AQUATIC CENTRE IN ROSEBUD NAMING
26 May 2020

AQUATIC CENTRE IN ROSEBUD NAMING

26 May 2020

 

Cr Fraser –  If Council were to accept management’s recommendation this evening, the community will not be allowed to consider a range of choice of short listed names for this fabulous 50 metre pool and aquatic community facility.

 

The community will only be allowed to consider only those names management think will be acceptable to the Registrar of Geographic Names. This is based on verbal advice from an unnamed public servant which is at odds with the Statutory Naming Rules for Places in Victoria 2016. Because we have not carried the community with us on this issue, if we accept management’s recommendation, this may set in train a series of objections and statutory review by the community.

 

I am reminded as what the then Liberal Minister for the Environment, Ryan Smith, wrote to our then Mayor Councillor Celi on 30 October 2014 when, at Council’s request, he withdrew Coastal Management consent for the proposed Crown Land foreshore site for what he called – the “Southern Peninsula Aquatic Centre”, and I quote –

 

“I understand this has been a contentious issue within the community and I congratulate Council on its dedication to actively engaging with the community in the decision making process. I hope the current decision will allow Council to progress with the design and construction of an aquatic centre in the Rosebud area with the full support of the local and wider community.”

 

Wise words from the Minister easily forgotten over time but best remembered now for those of us – including Betty Preston – with long memories.

 

I have now read the relevant parts of the Naming Rules provided by our Executive Manager Governance and Legal – all 111 pages – and there is nothing that I can find in it to deny the right and opportunity of Council and our community to consider a descriptive name such as “Rosebud Aquatic Centre”.

 

Indeed, there is much in the Naming Rules to support such a name or similar name. And I quote from the Naming Rules –

 

“Place Names ought be relevant to the local area with preference given to unofficial names used by the local community.

 

“Infrastructure features should use the name of the locality, for example Tarneit Railway Station. Features that use the name of a locality are not considered duplicates, but must have unique identifier that distinguishes the feature from other similarly named features.”

 

“The names below are not considered duplicates because the feature names have unique identifiers that differentiate them from each other, or the feature type is different …

The creation of Craigieburn ANZAC Park in the locality of Craigieburn is not considered a duplication, even though within a 5 km radius there are the following similarly named features – Craigieburn Centennial Park and Craigieburn gardens.”

 

“If choosing a name based on a location, the feature should be given the name of the official locality. If the name of the location is used to define and locate a feature, eg Ballarat Avenue of Honour, the locality’s name should appear first in the feature’ name.”

 

There is nothing in the Naming Rules or the Geographic Place Names Act 1998 to deny our community or this Council the right to consider the name Rosebud Aquatic Centre as one of a number of possible names.

 

Any process that does so deny, is undemocratic, has miscarried and is objectionable.  I support the wider and complete community consultation with a larger range of short listed names proposed in this motion by Cr Celi which I am pleased to second.