Seaford

Residents were already very concerned about FCC's proposal regarding Seaford Foreshore Activation last year. We were assured by local councillors that this would not lead to development of inappropriate hard surfaces and infrastructure on the Seaford Foreshore, yet this is exactly what is being proposed.

A letter sent to all Frankston Councillors regarding proposed development on Seaford Foreshore:

Dear Councillors,

Residents were already very concerned about FCC's proposal regarding Seaford Foreshore Activation last year. We were assured by local councillors that this would not lead to development of inappropriate hard surfaces and infrastructure on the Seaford Foreshore, yet this is exactly what is being proposed.

As it stands, to get natural walks through Tea Tree and Banksia along the beach like we have at Seaford you must go as far as Wilson's Promontory National Park. People flock to that park to experience those walks, yet we are fortunate enough in Seaford to have such walks on our very own foreshore. However, in recent years Council has been actively undermining the natural beauty of these walks. These are not improvement works as claimed in the Council's letter to residents, but rather vandalism of a unique, natural foreshore environment.

I ask what is behind this? This creeping infrastructure and development on the Seaford Foreshore is not only ruining it, it makes no sense. Where is the push for these developments coming from? Certainly not the community. One can only assume this is a plan being pushed by Council staff.

I am certainly opposed to this proposed development. We have already lost some of our natural tracks along the creek with the rail trail, and in general the level of hard surfacing and development in Seaford is already greatly increased with the rail crossing project. Furthermore, Seaford Foreshore has already been subjected to the installation of a number of hard paths and unnatural lighting.

Can Council please provide a justification for this proposed development that indicates that this not just another project imposed on the community by Frankston Council and/or DELWP?

Regards,

Matthew Mitchell

see:
Seaford Foreshore Activation: Armstrong's Rd

Seaford Foreshore development

Frankston Councillor Glenn Aitken was notified on Thursday 12 March that the LXRP 'works' east of the railway line at Seaford will proceed without further consultation. "It is likely they will remove more vegetation immediately.They will flatten pretty much everything on the eastern side of the railway line from Eel Race Rd to Coolibar Ave. There is no right of appeal as it is on their land which...they conveniently forget... is still public land, owned by the State." This is the clear message that authorities need to hear and heed,as expressed by Cr Glenn, "Our natural environment is not negotiable and must be protected."

You can watch more of Cr Glenn's inspirational Proclamation of 24 February here:

Unfortunately the 'authorities' are not listening to the community, but to the population boosters and developers in and close to government.
Please let your protests be heard and voice your opposition to the wilful environmental destruction without delay to Sonya Kilkenny MP for Carrum :
- telephone her office at (03) 9773 2727
- post on her Facebook page :https://www.facebook.com/SonyaKilkennyMP/ and alert others
- post on other social media platforms
- alert your friends and contacts

Whether or not the vegetation is on railway controlled land is irrelevant.
The vegetation is still a vital connection to the coastal corridor.
Birds, native bees, animals or other inhabitants of the coastal corridor don’t look at a tree and choose not to go there because it’s under railway and State governance.

Cr Glenn is arranging a public meeting and further notice will be given when arrangements are finalised.

Today, 24 February 2020, Frankston Councillor, Glen Aitken, led a protest with a proclamation against the destruction of trees in a section of rare bush habitat along Kananook Creek. His speech is transcribed inside this article. The Victorian Railway Level Crossing Removal Authority is the author of what appears to be arrogant and gratuitous removal of precious old trees and bushland. This bushland is part of a several kilometer connected habitat that runs along the banks of Kananook Creek. The purpose of the moonscaping of this area is to construct a concrete bicycle path that no-one here wants. Ironically the State Government and the Greens have been promoting cycling as a healthy 'green' activity, whilst using it to spearhead land-clearing in bushland and parks. Residents feel that this shock and awe approach is to soften them up for the execution of an overall plan to infill and overdevelop this area, as part of the State and Federal Governments' project of engineering population growth and overdevelopment, at the behest of the property development lobby, whom they serve.

