Booran Road has finally been opened to the public. It is not without controversy. Whether one loves the new park or not many, many issues require investigation as to how this development has been conceived, handled, and the cost(s) involved.
For a council that has the least amount of public open space in the state, it is unbelievable that an area can be designated as ‘open space’ yet fenced off behind tall (and expensive) gates and access denied. This is the situation at the new Booran Road ‘park’.
We estimate the closed off area to be in the vicinity of 2500 square metres of a 1.6 hectare site. What are the reasons for this exclusion and how can it be justified? Are we to assume that this ‘urban forest’ will become the private open space of the neighbouring apartment building? If so, have they paid for any of this?
The next issue is why council continues to change plans that were not part of any community consultation and without warning or costings provided? Below is part of the council ‘consultation’ flyer which reveals a totally different park to what we now have. The green open expanses depicted in this flyer have shrunk dramatically and been replaced by more and more concrete.
The third issue is cost. According to a recent Leader article council admits to an $11 million expenditure – but they have refused to provide any real details of these costs. We estimate the expenditure to have been far and above this figure. Even one consultant engineer employed for the project puts the figure at $12 million. The image below comes from Linkedin –
When ratepayer funds are used to create a ‘park’ that:
- varies considerably from what was proposed
- when council isn’t forthcoming on total expenditure
- when public open space is barricaded and the public excluded
then residents have every right to question how well their rates are being used and whether or not this project is another example of sheer profligacy and poor management, plus lack of transparency and accountability.
As far as the aesthetics of the site go, opinion is divided. Some believe that what has been created is no more than a concrete Disneyland (suitable for young children perhaps) but certainly not catering to the consensus of opinion that desired ‘passive open space’. Time will tell……..
Glen Eira Debates 
April 12, 2017 at 5:49 PM
Restricted area reminds me of the racecourse. I suspect the area might be contaminated. That is why it is fenced off. By the way any news on all the parks we are getting at the racecourse
April 12, 2017 at 7:29 PM
They tested the area way back and would have removed any pollutants if they found any.
Don’t understand why the gates are locked. Maybe vandalism or drugs but they could leave them open during the day and then lock them at night. Otherwise a complete waste of space and money.
April 12, 2017 at 10:43 PM
No contamination was found across the whole site
April 12, 2017 at 11:26 PM
For this gated area to fulfil the job as a urban forest an understory should be planted, as most smaller native birds need that lower to middle level of shrubbery to take refuge, and nest in. As it stands this area christened as the urban forest it not that. It’s more like a poorly selected arboretum.
As for the water needs of the birds; per what is printed on the sign, they will have to find that elsewhere, as all the water I came across, apart from the drinking fountains, smelled of being chlorinated and of course not suitable for birds to drink.
The environmental information on the sign is all very good and well written but what’s behind the signs and locked gates is not as it’s discribed.
Maybe Parks & Gardens intends to work and bring this area into fruition as a urban forest, but for twelve million dollars the environment got the very short end of the money stick.
Yes, time will tell ….. and if things keep heading downhill as we are currently experiencing, you me and the birds maybe all drinking chlorinated water.
April 13, 2017 at 10:07 AM
Urban forest? All I can see is a row of trees and mulch. Even when they grow it will still be a row of trees.
April 13, 2017 at 9:01 PM
To true
April 12, 2017 at 11:36 PM
Maybe we can expect an “adverse possession” claim by the neighbours in a few years time.
Adverse possession is a doctrine under which a person/s in possession of land owned by someone else may acquire valid title to it, so long as certain common law requirements are met, and the adverse possessor is in possession for a sufficient period of time, as defined by a statute of limitations.
If I where one of the lucky neighbours I would have my BBQ out the back in the urban forest yesterday.
April 13, 2017 at 1:30 PM
It was claimed that GESAC costed ratepayers some $28 million and now this zoo-boo-ran $12 million ($4 million over the budget). Which one of the two are worth the money?
April 14, 2017 at 1:04 PM
Must admit to only having viewed the reserve from the car while passing but it looks a dogs breakfast and very uninviting from there.
A lot of people there it must be said. I guess the test will be whether that is just initial fascination.
April 15, 2017 at 8:43 AM
For children 4 to 15 it’s great, the dog breakfast look is maze like and interesting, and keeps them moving along to the next adventure.
If the kids are enjoying themselves the parents are too, theres lot of perching places to keep an eye on the little ones. Fun is fun and there is a lot to be had here.
The place is certainly overly stimulated with buildings equipment and colour, with far too much concrete of every imaginable colour and type.
That why it’s a really big planning failure that approx one sixth of the reserve the quietest most relaxing area is off limits to the public, who may have wanted a quieter more relaxing time.
As the trees mature in this urban forest areas they may attract birds, but no one will get to see them, or enjoy the shade and joy of walking through this treed space.
It’s a very strange outcome to lock this area off, after all it is public open space.
April 14, 2017 at 7:51 PM
Twelve million is a fortune for a glorified playground. Could have got three new parks for this cost. I feel sorry for those people living in Booran, Glen huntly and Alamar roads. No parking anywhere.
April 15, 2017 at 9:03 AM
This is not the only “public” open space that Council excludes the public from. There are fenced-off areas in Memorial Park and Caulfield Park too. Despite that, the Open Space Strategy includes their areas in its aggregate open space number for the municipality. We still have the barriers along Queens Ave that Andrew Newton gulled councillors into installing too.
April 15, 2017 at 11:07 AM
They also count car parking areas inside of our parks, and the footprints of pavilions and all other buildings as passive open space as well.
In most case the general public has been marginalised to the windswept edges of sporting fields.
I think it’s high time council bites the bullet and starts to remove all car parking from inside our parks and returns this land to passive use open space.
They might then start to realise they have a car problem, and less of an open space problem.
EE Gunn reserve masterplan open for public comment now, could start the ball rolling.
http://haveyoursaygleneira.com.au/ee-gunn-reserve
Joyce Park – “New Open Space Area” is also open for public comments unlike EE Gunn reserve, they have be kind enough to offer us plebs two choices. one passive and one active.
I would go for the passive, because if you let the sporting people get a foot in the door, they will only demand more and more of the surrounding parkland for buildings and car parking in the future.
http://haveyoursaygleneira.com.au/Joyce-Park
Parks and Reserve are for people and not concrete and cars.
April 15, 2017 at 9:05 PM
Joyce Park Concept Plans up for public comment on Glen Eira’s web site describes Joyce Park as a “District” scale park located on Jasper Road, Ormond. It provides for a variety of informal open space activities, both active and passive, within an ornamental parkland setting.
The Open Space Strategy 2014 has no such classification called a “District Park” or “District scale Park” in its hierarchy of classifications of our open space.
You have to wonder
April 18, 2017 at 6:12 PM
Off topic: State Government has now gazetted Amendment VC136 that implements its Better Apartments Design Standards. Well, sort of. It is all “performance-based”, so there are in effect no standards. It also comes with transition arrangements that exempt applications submitted before the date of gazettal. I found the “Building Setback Objectives’ pretty poor because there was nothing about equitable development potential or ensuring a minimum of amenity for adjacent properties. The only reason for having setbacks, according to the government, is to provide amenity to the residents of new buildings. The rest of us can get stuffed.
April 18, 2017 at 6:16 PM
The greatest drawback in our view of these new ‘standards’ is the simple fact that once again the Wynne and previous governments have wimped it and allowed developers and the construction industry to set ‘standards’ that continue to bring in the greatest profits. There is no minimum apartment size requirements. Chicken coops are still allowable!