If these residents are correct and this proposal is all about traffic management, then it is a pretty expensive way to resolve the issue. Of course, no one knows exactly how much this ‘park’ will cost! Nor are we privy to its size or how much of this area will be covered by concrete. No traffic analysis is provided (and we doubt it’s even been done!) in order to gauge the potential impact of closing off streets.
Other issues also need to be considered –
Pocket parks are, according to the research literature designed to alleviate the lack of open space in a HIGH DENSITY area. This proposal is smack in the middle of a Neighbourhood Residential Zone – ie LOW DENSITY. When other areas such as Carnegie are literally crying out for more and more open space and have less than North Caulfield, why doesn’t this area get priority?
According to the Open Space Strategy (OSS), Carnegie has 21.07 hectares of public open space. Of the ‘recommendations’ contained in the OSS for ‘additional open space’ all of the 5 recommendations carry the priority rating of ‘Very High’. In contrast, Caulfield North has 26.28 hectares of public open space; of the 6 recommendations made for ‘additional open space’ only one carries the ‘very high’ classification and this is for ‘gap area C1’. The proposal for Fosbery/St Aubins is not C1! Another 4 recommendations are rated as ‘high’ priority and one other as ‘medium’.
Thus, on every single criterion, Council’s proposal fails to meet the recommendations of its own OSS, plus residents are being asked to comment without being provided with the necessary full information. Residents in Carnegie have every right to ask if they are viewed as second class citizens when it comes to open space and the necessary funding.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 14, 2016 at 9:24 AM
The Eskdale road extravaganza is also low density and near Caulfield park. This one is close to Greenmeadows. Maybe the mrc is handing over dough knowing full well that they will end up using the centre for car parking and no open space within sight. Carnegie will get worse once rail finished and land sold off for high rise. Who cares, eh? Definitely not council.
July 14, 2016 at 9:33 AM
We need better planning and solutions BEFORE creating the traffic and parking problem by allowing over development in Glen Eira. Agree Council are deaf when it comes to responding to such issues!
July 14, 2016 at 10:40 AM
There’s a public acquisition overlay put on in Mimosa Road Carnegie and that’s it. Nothing will happen for yonks since it depends on how long the elderly gentleman will live or goes into a nursing home. My guess is that you can forget this as a park for at least another 3 to 5 years. In the meantime developers will continue to have a field day in Carnegie.
July 14, 2016 at 11:00 AM
Wanna know which bozo chose this spot. Council ain’t got a cracker now and the dopes still wanna wait for census stuff to raise the levy. But money aint a worry when it comes to qc bills.
July 14, 2016 at 11:21 AM
Here’s a suggestion that I think should happen. The open space strategy would have at least 60 recommendations across all suburbs that it grades as very high priority. They must be attended to first off if council is going to use the open space recommendations as its rationale. The list of these very high priorities should be compiled into one list together with costings on how much it is estimated would achieve each one of these. Then the list and costings should be put out for public consultation and residents be given the chance of saying how these in turn are prioritised. I understand that they can’t all be done at once and that it will be expensive. The reverse of this is that I hate seeing money spent on turning streets into what is arguably open space at great cost. The money should be put towards creating really new open space in areas that need it the most because of the massive overdevelopment. Carnegie surely rates very highly here.
July 14, 2016 at 11:52 AM
your right
July 14, 2016 at 1:53 PM
Excellent idea. Very high priority should mean something and should be acted on first. Let the community decide what happens first off and where.
July 14, 2016 at 2:19 PM
http://haveyoursaygleneira.com.au/community-plan-2017-2020
Get your ideas direct to council via their new ideas online portal
There are lots of good suggestion happen here on this blog, so share them around.
July 14, 2016 at 4:50 PM
Had a quick look. Not too many complimentary comments on council. Change is the underlying theme of demand. Change on environment, zones, culture and so on. Will be interesting to see how this goes down with the neoconservatives who sold their souls on the zones and no tree protection.
July 14, 2016 at 8:03 PM
yes, interesting it will be
July 14, 2016 at 11:05 PM
It’s funny when I first met Linda Smith over ten years ago the words livable and sustainable were not in her lexicon of language or doubtful even in her knowledge, so what has changed, other than she has learn’t to read from one of Burke’s last press releases. It may look ok to the average Joe but in essence will deliver very little for our 450K and even less in regards to the hollow catchwords
Newton …….gone ….. Ackhursk/gone ….. Waite/gone ……. Burke/gone ….. Smith/watch this space
July 15, 2016 at 10:25 AM
Very unfair if Caulfield is getting all the money spent there. Carnegie I would think has more building going on than north Caulfield and so they are getting more levy payments. It should be spread out more equally across all suburbs. I agree too that if you are going to have an open space strategy then it needs to be followed and not picked and chosen because it helps with elections.
July 15, 2016 at 10:30 AM
if only the money could be spent at the racecourse instead of these pointless pocket parks that were way to expensive and serve no benefit. Will we ever hear anything about the land management plan?. It was meant to be released last year
July 15, 2016 at 10:47 AM
We doubt that the Patrick plans will ever be released since the trustees will eventually be officially defunct. How long this takes is another question of course. In the meantime the Minister has the MRC plan sitting on her desk. Whether or not this will be made public is open to conjecture. The current committee’s (Southwick, Dimopolous,etc) report is pending. This should clarify matters.
July 15, 2016 at 11:21 AM
As for the past decade the MRCF continues in business without any qualms and paying the out of date mswtes rates for rental. The club loves the investigations which always lead to NO open parklands.