THE BEEVERS + BELL RECORDKingsville · City of Maribyrnong
A RESIDENT-LED COMMUNITY RECORD · KINGSVILLE

Beevers
+ Bell

HOW ONE “YOUR CITY. YOUR VOICE.” CONSULTATION UNFOLDED

Prepared as a resident-led community record for Kingsville residents who have raised concerns and supported the petition, this site documents two contested proposals and their potential effects on child and pedestrian safety, traffic redistribution through nearby residential streets, emergency access, visibility and antisocial-behaviour risk, and whether any eventual Beevers public-toilet location can meet Council’s own stated safety criteria.

Residents broadly supported the wider park upgrades. The two contested elements were a public toilet at Beevers Reserve and the partial closure of Coronation Street beside Bell Reserve.

Prepared as a resident-led community record for Kingsville residents who have raised concerns and supported the petition.

Residents broadly supported the wider park upgrades.

The two contested proposals
BEEVERS RESERVEPUBLIC TOILETProposed in a small neighbourhood reserve
BELL RESERVE / CORONATION STREETPARTIAL ROAD CLOSURE
Why residents raised concerns
Child and pedestrian safety
Traffic redistribution through nearby residential streets
Emergency access
Visibility and antisocial-behaviour risk
Whether any eventual Beevers public-toilet location can meet Council’s own stated safety criteria
THE ROADMAP

How this record unfolds

Three stages take you from the consultation, to the April decision, to what happened after residents took the questions back to Council.

01 · CONSULTATIONWhat residents were asked

What the consultation recorded and what Council published.

02 · APRIL DECISIONWhat Council endorsed

The April decision and the evidence that sat behind it.

03 · AFTER THE VOTEWhat happened next

How consultation, safety, traffic and emergency-access concerns were taken back to Council over the months that followed.

This resident-led record grew from the community response and petition. It brings the chronology and source material together so readers can see where the public record lines up, where questions remained, and judge the process for themselves.

Council’s “Your City. Your Voice.” record ↗ Community petition ↗
WHAT CONSULTATION RECORDED · WHAT COUNCIL ENDORSED · WHAT FOLLOWED
BEEVERS RESERVE

PUBLIC TOILET

52.7%DID NOT SUPPORT
38.3%SUPPORTED
14.4 percentage-point gap between did not support and support* 9.0% unsure
  • Published result · Overall Phase 2 result across all channels.
  • Safety concern · Residents raised visibility, surveillance and antisocial-behaviour concerns.
  • Later description · Council’s Director, Infrastructure Services, Patrick Jess, described the toilet consultation as “about a 50/50 split”.
Explore the toilet record ↓ View Council project page ↗
CORONATION STREET

PARTIAL ROAD CLOSURE

TRAFFICREDISTRIBUTION
  • Traffic · Council modelled some existing traffic moving onto surrounding residential streets.
  • Safety · Residents raised pedestrians, children, the nearby playground and emergency access.
  • Process · The closure still requires a separate statutory process and later Council decision.
Explore the road-closure record ↓ View Council project page ↗
THE SHORT VERSION

Consulted. Endorsed. Questions followed.

NOV 2025Consultation

Two in-person sessions. Majority opposition on both dot-board questions.

JAN 2026Engagement report

Channel-by-channel Phase 2 results were published. In-person majorities opposed both disputed elements.

21 APRENDORSED

Seven councillors present. Seven votes to endorse.

19 MAYDESCRIBED AS “50/50”

Director, Infrastructure Services Patrick Jess described the toilet consultation as “about a 50/50 split”.

16 JUNFred Maddern questions Council

Questions what councillors understood before the April vote.

21 JUL →No additional information

Council’s answer when asked what new information had reached councillors since June.

Petition · view / sign / follow updates ↗Start with the evidence ↓
Beevers Reserve sign with the playground and open space visible behind it
Beevers Reserve.
Homes directly opposite Beevers Reserve viewed from inside the park
Beevers Reserve has an open layout and a residential edge. That physical setting is part of the later question about toilet location, visibility and natural surveillance.
ABOUT THIS RECORD

Public-record claims are sourced below; resident accounts and private correspondence are labelled where used. This page is not a Maribyrnong City Council website. It brings the public record together so readers do not have to reconstruct months of reports, meetings and questions themselves.

