Thursday, August 27, 2009

Packer Park Community Consultation Meeting Mon 24/7

With approx 60 other members of the community I attended a consultation meeting at the park's meeting rooms to listen to the concerns raised re the proposed "improvements to Packer Park" in Murrumbeena.

Council has recently put forward a proposal to sell the disused Mckinnon Bowling Club site located on the western side of PP, incl plans for the construction of 8 two-storey townhouses, to finance the aquirement of two properties at 112 and 118 Oakleigh rd that are presently bordered on 3 sides by the park. The two properties account for 60% the size of the MBC site- as part of this proposal the excess monies from the sale/acq will be earmarked for acquiring public open space in possibly the Carnegie neighbourhood centre.

I felt the concerns raised by quite a passionate audience could be summerised as follows;

- this was not a land swap but a loss of public open space(POS)
- once lost this open space won't be replaced
- the aquirement of the two properties should not be linked to the future of the MBC site
- whilst the acquirements are welcome ,council should not fund this thru selling POS
- there are many potential uses for the MBC site that can benefit the whole community
- GE has one of the lowest POS in melb and with increasing housing density we need more not less

I certainly have deep concerns about council selling off any POS , particularily in Rosstown Ward and this was reinforced by listening to residents on Mon evening.

Public submissions on this proposal close Sept 9, and will be heard on Sept 29.
It is intended that there will be a vote by Council in October.


  1. It was a interesting night alright, I didn't hear one member of the general public that spoke up in support councils push to sell the bowls club. Can council officers really get the public sentiment that wrong. Yep! Yes! they sure did!

  2. It's not a question of getting public sentiment wrong. If this was the case there would have been some admission of this fact. Quite simply, public sentiment, ie the community - was never even considered to begin with. The forum was supposed to go like all previous forums - 'we'll tell you what we're going to do, and bad luck if you don't like it'!! The only difference this time was that the community was well informed, prepared, articulate, and not about to stand for the nonsense that was presented by the bureaucrats. Power to the people! Amen!

  3. Just got our submission off. I agree anon the public was "well informed, prepared, articulate, and not about to stand for the nonsense that was presented by the bureaucrats"

    But one question. How did this proposal even make it to the public eye. Where were the councillors supposed to be representing the people? The onesided "consultation" paper was simply spin and should not have been circulated. Who supported this proposal in the first place?

  4. Yes, the public was "well informed, prepared, articulate, and not about to stand for the nonsense tat was presented by the bureacrats". Thanks partly to Mary Walsh, who when alerted about this issue went personally to ensure that the residents are organised and respond. Thank you Mary.