growing

population. If so, why is Council proposing to close the seven netball courts at Thomas Street

after the Holloway Road site is developed? Surely a lower impact and probably cheaper solution

for Bayside residents and Bay Road Heathland Sanctuary would be to retain the existing courts

at Thomas Street and build fewer at Holloway Road. This may not provide a single centre for

competition sport, but it would be considerably less disruptive to nearby human and animal

residents who will be impacted by increased noise and lights under the current proposal. Has this

been explored as an option by Bayside Council and Netball Victoria?

30. Mrs Stephanie Green

Would council please explain how the increase in exhaust pollutants and noise created by traffic-

calming speed humps in George Street will be managed for local residents, especially residents

in the aged care facility situated directly adjacent: George Street carries a significant number of

heavier vehicles to and from the industrial estate and units every day; the noise created by

heavier vehicles travelling over traffic-calming speed humps is also significant. Has this issue

been taken into consideration and if so, how will it be managed?

P a g e 32 | 117

31. Mrs Tanya Jones

Beyond being a game, it's critical to understand what netball really means to our children, our

families and our community.

The benefits are enormous and far reaching:

Netball is an affordable, local sport. Netball gives children skills to be proud of, friends outside

school and a sense of belonging to a team.

Netball helps children learn new skills and keep fit and active, which is incredibly important for

their health and self-esteem. Through the teens and well into adulthood, people continue to play

netball, which is a great way to keep fit, meet new people and have some fun.

Netballers learn to set goals and work hard to see their skills improve. They learn the value of

practice, practice, practice.

Children learn how to play as a team and think like a team member, not just about themselves.

They learn to support each other. They learn how to win and how to lose graciously. They learn

how to get along with people. They learn how to dig deep and play hard to secure a win, or at

least to hold their heads high. They learn from their mistakes in a safe place. They learn to be on

time. They learn to believe in themselves and trust others. They learn the importance of saying

thanks, and, win or lose, they learn to shake the hands of their opposition.

Children and their families make friends and create a sense of belonging and community for

themselves, their coaches and their families. Netballers (and their families) love a good chat and,

in normal times, on a Saturday and at netball tournaments, our community can be found beside

the court talking, laughing, braiding hair, singing to music and eating together. If you stop and

have a listen at these events, you will learn the true magic of netball. Girls find their friendship

tribe in netball. This is critical in their emotional development as they journey toward adulthood.

Netball gives children a safe space, so that if other parts of their life aren’t going so well, then

they have their netball. The value of this cannot be underestimated.

As a parent, netball has given me so many wonderful memories. Watching my girls play their first

matches, seeing that first goal, first win. Seeing them miss out on opportunities and grand finals,

but then work hard and get there the next time, or the time after that. Netball has also given me

valuable alone time with my daughters as they turned from children into teens - and that time to

talk, bond and laugh has been an incredible gift.

As a community and as our local council, we should all be doing everything we can to encourage

children to play in team sports. Netball is the most played sport by girls in Australia, but the

current Bayside netball facilities are inadequate and in no way do they meet the needs of future

netballers.

The current court space at SDNA has limited court space (thereby limiting how many children

can play and when they can play, with some children missing the Saturday morning playing

experience or - devastatingly - not being able to play at all) and sub-standard facilities.

As Baysiders, we are lucky to live in such a fortunate area, where our children have so many

opportunities within and outside school. There are multiple, very adequate sporting facilities for

so many codes of community sport, but, sadly, not for netball.

P a g e 33 | 117

It is only fair and just that an adequate netball space and facilities are provided to allow children –

of today and tomorrow - to play this mainstream, growing, much-loved and much-needed sport.

This is not just an investment in sport, but it is an investment in our children and our communities

sense of well-being.

These discussions around providing a new netball space and facility have been occurring now for

a very long time. It belies belief that with all of the discussions, promises and words of support,

that action has not been taken to secure the future of netball in Bayside.