THE CONSULTATION
November 2025 → January 2026

What consultation recorded before the April vote.

Council’s second consultation phase, known as Phase 2, used online responses, mailed forms and two in-person sessions. The boards below show the in-person sessions, not the whole consultation.

IN-PERSON CONSULTATIONTwo sessions at Beevers Reserve

Across both sessions, 61 people spoke with Council staff. Sixty participated in the Coronation Street dot exercise.

Session 1Saturday 8 November 2025
Two consultation boards from 8 November 2025 showing sticky-dot responses on the Beevers Reserve toilet and Coronation Street closure questions
Beevers toilet and Coronation Street were asked as separate questions.
Session 2Thursday 20 November 2025
Two consultation boards from 20 November 2025 showing accumulated sticky-dot responses on the Coronation Street closure and Beevers Reserve toilet questions
The second session produced a similar visual pattern of opposition on the boards.
60.66%opposed Beevers toiletIN PERSON
66.66%opposed Coronation closureIN PERSON
ALL PHASE 2 CHANNELS

The published consultation results

The in-person boards above are one part of the consultation. The published Phase 2 results below show the broader record.

BEEVERS TOILET

Overall Phase 2 result

52.7%
DID NOT SUPPORT
38.3%
SUPPORTED

14.4 percentage-point gap

* 9.0% were unsure.

 CORONATION STREET

Closure result differed by channel

Online
63.5%supported closure
Mailed
56.4%supported closure
In person
66.7%opposed closure

The later Coronation Street record focuses on traffic redistribution, street-level safety and emergency access rather than treating the closure as a simple majority question.
Two different consultation stories. The Beevers toilet has a published overall Phase 2 result. Coronation Street differed by participation channel.

Open the Council April report + engagement summary ↗

21 April 2026
ENDORSED.

Seven councillors were present. Seven voted to endorse the final Beevers and Bell concept plans.

MovedCr Elena Pereyra · Wattle Ward.
SecondedCr Bernadette Thomas · Sheoak Ward.
VoteAll seven councillors supported the motion. Cr Pradeep Tiwari put majority opposition to the toilet on the record before voting for the concepts.
WHAT 21 APRIL DIDEndorsed the Beevers and Bell concept plans. WHAT IT DID NOT DOIt did not finally close Coronation Street.

A separate statutory road-closure process and later Council decision are still required.

21 April Council meeting ↗Council report ↗

THE TOILET RECORD
Beevers Reserve · consultation and Council meetings

52.7% did not support. 38.3% supported.Then the feedback was described differently.

WHAT COUNCIL PUBLISHED
Published Phase 2 result: 14.4 percentage-point gap between did not support and support · 9.0% unsure
HOW IT WAS LATER DESCRIBED
“about a 50/50 split”
19 May 2026 · Public Question Time
19 MAY 2026PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
MARIBYRNONG CITY COUNCIL

Patrick Jess

Director, Infrastructure Services

Asked about the consultation, the Director said Council did not agree there had been overwhelming opposition and described the report as showing:

“about a 50/50 split”

WHAT THAT MEANS HERE

Council’s published Phase 2 result was not an even split: 52.7% did not support the toilet, 38.3% supported it and 9.0% were unsure.

Consultation was advisory. Council was not bound by the result. The issue here is that “about 50/50” was a public description of feedback that Council’s own published figures showed was 14.4 percentage points apart.
Between May and July

The petition made the 50/50 characterisation a specific issue by contrasting it with Council’s published 52.7% / 38.3% Phase 2 figures. Council formally received the petition in June.

21 JULY 2026PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
QUESTION SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE BEEVERS TOILET

The 50/50 description was used again.

Patrick Jess · Director, Infrastructure Services

Asked specifically what feedback resulted in Council retaining the proposed Beevers toilet, the Director again described the feedback as:

“about 50/50 as we've reported previously”
Council's published Phase 2 figures remained 52.7% did not support and 38.3% supported.* 9.0% were unsure.

View Council's Beevers + Bell project page ↗

THE LOCATION QUESTION
Location + surveillance

Council’s criteria set the safety test for any future toilet location.

