Related content:
In late August 2014 I had a conversation with a friend who lived on the corner of Keder and Araluen streets, opposite the Rec Ground. My friend was extremely distressed after learning there was a successful grant application for ‘improvements’ to the Rec Ground, including the placement of a skate park right opposite her home. She had not been informed or consulted about this.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
My friend was a single woman whose daughter had a disability. Many of her neighbours at the time were also single women. They feared a skate park at that location would be a potential security and safety threat. It’s an isolated part of town with no active or passive surveillance by day or by night.
The grant application, as I understand it, was for funding from the State Government, with contributions from our local Bendigo Bank. A local committee oversaw that application.
Karuna Bajracharya was invited to represent the skate park enthusiasts in town. After considering the proposal, Karuna informed a member of that committee that he did not support locating a skate facility at the Rec Ground. He argued that Ryrie Park North was a much better location.
After some back and forth communication, he was told that it was important to get the grant application in by the deadline, and that the location would be decided afterwards. After the grant was approved, it was revealed that the proposed skate park would be located on the corner of Keder and Araluen streets. The local residents had never been consulted.
My friend then contacted Palerang Council to express her concerns. Eventually, an onsite consultation was arranged, between residents and Palerang Council representatives. Eventually that skate park proposal was dropped after objections from many residents, not just the skate park enthusiasts represented by Karuna.
Those who believe that Karuna Bajracharya was responsible for that decision are not in possession of all the facts. The lack of consultation with the nearby residents was a fundamental procedural error.
Consider this: if I owned land and decided to build a public skate facility on it, I would be subjected to a rigorous process of submitting a DA, including a detailed plan with engineering specifications, and allowing time for neighbouring property owners to comment, object etc. Local councils appear to be exempt from these requirements.
Since that time, the ‘skate park saga’ has degenerated into a sad but avoidable local conflict. I blame both Palerang Council and QPRC for a series of procedural mistakes that have created this situation.
You can see the latest QPRC debate on these issues on the QPRC webcast for the meeting held on February 28. There were 11 Braidwood residents at that meeting, arguing in favour of skate elements in Ryrie Park North, There were NO residents there arguing for any of the other proposed locations.
And by the way, my friend decided to sell her home and leave Braidwood.
