A year later we have the ‘results’ of a report into the former bowling green at Packer Park and its possible future uses. The final proposal it seems is to ignore the vast majority of people’s views and to create ANOTHER BOWLING, BOCCE, AND PETANQUE set of ‘greens’.

Several facts should be noted here:

  • No real ‘consultation’ as to the bowling green’s future use has ever been undertaken. The submissions referred to in the report were in response to ‘the proposal…. to sell the former bowling green to pay for the two houses.’ (“Improving Packer Park”). At no time have residents been asked the simple question ‘what would you like to see happen to the former bowling green?”. Whatever comments were contained in the submissions were thus almost asides, or incidentals – ie. People took it upon themselves to either proffer suggestions or to largely decry the 3 ‘alternatives’ put up by council. 
  • Incredibly, we now learn that “As part of the initial site feasibility soil sampling did not identify gross contamination, however fill material at one sample location reported concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), in excess of the level for residential use”. So, all of a sudden the site is no longer suitable for ‘residential use’ without huge investments. When was this actually known?
  • The vast majority of suggestions (ie 46%) simply wanted the park extended – ie open, green space!
  • No ‘demonstrated need’ (using council’s phrase) has been proven here. Where is the user needs analysis that residents will flock to play petanque – that is, if 5% even know what this is!! 
  • The argument about fearing anti-social behaviour because of lack of ‘observational’ sightlines will undoubtedly be improved by the planting of numerous trees enclosing the greens! 

 There are plenty of other spurious ‘arguments’ opposing the creation of open park land, dog parks, kindergartens, etc. Readers should carefully go through the document, keeping in mind that once again the community is the victim of a ‘clayton’s consultation’. We have a top down approach that regularly sees fit to impose an agenda on its residents, rather than a genuine consultative process that begins (and ends) with residents.

The recommendation for the bowling greens is presented below –