23 August 2011

Kelvin Avenue pocket park

The item regarding the pocket park should have been reserved out before Saturday evening if further discussion was to take place. The Mayor sought fit to accept a motion from Cr Schnell that was contrary to our meeting procedures so that the item could be deferred for further debate at the City Strategy meeting on the 19th September and then again on the 26th September if reserved out next time. The original committee made a decision in favour of the pocket park after to listening to both sides of the debate. After considerable lobbying from both sides to Councillors on the weekend one of the emails said that a petition had been signed by 150 people. At this point in time I have still not seen a copy of the petition and it was not available last night. There is clearly two sides to this debate, much stems around the lack of understanding about the purpose of a pocket park and the other relates to traffic management. It is time now to take stock, to see if the opportunity to have an innovative park concept developed in our area out weighs the the very valid desires of people using the road as their current exit and entry point to East Avenue (perceived to be safer) or if it does not. I will be working in the next couple of weeks in trying to gain a deeper understanding of the issue, working at ways to improve access from George St and Mills St to East Ave and to look at other ways of developing the park area such as allowing a driveway link exit from Kelvin Ave but not into Kelvin Avenue. If there are other suggestions I would love to hear and discuss them.

21 comments:

  1. I think green space is a great idea. What about developing the land left to and now owned by Unley Council in Millswood Crescent that is waiting to be developed as a community park.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jennie, it is truly disappointing that you feel that you know what the residents want without actually asking them. The issue of the pocket park in this location does not relate to traffic management but to community safety. Also, it would seem that this location has many other issues, one being the need for ETSA to have unobstracted access to their infrastructure. This renders the park concept as an unsuitable location in this area. As you have stated, as a councillor it is your responsibility to 'look after my interest and always have the best intentions of ratepayers in mind when decision making'. Just because you haven't seen the petition doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe you could go and see it at the council offices as there are now 200 signatories.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In regards to the petition. I think the residents of Goodwood South are clearly trying to tell you something and send a message to Unley Council that this is not a proposal they are happy to accept, especially when the signatures were obtained in less than a week. Further, the majority of these people were unaware of the proposal to close that road.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The petition will be available tonight(24/8) and I will be taking the time to talk to some of the people who signed it. It was not available on Monday night which is why I supported an deferral for further debate. I did not suggest that it didn't exist. The area next to Millswood lawns is earmarked for a Community garden this concept has the support of the residents in this area. At this point I am listening to both sides of the debate and will decide.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pennywise of Francis Street24 August, 2011 19:04