Cr Glen Aitken acknowledge the Bunerong people and those attending, including people who had travelled quite a distance. Additionally he acknowledged the people who in the past and the present and into the future have fought so strongly for the environment in Frankston and surrounding municipalities and beyond. We would be lost without their efforts. He aknowledged Cr Steve Toms who also attended.

Transcript [1]

"Today is a powerful affirmation of our values and determination to guard and cherish our land. Today is an opportunity to send a clear message to parliament and authorities that our natural environment is not negotiable, and must be protected.

This is a proclamation on behalf of our community to stand strong against planning totalitarianism. And to challenge any government or authority that claims to have listened to the community and then turns around summarily to brutalise land and places we all love.

In the beginning, the Aboriginal people gathered on this land, where we stand today. They hunted and fished for survival. They cared for the land and lived with it in harmony. Kananook Creek was once a vital waterway, connected to the vast Carrum Carrum Swamps, part of the huge and extensive ecosystem, which has now largely vanished. The creek and its associated vegetation has long been treasured as it represents an irreplacable reserve that can never be replicated again.

Throughout the years, many people, particularly from the mid-20th century, to this present time, have engaged in heroic labours and struggles to save both Seaford Foreshore and Kananook Creek from degradation and exploitation. They have held high the torch of environmental justice.

Only recently, Frankston Council, creditably, opposed any further development of the Green Wedge, and Council's decision is vindicated. By contrast, the wilful destruction of coastal vegetation here is absolutely shameful, and totally contrary to widely accepted environmental principles and public expectations. How has this happened?

There are numerous ways to 'arrive' with a 'misreading' of public opinion, through surveys and other means, such as methodology. Anyone can get a staged answer according to the style of question that is asked, which in turn can produce the exact result that was wanted and engineered in the first place. Another way to silence anyone who speaks out, is to subject them to public embarassment or political ridicule.

Many people complained throughout the entire consultation process, but information was difficult to pin down, and [they] were not satisfied with answers that lacked substance. Our own council had difficulty in securing detail when we requested information, and were taken by surprise with outcomes.

Given the tree losses that have occurred, it is only reasonable many are now asking, 'how did this happen'? Local MPs should answer to the community for what has been done. A thoroughly detailed and educated approach ought to have been taken. And what is going to be done to ensure that this does not happen again?

In Seaford, with this project, there must be a rethink and proper consultation before any further works are carried out. With a huge population increase planned for Melbourne, we have seen a loss of values we have all cherished, such as local identity and character being bulldozed to make way for towering monoliths and multilevel appartments.

Our history is being lost and the places we identified with are vanishing. Residential overcrowding, loss of green space and canopy trees, with housing prices escalating, far beyond the means of many, who will never be able to purchase, and continue, as they age, in rental, 'til they are forced out through inability to pay. That has changed the social landscape.

Our native reserves, our green wedges, and any other open spaces are consequently more important and more critically needed than ever before.

[Picks up a silver coloured cup full of woodchips.] These remnants are from a tree that was about 80 years old and therefore began its life as a young seedling at the end of the Great Depression and the outbreak of World War Two in 1939. It saw the reconstruction years of the 1950s and it continued to spread its branches, providing shelter and food to native birds and animals. It saw the turn of the millenium and continued to cast welcome shade and held its place with pride in our landscape - until this February, when it was unforgivably dragged to the ground and destroyed. These chips are the body and the spirit of the tree and I now return them to the earth.

In adversity and hardship, we grow stronger and, in the face of environmental brutality, our voice becomes louder. We will never surrender to stupidity.

We urgently seek greater recognition and protection for all native vegetation. We demand that government and all relevant authorities rewrite consultation formulars to guarantee real consultation processes instead of public pantomime. We call upon the State Government and associated authorities to account for what has happened here in Seaford. And Carrum, for that matter.

I'm going to just add one more comment about Carrum. The vaunted proposal was to provide a place with lovely parks and new facilities. When you go through Carrum today, and see what has happened, and that almighty grey monolith of concrete and steel - it has cut the guts right out of Carrum. It has destroyed Carrum as a kind and generous low-key postal destination forever. That is unforgivable!

