NODOUBT your correspondent Robert Muddyman (Gazette 14 June) has good intentions when he endorses the sale of the Pakenham golf course land.
However, he is a little bit misguided on some of the points he raised.
There is in all 91 hectares of land, 60 hectares of which is used as a golf course and 31 hectares remaining open space.
As the land is flood prone, a range of drainage infrastructure and management strategies would be necessary, particularly where the saline water is concerned, as it would be detrimental to housing.
It was pointed out in the Panel Report that the proposed 600lot housing subdivision would occupy 60 per cent of the site and the remaining 40 per cent would be used for drainage, required flood storage and conservation measures for species habitat protection.
This would leave approximately eight per cent of the site actually useable for public recreation activities.
The amount of eight per cent open space is a normal requirement of any land developer carrying out a land subdivision, so there would be no extra gain in this instance.
Regarding the proposed new golf course, the council has already paid $3.4 million for land in McGregor Road and there is serious doubt about the $12 million figure quoted several years ago for the necessary golf course infrastructure.
Enquiries have revealed that the only new golf course constructed in the southeast region in recent years cost $24 million, so it is very unlikely there will be any $10 million to spend on other projects.
In fact it could become a major financial burden on the council budget requiring further borrowing to complete, which is exactly what the ratepayers and the new council want to avoid.
If the golf course remains where is, and the council dedicates the remaining 31 hectares as open space, there would be no shortage of community contribution via Landcare and conservation groups to remove blackberries and weeds, revegetate the degraded land and construct a wetland and paths area conserving the Growling Grass Frog.
This would provide a genuine parkland experience for the community at large.
Some council contribution or government grants would be required but what a remarkable outcome for the Cardinia Shire.
I agree with Robert, the current golf club is viable and has a good membership, unlike several others of note.
However, all that could change if a relocation occurred and costs were increased.
Finally, I remind Robert, the growing community requires more open space before it needs a golf course.
It is not the responsibility of local councils to provide golfing facilities.
Gloria O’Connor,
President,
Cardinia Ratepayers and
Residents Association.