    Hello Jennie, I think it is a thoughtful decision that the Mayor made to accept the motion from Cr Schnell to defer this item.
    In these times of financial hardship on families it would be deemed prudent for the council to look at better ways to spend the ratepayers money with full consultion of the residents in the area.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This may well be true and it may be time for Council to review it's entire pocket park programme and spend the money on other things, footpaths comes to mind. However, with the way that the budget is currently structured money not spent on this pocket park will be spent on developing another park somewhere else. I am waiting for the report from staff on acceleration of the footpath replacement programme.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Last night I met with Staff and a few concerned residents. Better line marking will soon be visible on East Ave to allow safe right turns from Mills St and George St. It may be possible to retain the pocket park concept and for Kelvin Ave to allow exits onto East Ave for local traffic by creating a driveway link through the park. This would address the safety issue and create a green environment in Kelvin Ave.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This seems a ludicrous idea as Kelvin Ave is already a road. Please use the money elsewhere and leave Kelvin Ave as it is.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Have to agree with Karen. When is a road not a road? Going to be hard to justify the cost for what is now becoming an ad hoc new design for a 'park' with a new road when we've already got one that's not broken...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Jennie (and Don)
    The pocket park concept is an excellent one. Thank you to yourself and Don for your efforts in trying to establish one in Kelvin Avenue.
    I clearly disagree with Karen, Pennywise and anonymous (not sure of the plural in the case of the anonymous).
    I will await the presentation of the case against the park because it must be overwhelming but to date it appears elusive. Safety issues?? Hmmm. And ETSA being obstructed? God forbid. I suppose ETSA and the state government must have been asleep at the wheel to have overlooked arranging a veto on the proposal. And clearly getting out of Clarence Park by car is the stuff of nightmares. Can't recall any serious problems myself but perhaps I haven't tried it at the right time.
    I am intrigued that the proposal was delayed at the last minute by a counsellor from outside the ward, and utilising a process that has clearly undermined the council's decision making (The Council... they were the people democratically elected to represent us right?). Thank you indeed Councillor Schnell and Mayor Clyne. Such is politics I suppose.
    Anyway I await with interest information confirming that the said petition is democratic and relevant. I fear now however that the process has become so polarised that an unbiased case would be all but impossible to establish.
    Meanwhile my thanks (and sympathy) to Jennie and Don. I am one of those residents of Goodwood South that Karen refers to and I agree with her that I'm clearly trying to tell you both something!... Thanks for trying anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am totally opposed to this based on new information about the need for ETSA trucks to have access tot he road. That will mean that trees and large shrubs can not be planted. I urge you not to vote in favour.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Don and I have asked for an update from the responsible staff members to see if a driveway link and the requiremnts of ETSA can both be accomodated. Hopefully, with an opportunity to grow some trees and to retain water on the site. When we get this report I am happy to share it with the people who read my blog. Until I have seen the report, I am keeping my descision making on hold.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The concept of a Pocket Park was before Council at least 15 Months ago. Residents in and round Fredrick St were consulted and the majority were in support. In actual fact there was a Street meeting held on the corner of Fredrick St & Kelvin Ave on a Saturday morning this I know as I attended. Then when it come to a Street Closure Council had to circularise residents in parts of Clarence Park and Millswood and again the majority were in favor of the pocket park and the closure of Kelvin Ave.Unfortunately when those who are in a minority do not like a decision of the majority who took the opportunity to respond to Council they go out and whip up hysteria and provide misinformation.I suggust it is a bit like many years ago when some residents in Malvern were opposed to Street closures but if you were to suggest to them today that the closed Streets should be reopened you would have a riot on Councils hands. A pocket park would be great for the environment, local habitat allow people to rest when out for a walk and enjoy the surrounds. Plus I would suggest it would deter some drivers coming into Francis Street and as a resident in Francis Street with young children I would appreciate something like a PP to deter them. Keep up the good work Jennie and you certainly have my undivided support.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I support the concept of a pocket park and fail to understand the opposition on the basis of "community safety". What does that mean? I use Kelvin Ave a couple of times a week as a thoroughfare to East Avenue from Francis Street and the footpath is hazardous, particularly when pushing a pram. This is an issue of "community safety" as far as I am concerned. The proposal to develop a pocket park has been around for over 12 months and there has been plenty of opportunity for public comment. Why would a councillor from outside the area with no local knowledge and the Mayor intervene at this stage?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I prefer the microcosmic environments created by road closures and pocket parks. Let the rat runners go else where. Keep up the good work Don and Jennie.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Adrian from Clifton St, Malvern.29 August, 2011 12:37

    We had the opportunity to have a pocket park in our street. I deeply regret that I did not actively participate in the process. It would have been an asset, added value to my home and provided a pleasant space to be.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Greening is good for Unley. However the consultation process and area surveyed for the road closure did not cover a big enough catchment area, and was the same area that consultation occurred in relation to “do you want a pocket park”
    The original plans provided in September 2010 unfortunately did not consider how much of the proposed area would in fact not be able to be utilized as designed due to Utility requirements for an Easement and also the shared driveway. People (Councillors included) were asked to make a decision based on a poor survey and plans and costing which were not reflective of the true picture. The money proposed was only going to deliver a very small ’greened” area. This was not fair to either those supporting or those against. I look forward to viewing any new proposal and reserve judgement until I can be assured that all factual information is at hand, a valid consultation has been conducted, and has been provided to all for consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jennie and Don, support the pocket parks for all you are worth.
    9 significant trees were given the verbal chop in August DAP and 5++ in the July DAP.
    Let's use this pocket park and others to grow appropriate significant replacement trees or Unley will eventually be left all the poorer and a visually second rate suburb. We cannot (it appear) stop their destruction in some developments but let us at least replace them as much as possible. Let Unley Council replace at least two (of their own planting) for every one being given permission for removal.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Residents of Kelvin Ave and surrounds - not to be pushing for pocket parks in your area is myopic. Good on you Don, Jennie and Mike Hudson for supporting pocket parks. The road closure aspect may be a mote in the eye but not unsurmountable by visionaries.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I would like to see more consultation on this matter. I don't recall being asked for my feedback. Let's go back to square 1. Jennie I would like you to push for a fresh round of consultation.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If the proposal is to include a driveway link and can also satisfy the requiements imposed by ETSA it would first have to be approved by Council and then a further round of consultation would have to take place. The area in which the consulatation takes place will be determined by Council and should be larger than the original consultation.

    ReplyDelete