From: Sam Aftasi 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 6:14 PM
To: 'Julian Edwards' <Julian.Edwards@melbourne.vic.gov.au>
Cc: 'Sam Aftasi' <yarrasedgesuburb@gmail.com>; 'Deborah White' <Deborah.White@melbourne.vic.gov.au>; 'Matthew Metaxas' <Matthew.Metaxas@melbourne.vic.gov.au>
Subject: RE: Correspondence from the City of Melbourne RE: Proposal to Change Suburb Name and Postcode (SF WO 1056295)

Dear Julian,

Thank you for your response and for providing Council's position following consultation with Geographic Names Victoria (GNV).

While I appreciate the time Council and GNV have dedicated to reviewing the proposal, I must respectfully disagree with both the conclusion reached and the assertion that the matters identified are sufficiently determinative to warrant outright rejection of the proposal.

The response references three principal grounds for refusal—duplication, commercial association, and locality size—however it does not substantively address the detailed evidence, precedent examples, and contextual arguments previously submitted in response to those concerns. As such, I do not believe the proposal has been properly assessed against either the intent of the Naming Rules or the practical precedents that exist across Victoria.

Regarding the use of "Yarra", I note the statement that the proposed name constitutes unacceptable duplication in a national context. However, no explanation has been provided as to why an established place-based identity incorporating one of Victoria's most significant geographic features should be treated differently from the many existing approved geographic names that incorporate "Yarra", including Yarra Glen, Yarra Junction, Yarra Ranges, South Yarra, Yarra River and numerous other officially recognised locations and features. Simply stating that additional suburb names incorporating "Yarra" are precluded does not address the unique circumstances of this proposal nor explain how such an interpretation aligns with the broader naming landscape.

Similarly, with respect to Principle J, I remain unconvinced that the historical origin of Yarras Edge as a developer-led estate should automatically disqualify it from consideration as a locality name. The examples previously provided—including Caroline Springs, Williams Landing and Burnside Heights—demonstrate that names originating within privately developed master-planned communities have, in appropriate circumstances, become gazetted localities despite their origins. The response does not explain why those precedents are distinguishable from Yarras Edge, nor why a name that has been in widespread community use for more than two decades and is now recognised independently of its original developer should continue to be characterised primarily as a commercial identifier.

I also find it difficult to reconcile the position that Yarras Edge retains an unacceptable commercial association with the fact that the City of Melbourne itself publicly uses and promotes the locality name "Yarra's Edge" through its official Yarra's Edge Marina - https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/yarras-edge-marina facilities and associated communications. Council's own recognition of Yarra's Edge as a legitimate geographic descriptor appears to contradict the assertion that the name remains fundamentally commercial in nature, and instead reinforces its status as a well-established and widely recognised community and place identity.

Likewise, the position regarding locality size remains difficult to reconcile with the existence of a number of small Melbourne suburbs including South Wharf, Gardenvale, Ripponlea, Kooyong, St Kilda West and Cremorne, all of which demonstrate that relatively small geographic areas can support distinct and meaningful locality identities. The proposal was never intended to create an arbitrary administrative subdivision, but rather to formalise an already established neighbourhood with clearly identifiable boundaries and a strong resident identity. Further to this, the characterisation of Yarras Edge as too small to warrant locality recognition appears inconsistent with both its current population and future growth trajectory. As outlined in my proposal, the precinct is already home to more than 3,600 residents and continues to expand through the construction of additional residential towers along the riverfront and the ongoing redevelopment of the Lorimer Street precinct. Given the scale of the existing community and the significant population uplift already approved, it is difficult to reconcile the conclusion that Yarras Edge lacks the critical mass or permanence necessary to support recognition as a distinct locality.

Furthermore, the proposal is supported by a petition containing 1,538 signatures and counting, reflecting a significant level of community support for formal recognition of Yarra's Edge as a distinct locality. This level of engagement demonstrates that the proposal is not simply the view of an individual resident but reflects a broader, well-established community identity. Given the emphasis placed on community benefit and place identity within the Naming Rules, it is difficult to reconcile the outright rejection of the proposal without a clear explanation as to how this substantial evidence of public support was evaluated in the decision-making process.

More broadly, I am concerned that neither Council nor GNV has directly addressed the central proposition underpinning the submission: namely that Yarras Edge has evolved beyond its development origins and now functions as a genuine and enduring community identity. Throughout this process I have provided evidence of long-standing resident usage, geographic relevance, recognition by planning authorities and acknowledgement within broader strategic planning documents. To date, I have not received a substantive response explaining why these factors are insufficient to overcome the concerns raised.

For this reason, I do not consider the matter resolved simply because Council has advised that it will not progress the proposal. 

Rather, I remain of the view that significant aspects of the submission have not been adequately addressed and that the reasons provided do not sufficiently justify dismissing the proposal in its entirety.

Accordingly, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with Council officers and, if possible, representatives from Geographic Names Victoria, to discuss the proposal and the specific interpretations of the Naming Rules that underpin the decision. I believe a constructive discussion would assist in better understanding the basis for the conclusions reached and provide an opportunity to examine the precedents and evidence in greater detail.

My objective has always been to engage respectfully and constructively within the framework and to seek an outcome that reflects the established identity of the community. I remain committed to that objective and look forward to the opportunity for further dialogue.

Thank you for your continued engagement.

Kind regards,

Sam Aftasi
Yarras Edge Resident Representative

yarrasedgesuburb@gmail.com

0401675514