Pathway, open lawn and playground inside Beevers Reserve
Beevers Reserve, Kingsville. Pathway, open lawn and playground inside the reserve.
Resident account of the consultation“PEER SURVEILLANCE”

Residents who attended the consultation say a local Wattle Ward councillor suggested “peer surveillance” when antisocial-behaviour concerns were raised. Residents understood this as surrounding homes providing informal observation of the park. The attribution is presented as a resident account of the session.

COUNCIL’S OWN APRIL REPORT

These are Council’s safety criteria.

VISIBLEWELL-LITCLEAR SIGHTLINESOPEN ENTRANCES

Council says Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles are “essential” for future facilities. Its report says visible, well-lit locations with clear sightlines support natural surveillance and discourage antisocial behaviour, while clear, open entrances improve access control.

Council’s current project FAQ adds that, if a toilet is installed, it would be in a visible, high-traffic area with clear sightlines and good lighting, with entry and exit points oriented toward active public areas.

COUNCIL’S OWN DESCRIPTION OF BEEVERS

“Currently a local park size.”

Council’s April report describes Beevers as currently a local park size. Its case for a toilet is that the planned shelter and BBQ are expected to increase visitation and support longer stays.

Look at the setting: the photographs on this page show the park’s existing open layout and homes directly opposite the reserve.

RESIDENT CONCERN

Do not solve one need by weakening the safety features already there.

Residents’ concern is whether a permanent toilet can be placed within this small open reserve while maintaining clear sightlines and natural surveillance, which Council itself says are important to safety.

THE LOCATION QUESTION THAT REMAINS

In planning terms, this is a siting question: where could a permanent toilet be placed within Beevers while still meeting Council’s stated criteria for visibility, lighting, clear sightlines and natural surveillance?

19 MAY 2026 · PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Council’s Director of Infrastructure Services said the relevant safety and design principles would be addressed through the detailed design phase, including layout, location and lighting.

Council had endorsed the concept on 21 April. This does not establish that the toilet is unsafe. It shows that those safety and design considerations were to be worked through after concept endorsement.

Council retained the toilet in the April concept, but the report says provision is still subject to further assessment and prioritisation. The public record does not establish that this safety test has already been satisfied.

Two different terms: “peer surveillance” is a phrase residents say was used during consultation. “Natural surveillance” is the CPTED term in Council’s formal report. They are not presented here as interchangeable.
View April Council report · p. 281 ↗View 19 May Council meeting ↗View Council project FAQ ↗
JUNE · QUESTIONS RETURNED TO COUNCIL
16 JUNE 2026 · PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Then Fred Maddern asked what councillors knew before the unanimous April vote.

By June, the issue had shifted from whether residents liked the proposals to what information councillors had understood before all seven councillors present voted to endorse both concept plans.

FRED MADDERN
Former Mayor of Footscray
Mayor twice. Star Weekly quoted him on Beevers + Bell in May 2026.
16 JUNE · THREE QUESTIONS
TRAFFIC-COUNT TIMINGWALES STREET PLAYGROUNDWHAT COUNCILLORS KNEW BEFORE THE VOTE
No councillor answered him in the moment. The meeting moved to the next public question. Several minutes later, Cr Thomas asked to return to Beevers, and councillors responded.
▶ WATCH 16 JUNE PUBLIC QUESTION TIMEREAD MAY COVERAGE ↗
COUNCILLOR RESPONSES

What councillors said after Maddern’s questions.

Bernadette Thomas · seconded 21 April
“I did read all of the information...”

Thomas says she read the supplied material and decided the April decision was the best decision on balance.
Pradeep Tiwari · voted 21 April
“I might have asked some more questions.”

Tiwari said he had not appreciated the final-week traffic-count timing and had not picked up the specific playground-reference issue raised in the question.
Susan Yengi · voted 21 April

Councillors had not been across the timing.

Yengi said the timing of the assessment was something she did not think councillors had been across, and referred to councillors’ reliance on officer due diligence and trust.
Elena Pereyra · moved 21 April

The mover responds

Pereyra referred to the master-plan context, continuing traffic work and meeting residents that afternoon.
THE TENSION AFTER THE VOTE

All seven councillors present endorsed both concepts in April. In June, Cr Thomas said she had read the material and stood by the decision, while Cr Tiwari and Cr Yengi identified aspects of the traffic evidence they had not appreciated or had not been across. The concepts remained endorsed.

