As high as our court house, the structure would loom over the adjacent ACE Secondary College, depriving the children there of any sunlight in play areas or classrooms.
To the north, the Maude and Corio Sts residential precinct is one of our most attractive inner-city residential areas, and a more perverse location for a social housing project is hard to imagine.
That more than 700 ratepayers have voiced their objections to the proposal is a clear indication of the deep reservations about the proposal in our community — yet the response of council officers has been at best patronising and, at worst, arrogant.
They have commissioned five separate reports with the apparent purpose of dispensing with the multiple objections, concluding in their own report to council that “council needs to be brave and demonstrate leadership on this issue, particularly given there are no sound reasons for rejecting this proposal”.
Among the reports were two from Ethos Urban, the first (said to be for planning and urban design advice) dealing specifically with the adjacent school’s objections thus: “Furthermore, the shadowing of the private open space associated with Shepparton ACE Secondary College is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the use and amenity of the site.”
That depends on which side of the shadowing you are on, of course.
Another report from SEMZ group assessed numerous other sites for a social housing development, including the council-owned car parks between High and Rowe Sts, and the Welsford St car park opposite council’s offices.
The High St car park, which would seem to be an ideal location for a multi-storey in-fill development, was rated lower because “developing it for social housing would represent undercapitalisation” and “dedicating its use to social housing would compromise its future potential/opportunity”.
Neither seems to be a problem at the car park on the corner of Nixon and Maude Sts — the air rights for which council is giving away for a dollar.
Implied in the council officers’ encouragement for councillors “to be brave” is that they should simply ignore the very real concerns of more than 700 ratepayers — despite the many sound reasons they have offered in demonstrating that this is the wrong site and that there are obviously better ones.
Neither the High St nor Welsford St car parks would attract anywhere near the level of objections to the current proposal — obviously.
The city derives a great deal of energy, initiative and investment from its active and interested ratepayers — the kinds of people who initiated and helped bring to fruition the Shepparton Art Museum and the Museum of Vehicle Evolution, the kinds of people who have led the fight to protect our vital water resources and the kinds of people who have forged vastly better government relations, to our immense benefit, through the Committee for Greater Shepparton.
They warrant serious engagement instead of white-washing reports. And they deserve respect instead of thinly disguised contempt.
