The lessons for all from the Miles and Dodds pocket park

Southbankers will be aware that the City of Melbourne decided to return for a third round of consultation about its proposal to refurbish and expand the pocket park at the Miles and Dodds Street Reserve.

That decision created dismay and angered local residents living close to the proposed enlarged park, as they had campaigned vigorously over a lengthy period, flagging the flaws in the design and the limited green space benefit it would deliver compared to the ACCA forecourt development.

This process has thrown into the spotlight some key issues and lessons for all.

First is how the decision to bring forward this pocket park was formulated …

The proposal was included in a wider open space plan developed by the council back in 2012. At that time, it was assumed that the barren wasteland that is the ACCA forecourt would remain as an open, uninviting space, not capable of being transformed into a green space for locals thus creating a green swathe across Southbank between Sturt St and Wells St.

Relying on a 2012 plan highlights a problem Southbank3006 has flagged with the council’s four-year planning cycle process. That is that plans such as this 2012 plan create expectations that either become redundant or were never capable of being fulfilled.

Southbank has seen a number of these. There is therefore a good reason for the planning cycle to require a complete review of all existing plans to determine whether they remain appropriate to current needs or be scrapped as redundant.

The actual proposals in the 2012 plan for Dodds and Wells streets appear to have ignored that many residents within the catchment area of that pocket park have abundant access to private open spaces within the designs of their apartment complexes. This was a characteristic of the early development style for Southbank before intensive living plot ratios appeared.

The availability of these private spaces should be a key consideration before directing scarce financial resources to a park that is likely to deliver minimal net social benefit to local residents and for many a perceived loss of social amenity.

The second important consideration is the need for the council to better articulate its consultation processes for neighbourhood issues.

As we have flagged, the Participate Melbourne process is at present a very limited tool in terms of public policy formulation. The outcomes it delivers can be manipulated by well-orchestrated campaigns.

Further, it promotes a belief that it is a survey or piece of market research. While it may provide a data point, it is neither of these, but it can create expectations that what it throws up will be followed by the council as its decision.

Consultation is not decision-making; it is merely a way of providing additional information for policymakers and political leaders. But the council needs to better articulate and document its consultation and community development processes. The type and scale will vary on the project.

This minor pocket park consultation was well targeted at those living close by. Round three of consultation makes its target audience abundantly clear, and that is to be applauded. If there is any weakness, it is that it lacks a “do nothing” option to clean up and refresh the tired infrastructure that exists today.

Hopefully, at the June 3, 2025 meeting of the Future of Melbourne Committee, the council reaches a conclusive decision to adopt the “do nothing” model and redirect the $2.7m earmarked for Dodds and Wells streets to the ACCA forecourt project – one that will deliver a green open space within walking distance for a far larger population of Southbankers, stretching from Kavanagh St to St Kilda Rd and from Southbank Boulevard to Coventry St. •