Conflict of Interest, The Gang of Three...

VicUrban, the Victorian State Government and the Greater Shepparton City Council is a trio with so many conflicts of interests in the case of Parkside Gardens that they turn as one in the marital bed for greedy developers.

After fighting this "gang of three" for several years in an effort to stop them taking over 21 hectares of public parkland and heritage for a housing estate,
this local community has been relegated to the position of the chamber pot by their own Council, VicUrban and the Labor State Government which continues to treat this Victorian country community with arrogance and disdain.

We have found through experience that the State Planning processes are of little or no use to communities in a situation where the State Government and a Local Council make a decision to work in tandem, using the Government's own developer (Vicurban) to make the changes.

Consider the chances of community concerns being heard against these three powerful organisations working together. That's right! No chance at all!

There is little doubt that there was never any intention by the "gang of three" to allow the community's "voice" to be truly considered.

The list of tricky moves ( disguised as "community consultation") and conflicts of interest in this exercise add up to one of the most community - unfriendly exercises ever foisted on a municipality in this State.

Consider the following information and judge this against a benchmark of genuine engagement with the community. Was this a "genuine" effort by local and State Government to ensure that local community views were sought and considered, or is this an excellent example of the use of process to stifle communities which seek to get in the way.

Without any public consultation, the Greater Shepparton City Council initiates the move to put housing on Parkside Gardens by inviting VicUrban to be the developer.

The Council does not provide any forum, survey, meeting or referendum which allows the local community an opportunity to voice an opinion. There is no attempt to gain a general consensus of opinion based on a question such as: "Do you want Parkside Gardens to be parkland or housing?"

Instead, Council invites submissions which must put forward ideas for the use of Parkside Gardens site, including a business plan and costings. VicUrban's proposal for housing does not include this information but somehow the Council overlooks this omission.

A 5-person panel, given the dubious name of "Community Reference Panel" is appointed by Council, with most members being invited and selected by Council. Their task is to decide between the 2 submissions: one for a housing estate (VicUrban) and one for Community Gardens.

NOW CONSIDER THIS AND THINK ABOUT THE
"CONFLICTS OF INTEREST" WHICH ABOUND:

One of the 5 panel members was about to begin working for, or had just started working for one of the local businesses involved in the planning of the proposed housing project. That business is still involved in the project at this stage and stands to make money from the VicUrban project.

One other panel member was attempting to get an alternative project "off the ground" at that stage. It could be said that the Community Gardens option may have been considered to be in opposition to his project for funding.

The second most senior Greater Shepparton Council Officer attended these Reference Panel meetings. It is difficult to imagine that his presence created an objective and unbiased situation.
(Remember that it was the Council which invited VicUrban to participate)

This 5 - man (no women) "Community Reference" ? panel did not make contact with people in the community at all to gauge opinions about the loss of the parkland and heritage.

The design for the housing estate on Parkside Gardens (owned by the ratepayers of this municipality) was linked closely with the VicUrban Office of Housing Neighbourhood Renewal Project (State Government owned) which is directly across the road.

The Greater Shepparton Council agreed to "give" Vicurban
(read "State Government") our parkland in exchange for a percentage of the sales of the blocks. Nothing definite. Just a few very rubbery figures and estimates.

WAS THIS COSY LITTLE DEAL BETWEEN
THE "GANG OF THREE" EVER GOING TO BE DISCARDED JUST BECAUSE AN UPSET COMMUNITY WANTED TO KEEP THEIR PARKLAND AND HERITAGE?

OF COURSE NOT.

IS THIS A SATISFACTORY WAY FOR THE VICTORIAN STATE GOVERNMENT TO TREAT COUNTRY PEOPLE?

Rob Hulls, the newly - appointed Minister for Planning would do well to consider putting an immediate halt to this project and give Parkside Gardens back to the people of Shepparton before it is too late.