The next question was therefore simple: after those acknowledgements, what new traffic or pedestrian-safety information reached councillors?

LATER THAT MEETING

The petition was formally received.

Council referred it to the CEO for an appropriate response.

Council meetings archive ↗

THE CORONATION STREET RECORD
Traffic redistribution · safety · evidence

Closing Coronation Street moves traffic elsewhere. What was tested?

Council’s traffic assessment concluded that the surrounding road network could accommodate the predicted redistributed traffic. Residents then asked what that redistribution meant at street level for pedestrians, children and emergency access.

WHAT THE REPORT ANSWERSCan the surrounding road network accommodate the predicted redistributed traffic?
WHAT RESIDENTS WERE ALSO ASKINGWhat would those redistributed movements mean for children, pedestrians and emergency access on the surrounding streets?
WHY THAT DIFFERENCE MATTERS

The traffic model answers a network-capacity question, not every street-level safety question. This review did not locate a dedicated assessment connecting the redistributed traffic to child and pedestrian exposure around Wales Street Playground, or a quantified route-specific emergency-response analysis.

Closing part of Coronation Street would not make the existing traffic disappear. The assessment predicts that some vehicles would instead use nearby residential streets, and estimates how much extra traffic those streets would receive.

Coronation Street beside Bell Reserve, with nearby homes visible
Coronation Street beside Bell Reserve. Homes sit immediately beside the street and reserve. Closing this section would redirect some vehicle movements onto nearby residential streets. That is why residents have focused on what the change could mean for children and pedestrians, and for emergency access through the surrounding streets.
01 · WHERE TRAFFIC GOES

The proposed closure would redirect vehicle movements through the surrounding residential streets.

CLOSE PART OF CORONATION STREET
↓
TRAFFIC REDISTRIBUTES
↓
WALES · SHACKELL · EMPRESS · CHIRNSIDE
↓
RESIDENT SAFETY CONCERNS: CHILDREN · PEDESTRIANS · PLAYGROUND
↓
WHAT THE REPORT ASSESSED
Wales Street
+16

vehicles/hour AM peak, modelled maximum

Shackell Street
+16

vehicles/hour AM peak, modelled maximum

Empress Avenue
+11

vehicles/hour AM peak, modelled maximum

Chirnside Street
+9

vehicles/hour PM peak, modelled maximum

02 · STREET-LEVEL CONTEXT

The street-level context around that modelled redistribution.

Waste collection vehicle on the residential street beside the reserve
Street-level context, 17 August 2026. The waste vehicle shows the existing road width and how much space large vehicles have to move through the street. The image does not by itself establish the effect of the proposed closure.

The resident concern is not only whether the network can absorb the traffic, but what redistributed movements mean at street level for pedestrians and children.

View from the street toward the playground and green open space on Wales Street
Wales Street playground context. Roadway and play space are visible together.
03 · WHAT THE REPORT TESTED

What the traffic assessment did, and did not, quantify.

What the report tested

Traffic volumes, redistribution, intersection operation and delay, crash history, pedestrian continuity, emergency access and service vehicles. Its detailed quantified analysis is principally about traffic operations.

What this review did not find in the report

A dedicated child or pedestrian-safety assessment connecting the predicted redistribution to exposure and crossing behaviour around the nearby playground, or route-specific emergency response-time testing.

The remaining evidence question: what establishes that the changed layout is acceptable for pedestrians, children and emergency access, beyond network capacity?

This does not establish that the closure is unsafe. It identifies the narrower safety issues residents raised and the limits of what the original operational assessment establishes.

Open the Coronation Street traffic assessment ↗

JULY · WHAT HAD CHANGED?
21 JULY 2026 · PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

After June, what new safety information reached councillors?

QUESTION

Fred Maddern asked what additional traffic or pedestrian-safety information had been provided to councillors since the June meeting.

ANSWERED BY

Director, Infrastructure Services · Maribyrnong City Council.

“No additional information has been provided.”
Director, Infrastructure Services · 21 July Public Question Time
THE SEQUENCE

June: some councillors identified details of the traffic evidence they had not appreciated or had not been across.
July: Council said no additional traffic or pedestrian-safety information had been provided to councillors since that meeting.
The concepts remained endorsed.