And, we call for a complete reassessment of state planning policy in order that strong, clear and visionary policies be written and enacted, that are based on the human values that protect the history, environment, and liveability of the greater metropolitan area."

NOTES

The transcript made by the author of this article from the video.

Frankston's Cr Glenn Aitken is now asking for your support with your attendance this coming Monday near the Seaford Scout Hall next to Seaford Station at 1PM, 24 February 2020, when he will make a proclamation against such vandalism.

To all tree lovers and protectors of the environment,

You may be aware that the crossing removal works at Seaford have led to the terrible destruction of many significant mature trees. This has caused an outcry in the community.

Frankston Council has written this week to LXRA (The Level Crossing Removal Authority ) seeking assurance that further vegetation removal works will be paused pending a more thorough consultation with Council and the community.

Frankston's Cr Glenn Aitken is now asking for your support with your attendance this coming Monday as follows:

"I am making a proclamation at Seaford near the Scout hall next to Seaford station at 1 PM on Monday 24th Feb. 2020. It will be about the vandalism by LXRA. Would you be able to be present and also spread the word to all environment groups and community members that value our history, coast and vegetation?"

Please make every effort to be there to lend your support and let as many others as possible know about this!

We publish here correspondence with Frankston Council over residents' objections to unilateral replacement for bluestone toilet blocks with inferior and costly new ones. The bluestone bricks were not recycled within the council and it is not yet known where they have gone or who may have finished up with them. This toilet inquiry by locals has shown its use in focusing on a small but important unit and asking simple questions, which may yet educate a public more or less overwhelmed by the scale of the ongoing dismantling of Melbourne. The photographs show how well the toilet unit fits into the natural environment, because of the use of natural, almost unprocessed, materials.

Questions sent to the Councilors about reasons for replacement of these toilet blocks

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:12 PM, Matthew Mitchell wrote:

Dear Councillors,

Can you please provide a justification for replacing the blue stone toilet blocks on Seaford foreshore and advise what action is being taken to review this decision ASAP - as I have raised this issue now several times with you and your officers, and not one Councillor has responded.

Following are the reasons why this decision needs review - in short the official justification does not make sense, the new toilet so far suffers the following deficiencies:

1. There is no space to get changed. I use the current toilet blocks so my kids and I can get changed and wash up. The new blocks only allow one person to fit at a time.

2. They are a shared facility - i.e no urinals for the men, the floor and seat etc in such toilets end up covered in urine. The old toilets have proven in this and other ways to be cleaner than the new ones. I have NEVER seen the old ones dirty or full or rubbish like the new one are (over 18 years).

3. The new toilets are frequently locked. People have been checking this. The existing toilets are never locked. Is this a new model for Frankston? Toilets that are locked and therefore cannot be relied on, and thus not really of much use?

4. The argument about graffiti does not stack up to evidence - the bluestone toilet block at the end of Armstrongs has hardly any graffiti, so clearly they are not being graffitied or it can be cleaned off.

5. The new toilet blocks detract from the natural environment of the foreshore, they are overly high, garish in colour and design and not appropriate for this location.

6. The blue stone toilet blocks have historical value.

7. The argument that there should be a 'universal design language' suggest a standard design regardless of appropriateness to environment and context. When was the decision make to 'standardise' all the buildings in Frankston along these lines? Can you provide evidence and records of community consultation on the need for a 'universal design language' or was that not a democratic decision, but rather one made by Council officers?

8. I suggest that there are now sufficient facilities for disabled access in terms of toilets. In any case, the disabled toilet has been to my experience - and that of others - constantly locked, so is of little use in that respect.

9. We are in a period of global warming - replacing perfectly good and durable infrastructure unnecessarily is an irresponsible use of resources, and one the features of our unsustainable society that needs to change.

10. Frankston has many poor residents for which purposes money can be better spent than replacing perfectly good infrastructure rather than maintaining what is there.

This issue is clearly of interest to the community, as since I published an article on this the middle of last month, well over 3000 people have read it, and there has also been much discussion on facebook around this issue.

In short, can you please advise on what processes you are following to have this decision reviewed?