As the saying goes, it’s better late than never – and the time is now. Please, look beyond the

cost and the difficulty to the real cost of not providing an adequate netball facility in Bayside –

and that cost is the health and sense of well-being that some netballers – our children – are

missing out on and will continue to miss out on until action is taken.

P a g e 34 | 117

32. Mrs Michelle Ayyuce

The netball facilities in bayside have not kept up with demand. The result is girls drop out and do

any sport, dont play anything or move outside the area to play. the result is lost community

connection, roles models and access. Why should netball miss out? My daughter has played for

many years and there is simply not enough courts - which results in more byes, shorter games

and playing on different nights. The girls deserve access to more courts and we should meet the

demand which has been an issue for 10 years.

33. Mrs Anna-Louise Brown

With a new council in place, we need to trust that after years of failure to resolve the netball

issue, this council will finally rise to the challenge and get things done rather than pussy footing

around.

It is a simple case of ploughing through the issues and providing adequate facilities for Bayside

youth to be able to engage in one of the most popular sports in the country. At a time when

mental health is a priority and team sports are uppermost in tackling this problem.

An adequate mix of indoor and outdoor Courts, in one location is what is required. The outline of

requirements has been provided to council countless times. (and it won't go away. This is

becoming multi-generational it's taking so long)...........

The pros and cons have been gone through multiple times.

If council can't organise some netball courts, it's a huge worry. Stop hesitating, pontificating and

holding onto the ball for too long, just score a solution.

If you get this one solved and bedded down, each member of the council will be able to smile

and know that it was them that solved a decades long problem.

P a g e 35 | 117

34. Mrs Tatyana Dankevych

Dear Councillors,

There is no doubt that women and girls sport require support and proper facilities to be built.

However, this should be done with respective procedures in place and with the local community

being heard.

It is a well-known fact that Sandringham Secondary College does not have a netball team and

the number of netball players representing the College amounts to 0 (zero). In view of this could

you please explain in more detail what does the school gain from this development? The

proposed netball complex takes away the school grounds which potentially could be used for the

new classrooms or further facilities to be built and used by the college.

On the other note, could you please also bring some more light to the Council’s intention to

spend millions of rent payers’ money to development of the land which does not even belong to

the Council, but rather is state government owned?

Why Holloway Rd site was earlier never deemed to be suitable by the very same Councillors,

however, now in great hurry is pushed (yes, I will use this word) by the Council? Deep inside I do

hope that this is not only in order to avert the requirements of the Bayside Planning Scheme as I

am confident, a project of this scale and such a negative impact on surrounding community

would have never received the green light if proper procedures and protocols have been

followed.

You are asking for our feedback to assist “making the area safer for the local community”, may I

please ask you in which way our community will be safer when you bring 300-400 cars HOURLY

to our local quiet streets in after school hours and EVERY weekend? Who will be accountable for

the fatalities or injuries caused by the recklessly driving parents of netball players trying to get in

time to the game through the congested streets?

Besides, the findings of the traffic management report are based on the historical data, they do

not take into account existing parking congestion during weekends due to Saturday Japanese

school at Sandringham East Primary school, baseball, cricket and soccer games on the ovals.

How many contemporary traffic simulations have been run for this project?

As a Cooke Street resident may I please ask you to explain where our guests should park as

there is either 1-hour parking limit or parking permit zone on all the streets nearby? Are we

limited to 1-hour entertainment for the next 20 years (unless our friends are using taxi service, or

park on Tulip Street and walk, or willing to pay a fine every time they visit here and park nearby)?

What if there are more than one or two drivers in the household each having an own car – where

are they supposed to park as there is just this number of cars a street can accommodate?

We will also be subjected to ongoing noise of whistles, bouncing balls and cheering parents and

teams. Please note this is ONGOING noise every single afternoon of the week followed by every

single weekend day. There will be no escape for us from this noise. Wangara Rd acoustic report

(dd 28/10/2019) is completely irrelevant to the proposed development on Holloway Rd and an

independent acoustic survey must be conducted for this site and affected residents should be

informed accordingly. As a mother to three young children, I am asking you to please think well

before you decide whether this project should go ahead. It is in your hands to prevent the

devastating impact on the surrounding community which will last for decades and will certainly

not be a good legacy to leave behind.

