Our previous two posts have focused on planning and highlighted the difference between Bayside’s and Glen Eira’s approach to planning in general, and structure planning specifically. Through its structure planning Bayside has been successful in gaining Ministerial approval for mandatory controls in its numerous activity centres. Glen Eira has steadfastly refused to implement any structure planning. Why? What is the ‘real’ reason behind this reluctance to plan for our future?

The recent Planning Scheme Review was nothing short of farcical. The published ‘Discussion Paper’ distinguished itself by its deliberate refusal to realistically address the concerns of the community; to provide real information; and the general side stepping of issues such as transport, parking, environmentally sensitive design, open space, and many other factors that the community has continually emphasised. This claim is abundantly clear when we look at the sections on ‘Structure Planning’. The document read:

“Structure Plans paint a picture in some detail of how development should look down the track. Individual planning decisions made in accordance with a Structure Plan ultimately deliver the desired Structure Plan future. Structure Plans provide a desired vision and add certainty. On the other hand, critics of Structure Plans argue that they:

• are too expensive and difficult to include in the Planning Scheme, with arguments arising about theoretical development; • stifle innovative development; and • can be changed too readily when a “real” development proposal is being evaluated”.  http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/Planning_Scheme_Review.pdf)

Readers should note the short shrift given to the ‘advantages’ of structure planning, and the somewhat nebulous arguments decrying their benefits. Could someone please explain what is meant by the three bullet points above? Or is this just typical council mumbo-jumbo designed to confuse, distort, and ultimately misinform?

According to the Department of Planning and Community Development, the benefit of structure planning is to enable “the community and other stakeholders to actively participate in consideration of the future form and function of centres, ultimately helping to secure their confidence in the centre’s development”. (http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/plansandpolicies/activity-centres/activity-centres-faqs#5)

But the real sting in the tail comes from this objective: 

“Community engagement is essential for the structure plan and involves the wider community and may include targeted consultation. Community engagement is appropriate during key stages of the development and implementation of the structure plan. This will include developing a vision for the centre, scoping community and stakeholder issues, developing the plan, seeking feedback on the draft plan, and outlining how the community and stakeholders can continue to be engaged during the implementation phase. Broader community involvement at these key stages can be supplemented by ongoing involvement of key stakeholder representatives, for example through a reference group or steering committee. Community engagement can be undertaken through various methods, and it is important to ensure that the project team has the appropriate skills to plan for and undertake effective community engagement. The plan should aim to ensure that a representative community is engaged. This can be achieved by engaging the community about matters that are of interest to them, for example safety, housing choice, shopping, car parking, open space, bicycle paths rather than focus purely on the structure plan document”. http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/41672/PN58_Activity_Centres___Structure_planning_for_Activity_Centres_Web_version.pdf

 ‘Real community consultation’ is not the Glen Eira Way, nor has it been for the past decade. We suggest that the failure to conceive, and implement structure plans by this council has as much to do with disenfranchising the community as it has to do with pro-development and the corporate ‘business plan’. The reverse is ostensibly true of Bayside and the ethos which appears to inform all their policy directions. For example, when developing one of their structure plans, the process involved:

“At Council’s request consultation with property owners and residents in all areas, of both high and moderate significance, was conducted as the next stage in the project. This included an information package with feedback forms sent to all owners and occupiers and ‘open house’ drop-in information sessions. Over 1,000 submissions were received, via feedback forms and individually drafted responses. The consultation provided vital input into the study in regard to the values placed by the local community on these areas and their response to the recommended planning controls. The submissions have been analysed in detail and recommendations for each area in view of the additional information received have been finalised. This has involved additional site survey work and in some instances adjustments to precinct boundaries or descriptions have been made.” (http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/11_July_08_Final_Report.pdf) 

In the past two years Bayside has WITHDRAWN its original draft open space strategy when public response was largely negative. It has gone back, and instituted an entirely new consultation process that involves committees, dedicated websites, online surveys, email newsletters and public meetings. (http://au.cpg-global.com/projects/BaysideOSS/Index.html. Then there is also the ‘community engagement framework’ which sets out clear steps and commitments. (see: http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/community_engagement_framework.pdf).

Nothing like this exists in Glen Eira. Despite the repeated jargon of ‘extensive consultation’ that is sprinkled throughout annual reports and other documentation, meaningful interaction with the community is non existent. To introduce structure planning that has any merit would mean turning the non-engagement principle on its head  – something this autocratic council sees as anathema.