Looking forward to your prompt reply,

Regards,

Matthew Mitchell

Councilor Response

Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2018, 11:38:36 pm AEST
Subject: Re: Answer on decisions to replace bluestone Toilet blocks

As for the other comments - I find the bluestone toilets to be, frankly, repugnant. For many reasons, many people associate the outdated bluestone model with substandard design. I personally have no interest in retaining the bluestone toilets; and I will not be pushing internally for a reversal on this approach.

I will get back to you on hours of operation re: toilets

Kris

"Until a few days ago, traffic travelling towards the beach on Seaford Rd in Seaford and turning right down railway parade would only back up in the worst of peak times. But several days ago the light sequence was changed, now it is almost permanently backed-up for several hundred metres, up on to the bridge over the freeway. [...] People in the local community are suggesting that the light sequences are deliberately being changed to cause jams so as to justify level crossing works. Certainly there is something suspicious about an intersection which rarely backed up several days ago and now is almost unusable."

26 Feb 2018

Dear Ministers,

Until a few days ago, traffic travelling towards the beach on Seaford Rd in Seaford and turning right down railway parade would only back up in the worst of peak times. But several days ago the light sequence was changed, now it is almost permanently backed-up for several hundred metres, up on to the bridge over the freeway.

Last Sunday I sat, in little traffic, through three sets of light sequence changes, each one letting maybe two cars through, before I gave up on turning and went straight ahead. This has never happened before in my almost 20 years of living in Seaford and travelling down this road.

People in the local community are suggesting that the light sequences are deliberately being changed to cause jams so as to justify level crossing works. Certainly there is something suspicious about an intersection which rarely backed up several days ago and now is almost unusable. The last several times I have used this intersection in a beach-ward direction (I use the intersection nearly every day, sometimes several times a day) I have either given up on turning and gone straight ahead, or completely turned around and driven into Frankston and over the bridge on Wells Rd, before driving back to Seaford through back streets on the other side of the railway line.

Whilst this change is deliberate for some unexplained reason and with consultation that I am aware of - I must also note that in general the levels of traffic through Seaford have dramatically increased over the past 10 years or so - over the same period that people have been selling backyards of family homes which are then developed so as to gradually double the suburb's population - a phenomenon I attribute to

1) the ridiculously high mortgages people face putting them under pressure to sell their backyards; and
2) Uncontrolled population growth.

About the two problems above it is clear that governments cannot, or do not want to, address these. But at least the light sequence is something that should be able to be fixed, and will soon start effecting traffic flows throughout Seaford and Frankston, it certainly is changing my driving behaviour.

Regards,

Matthew Mitchell
Hallifax St
Seaford, 3198

There is very little 'social housing' available around Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula, yet Council has suggested these people could be relocated to Mornington - in an entirely different community! Assuming that such accommodation can even be found - there or anywhere else. Despite no clear justification for a car park, Council is stubbornly insisting on continuing with the eviction.

As park resident Kevin explains below, the Cabin Park provides its residents with a supportive, caring community, which they may not have the benefit of with other 'social housing' options.

Below is an open letter, which has been sent to Council by the Seaford Community Committee and the St Anne's Parish Social Justice Group (a Seaford based group). These groups have had meetings with Council staff, councillors and the owner of the Cabin park. The letter calls upon Council to leave the Cabin Park intact and instead accept a legal assurance by the owner that the Cabin Park will continue operating for another 10 years (at least). The Community Committee and the St Anne's Social Justice group have also organised a workshop on Homelessness in Frankston and has invited Councillors, including the Mayor, to attend. This invitation is attached below along with the joint policy on social housing for Frankston produced by the two community groups.

---

Mayor Cr Sandra Mayer and Councillors
Frankston City Council
PO Box 490
Frankston Vic 3199

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

Re: Seaford Beach Cabin Park

The St Anne’s Parish Social Justice Group and the Seaford Community
Committee have joined to consider local affordable housing and
homelessness in our area.

We are particularly concerned at what we understand to be the Council’s
position in regard to the Seaford Beach Cabin Park.

