Secrets

As I wrote on the 19th August "Cost of Information" it seemed to some of us in Karridale that when the WAPC planning officer visited us he told us that development would not proceed in Karridale until there was a need for houses. He later confirmed, “Any revised plan should be predicated on a demonstrated demand for lots in this location.”

Please don’t be too quick to condemn us for not spotting the weasel word.

We were off guard; the WAPC sent us a planning officer with a set of interpersonal skills that were faultless. We just didn’t spot that he was playing the good cop to the shire’s bad cop. He started by protesting that the WAPC most certainly wouldnever support speculative land development. Never. Perish the thought.

This silver tongued charmer from the Bunbury WAPC officer had been the driving force behind the Busselton Community Garden. He seduced us with a language peppered with Transition Towns, Community Supported Agriculture, Permaculture, etc.

He lulled us into believing that he understood our culture, which he did because we were open and honest and explained ourselves.

But he also gave us a strong impression that he respected that culture and believed we should be allowed to continue living here as a self-reliant and socially cohesive community, which he didn’t.

When he wrote, “Any revised plan should be predicated on a demonstrated demand for lots in this location,” it sounded to us as though social and economic development would follow the guidelines in the LNRSPP. These clearly state that the key to growth was a need for housing based on available employment, not based on how many blocks the real estate agents could sell or how much rate income was required to balance the shire budget.

But not so in this shire.

The “demonstrated demand” referred to in the reassuring letter we received from the WAPC is nothing more than weasel speak for “the developer demands approval for houses” in this shire greed can be interchanged with need throughout planning applications without any loss of integrity. Impossible to lose what isn’t there.

As I outlined in my earlier post I continued to pursue the “significant market research” that the developer referred to. I was concerned that nobody at the shire had checked this out. I wanted to ensure it truly did indicate that there was something more to this waste of good grazing land other than just city investors wanting to buy blocks here.

But only now, after my freedom of information request has been serviced, has the CEO decided that not only is it unnecessary for any of the shire planning staff to see the market research, nor the councillors, but neither should the community.

The research Melvista Park Pty Ltd have undertaken is so secret and important that nobody is allowed to see it, except maybe Gary himself.

Gary Evershed has adjudicated on the matter and his word is final;

“The CEO believes that disclosure could reasonably be expected to have an adverse effect on the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of the third party concerned.”

He then adds a few further words in red, to emphasise something, but the purpose is lost on this rustic;

“Clause 4(3) OTHER COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS INFORMATION

(3) Matter is exempt matter if its disclosure –

(a) would reveal information (other than trade secrets or information referred to in subclause (2) about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of a person; and

(b) could reasonably be expected to have an adverse effect on those affairs or to prejudice the future supply of information of that kind to the Government or to an agency.”

The developer provided the market research to the shire, and we know that neither the planning staff nor the councillors have examined this data because we were told in writing that although lodged with the shire nobody could find it, and nobody admitted to ever having seen it.

Now we have been told that the community are not allowed to see it.

So why was this data provided at all?

And why did they claim to be requesting a second copy of it?

Ask why?