Thank you for listening,

Tatyana Dankevych

P a g e 36 | 117

35. Mrs Kathrin Baumann

My concern is that Bayside City Council has NOT performed due diligence on researching this

project or the impact it will have. It has therefore NOT informed local residents of the implications

of the project and thus any "community consultation" (however poor) is irrelevant, as appropriate

feasibility studies have not been undertaken.

1. Ban the backyard fire pit had a total number of 3-5 complaints and Council consulted the

constituents. This Netball project in 4 days created 138 submissions of which only one was read

out (That is not council process for Request to be Heard protocol). Why weren’t all read out? We

submitted a petition of over 700 names and signatures against the project in 4 days - it was

ignored. How can council’s consultation response to these issues be so drastically different?

2. I would like some public explanation of why Council intend to spend $10-$15m of ratepayer

money on a project that is on state government land. Ratepayers/council will have no access nor

control over the project yet we are paying for the privilege of the noise and traffic havoc this will

bring to our streets.

3. The traffic report is outdated and does NOT reflect current traffic flow. The traffic report, based

on an extrapolation of data from four years ago, does NOT include:

*Japanese school on Saturday mornings

*Years 7&8 on campus at Sandringham College

*Increased number of local residents working from home, thus increasing local traffic

*Proposed use of remaining oval for sporting commitments

The proposed 'staggered starts' for traffic management are not in line with any netball

association in Australia, and are not practical and unlikely to be adhered to by the SDNA.

The netball court proposal needs to be postponed until an accurate traffic report is completed,

due to the risk of danger to local children as well as those using the courts. This traffic report

needs to consider all other traffic aspects from the surrounding community such as Sandringham

East Primary School teachers and parents who drop off and pick up their children, Sandy College

teachers and parents, regular term events such as parent teach interviews, school performances,

Saturday sports at Spring Street such as the Sandringham Soccer Club, Baseball Club etc.

Hence, I request all decisions or movements on the project be stopped until an accurate traffic

report in early to mid Feb 2021 is available when schools and activities are back. I also ask for it

to be carried out by an impartial company who doesn’t do regular council work.

4. The lighting and acoustic reports were done ONLY on Wangara Road, which has completely

different demographics. The lighting and acoustic reports need to be repeated at Holloway Road

- in particular for the residents who live 17 METRES from the proposed courts.

The netball court proposal needs to be postponed until accurate, independent sound and lighting

reports specific for the proposed area have been completed is completed, so that the BCC, local

residents and tenants (SDNA) are aware of the potential impact for the surrounding residents

and wildlife.

5. The hours of use are completely unreasonable. It is proposed the courts will be used until

10.30pm at night, every SINGLE NIGHT OF THE WEEK. This is an enormous disruption to a

quiet, local area bounded on three sides by residential zoning including two nursing homes.

Those using the courts will be walking to their cars, cheering and making noise until well after

10.30pm. As this facility is built in the middle of residential zoning, it is expected the EPA

Guidelines for Residential Noise should apply, and these times grossly violate these guidelines.

These courts should NOT be used after 8pm weeknights and should NOT be used after 5pm

P a g e 37 | 117

weekdays (as recommended by the VCAT ruling for appropriate noise use when Firbank

attempted to build only three courts in 2017 - see http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-

bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2019/1985.html

6. Parking provision of 98 onsite carparks is grossly inadequate. Allowing one-hour parking in

surrounding streets simply encourages those using the courts to clog up the local streets rather

than use Wangara Road and George Street as suggested. To mitigate this, parking should be

permit-only in surrounding streets from 4pm weekdays and all weekend.

7. Council collaboration and communication with local residents has not met their own, nor the

VSBA, standards. Letterbox drops have NOT been received, the 'have your say' queries have

been addressed with standard responses, a ONE HOUR Q&A session dial in details were

emailed 15 minutes after the meeting had started and did not provide any avenue for