We have organised a public meeting on this issue to which we have
separately invited you, Mayor, to speak, and separately invited all
Councillors to attend. Council staff is of course also very welcome.
The meeting will be held at the Seaford Community Centre, 6.30 –
8.00 pm, on Thursday, 27 November.

We have made every effort to understand the issue, and have had the
benefit of the views of one Councillor and two Council officers who
have generously addressed our meetings.

The conclusions we have reached lead us to strongly believe that it is
time for an all-embracing review of this issue. We are appealing to
Council to take a fresh look at this matter.

The Seaford Beach Cabin Park appears to be well managed, and currently
fills an important need in Frankston for transitional low-cost
housing, especially for lone persons. It also provides emergency
crisis accommodation.

We can see no need at this time to resume the Crown land on which the
park is partly built. This course would lead to removal of 21 to 40
units (depending on present title boundary negotiations with DEPI),
and the eviction of up to 60 residents. This would affect everyone
at the park, and likely jeopardise its ongoing viability.

The Cabin Park is an asset to the community, not a liability. Rather
than taking action to close units, we submit that Council should (in
accordance with its Housing Strategy) be doing all it can to work
with the owner, especially as he states that he wishes to continue
this operation.

In our view, for Council to persist with its proposed course would be
very harmful to the cause of addressing homelessness in Frankston.
There appears to be a stark contrast between the provisions of the
Frankston Planning Scheme and the present proposals of the Council in
relation to the Seaford Beach Cabin Park.

We appreciate that Council has a desire to increase beachside car
parking, but there are other well-located potential foreshore
car-parking sites. There appears to be little (if any) demonstrated
need for a car park in this particular location and whatever need
there is, does not compare with the clear and urgent demand for
low-income accommodation. To prioritise a car park at the expense of
vulnerable peoples’ homes, in our view, would be incomprehensible
and harsh.

We want Seaford to be a diverse and inclusive community. We do not see
Seaford as a community where all property should be developed for the
top end of the real estate market. For communities to be viable they
need a diversity of housing options to suit the diversity of needs of
people and their families. We do not see gentrification as a
priority of the Seaford community. Our first priority is the
residents of the community, or in the words of the Seaford Local Area
Plan: "build community connectedness".

We respectfully submit the following recommendations for Council’s
consideration:

1. That Frankston Council recognises the valuable contribution of the Seaford
   beach Cabin Park, and support its ongoing contribution to affordable
   housing in the municipality:

1. Council should support the retention of the Cabin Park ownership and operation
   in its present form;

2. Even if the land-swap goes ahead, the arrangement in which the Frankston
   Council leases the public land to the Cabin Park should continue, so
   that the current operation is maintained;

3. Council should take up the offer by the owner to legally commit to the site
   being a cabin park for a minimum 10 years;

4. Council should not consider resuming the Crown land for any other purpose at
   least until such time as it undertakes its Lone Persons Households
   Strategy and other substantial measures to address the affordability
   and homelessness issues identified in the Frankston Planning Scheme and
   the Frankston Housing Strategy.

5. If Council determines to proceed with the land swap and build a car-park,
   it should strongly support the owner in his representations to the DEPI
   regarding use (lease or purchase) of the small slice of land that would
   be required to save approximately 20 units;

2. If the Council determines to build a car-park then it should (as it proposes)
   engage professionals to undertake a 'closure protocol' to find
   appropriate alternative local accommodation for residents, particularly
   for families with children at local schools, people who work locally,
   and long term residents who identify Seaford as their home.
   Accommodation options at caravan parks down the Peninsula should not be
   seen as an adequate solution to the housing needs of residents. It
   should also set aside any deadline for eviction to ensure that
   residents are given the best possible opportunity to find appropriate
   alternative accommodation.

We look forward to your response and to future correspondence with
Council regarding affordable housing.

Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require further information
concerning this issue.

Yours sincerely, On behalf of the joint Working Group on “Homelessness”

David Moloney, Chairman, St Anne’s Parish Social Justice Group

Noel M Tudball B.Bus, Chairman, Seaford Community Committee

(NB Image of cabin park sign derived from one taken by Derrick den Hollander. Reused without permission.