Greater Shepparton Botanic Garden Ass.Inc

		Conflict of Interest, The Gang of Three...
	VicUrban, the Victorian State Government and the Greater Shepparton City Council is a trio with so many conflicts of interests in the case of Parkside Gardens that they turn as one in the marital bed for greedy developers. After fighting this "gang of three" for several years in an effort to stop them taking over 21 hectares of public parkland and heritage for a housing estate, this local community has been relegated to the position of the chamber pot by their own Council, VicUrban and the Labor State Government which continues to treat this Victorian country community with arrogance and disdain. We have found through experience that the State Planning processes are of little or no use to communities in a situation where the State Government and a Local Council make a decision to work in tandem, using the Government's own developer (Vicurban) to make the changes. Consider the chances of community concerns being heard against these three powerful organisations working together. That's right! No chance at all! There is little doubt that there was never any intention by the "gang of three" to allow the community's "voice" to be truly considered. The list of tricky moves ( disguised as "community consultation") and conflicts of interest in this exercise add up to one of the most community - unfriendly exercises ever foisted on a municipality in this State. Consider the following information and judge this against a benchmark of genuine engagement with the community. Was this a "genuine" effort by local and State Government to ensure that local community views were sought and considered, or is this an excellent example of the use of process to stifle communities which seek to get in the way. Without any public consultation, the Greater Shepparton City Council initiates the move to put housing on Parkside Gardens by inviting VicUrban to be the developer. The State Labor Government approves the involvement of VicUrban in the project. The Council does not provide any forum, survey, meeting or referendum which allows the local community an opportunity to voice an opinion. There is no attempt to gain a general consensus of opinion based on a question such as: "Do you want Parkside Gardens to be parkland or housing?" Instead, Council invites submissions which must put forward ideas for the use of Parkside Gardens site, including a business plan and costings. VicUrban's proposal for housing does not include this information but somehow the Council overlooks this omission. A 5-person panel, given the dubious name of "Community Reference Panel" is appointed by Council, with most members being invited and selected by Council. Their task is to decide between the 2 submissions: one for a housing estate (VicUrban) and one for Community Gardens. NOW CONSIDER THIS AND THINK ABOUT THE "CONFLICTS OF INTEREST" WHICH ABOUND: One of the 5 panel members was about to begin working for, or had just started working for one of the local businesses involved in the planning of the proposed housing project. That business is still involved in the project at this stage and stands to make money from the VicUrban project. One other panel member was attempting to get an alternative project "off the ground" at that stage. It could be said that the Community Gardens option may have been considered to be in opposition to his project for funding. The second most senior Greater Shepparton Council Officer attended these Reference Panel meetings. It is difficult to imagine that his presence created an objective and unbiased situation. (Remember that it was the Council which invited VicUrban to participate) This 5 - man (no women) "Community Reference" ? panel did not make contact with people in the community at all to gauge opinions about the loss of the parkland and heritage. The design for the housing estate on Parkside Gardens (owned by the ratepayers of this municipality) was linked closely with the VicUrban Office of Housing Neighbourhood Renewal Project (State Government owned) which is directly across the road. The Greater Shepparton Council agreed to "give" Vicurban (read "State Government") our parkland in exchange for a percentage of the sales of the blocks. Nothing definite. Just a few very rubbery figures and estimates. WAS THIS COSY LITTLE DEAL BETWEEN THE "GANG OF THREE" EVER GOING TO BE DISCARDED JUST BECAUSE AN UPSET COMMUNITY WANTED TO KEEP THEIR PARKLAND AND HERITAGE? OF COURSE NOT. THIS COMMUNITY HAS BEEN WELL AND TRULY "ROLLED" BY THE "GANG OF THREE". IS THIS A SATISFACTORY WAY FOR THE VICTORIAN STATE GOVERNMENT TO TREAT COUNTRY PEOPLE? Rob Hulls, the newly - appointed Minister for Planning would do well to consider putting an immediate halt to this project and give Parkside Gardens back to the people of Shepparton before it is too late.

Greater Shepparton Botanic Garden Ass.Inc