That does not prove no reconsideration occurred. It does mean the public record does not show new traffic or pedestrian-safety information reaching councillors between those two points.

Emergency services were raised separately.

A separate question asked whether Ambulance Victoria, fire and other emergency services had been consulted about the proposed closure and timely attendance.

APRIL VS THE LATER PROCESS

April: Council endorsed the Bell Reserve concept containing the road closure.
July: Council said emergency-service agencies would be notified and invited to comment as part of the later statutory road-closure assessment.

So the emergency-service input residents were asking about was described as something still to come, not as material cited in support of the April concept endorsement.
View 21 July meeting record ↗
Ambulance stopped on a residential street near the Coronation Street area
Later street context. An ambulance attended an incident on the street. The circumstances are not known, and the photo does not establish any future delay. It shows the physical context behind residents’ emergency-access questions.
WHERE THINGS STAND NOW

Both concepts remain endorsed. Further steps remain.

ROAD CLOSURE
STATUTORY PROCESS + LATER COUNCIL DECISION STILL REQUIRED

The Bell Reserve concept remains endorsed. Council's April report says the road closure itself requires a separate statutory process and a later final Council decision.

BEEVERS TOILET
TOILET REMAINS IN CONCEPT · FURTHER PLANNING REQUIRED

The toilet remains in the endorsed concept, but Council says it will be reviewed under the Public Toilet Plan 2019-2029 and delivered, if prioritised, through the municipal public-toilet program rather than the park upgrade.

TRAFFIC REVIEW
PEER REVIEW + SECOND ASSESSMENT STILL TO COME

In later Council correspondence, officers said previous traffic assessments would be peer reviewed and a secondary assessment obtained to inform the road-closure process.

EMERGENCY ACCESS
AGENCY INPUT PLANNED FOR LATER ROAD-CLOSURE STAGE

In July, Council said emergency-service agencies would be invited to comment during the later statutory road-closure assessment.

Council April report ↗Council 22 April update ↗

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Four ways to follow what happens next.

Coronation Street still has a formal stage to come.

Council’s April report describes public notice, community submissions, an opportunity for submitters to be heard and then a final Council decision.

Petition

View, sign or follow the petition

The Change.org page contains the petition wording and organiser updates. Whether to sign or share it is your decision.

Open petition ↗
Statutory process

Follow the Coronation Street road-closure process

Watch the Beevers + Bell project page and Council agendas for the formal notice, submission details, hearing opportunity and later decision.

Council project page ↗
Local representation

Contact your local councillor

Maribyrnong City Council publishes current councillor contact details, including the Wattle Ward councillor.

Councillor contacts ↗
Council record

Watch meetings and Public Question Time

Council's meeting archive provides agendas, minutes and recordings, and explains how community members can submit questions.

Meeting archive ↗
Beevers toilet follows a separate pathway

Council says the toilet will be reviewed through its public-toilet planning and municipal delivery process rather than through the Coronation Street statutory road-closure process.

Council update ↗
THE STORY ABOVE · THE SOURCES BELOW

Sources & evidence.

Primary Council documents, meeting records, consultation material and the petition record used throughout this page.

01

Phase 2 consultation

Phase 2 engagement summary and channel results, with the live Council project page used for later published project information.

Phase 2 report ↗
02

21 April decision record

Agenda, traffic assessment, engagement report, minutes and recording.

Meeting page ↗
04

19 May Public Question Time

The first public “about 50/50” description recorded in this chronology.

19 May meeting ↗
05

16 June Council meeting

Public questions, councillor responses and formal petition referral.

16 June recording ↗
06

21 July follow-up

Further public questions, including traffic, pedestrian safety and emergency access.

21 July meeting ↗
07

Beevers toilet pathway

Council's 22 April update on the toilet and later delivery process.

Council update ↗
08

Community petition

Petition wording, signature record and organiser updates.

Open petition ↗
09

2026 meeting schedule

Council meeting dates for following the public record as it develops.

Schedule ↗

Resident correspondence: may be referenced where relevant to chronology; private correspondence is not reproduced. Public sources are used wherever they establish the same point.