This post is all about Manipulation and how it parades as ‘consultation’.  We will only focus on two documents which we’ve uploaded for reference – the Planning Scheme Review and the council submission to the Government’s Retail Policy Review. These documents provide a clear indication of:

  • Agendas that are never clearly spelt out thereby ensuring consultation is nothing but a sham
  • The failure to provide adequate, reliable and objective information that should always form the basis of ‘consultation’ and subsequent ‘decision making’
  • Failure to substantiate million dollar decisions via comprehensive and rigorous cost benefit analyses

This is why we hold the above views. Councils are mandated to be transparent and accountable in their decision making. Implicit in these strictures is the imperative for ‘consultation’. The cornerstone of all ‘consultation’ is the absolute necessity to firstly INFORM. There can be no effective consultation if residents don’t know, or understand the full implications of all that is being asked or proposed.

Glen Eira continually, and we believe deliberately, undermines this basic tenet. Nowhere is this more evident than in the recent Planning Scheme Review. Only a tiny smattering of the 35 pages contains any ‘discussion’, justification, fact, figures, or cold hard evidence to support the ultimate recommendations. Here are a few examples: 

Master planning for institutions: There was limited interest in this issue. However those who commented were generally supportive of the idea of requiring master plans for institutions. Long term ambitions should be revealed when they impact the community. 

Council’s existing Development Contributions Plan Overlay has expired and must be removed from the scheme. There was limited public interest in this issue. However those who did respond believed they were an important form of levying developers to cover the costs of providing infrastructure – why should the current population have to pay for these upgrades through rates? This issue involves balancing the costs of justifying any overlay against likely future income for Council. 

The ‘Net Increase in Dwellings in Glen Eira’ ….indicates that Glen Eira’s policy of directing the majority of additional housing to Housing Diversity Areas (HDAs) that are around activity centres and/or close to public transport is working well. (Yet the Annual report tell us that only 40% of new housing stock is going into HDAs – certainly not a ‘majority’ as claimed here! And given that this policy came into effect in 2004, a 40% outcome in 7 years does not signify ‘success’!)

Processes and efficiency also need questioning as a result of this sentence – In 97% of files audited, the planner has assessed the application against relevant policies. (Why not 100%? On what bases are decisions then made?)

An analyses of the submission on the Retail Policy is equally illuminating.  – Decisions regarding retail development need to take into account the broader network of centres and the identified role and function of individual centres.’ (Is this why the C60 with its 35,000 metre retail space only looked at Chadstone, and not at the other 53 shopping strips throughout Glen Eira?!!! Why the contradiction?)

Another paragraph from Akehurst provides further food for thought:

An emerging issue for many councils is the need to manage the competing interest of commercial and residential tenants of activity centres. As more residential building are constructed in activity centres, we are seeing conflicts between residents and commercial uses in terms of noise from early morning deliveries, rubbish collection and street cleaning. Planning policy needs to ensure that retail and commercial uses remain the most important uses in an activity centre.

When this statement is compared to what is contained in the Planning Scheme Review, the hidden agendas become obvious – There was some support for structure plans for activity centres. However, many of the written submissions indicated the hope that structure plans will control and in fact minimise development in activity centres.  

Structure plans after all demand holistic approaches to planning that incorporates environment, residential amenity, open space, transport, etc. This is anathema to any plan that seeks to ‘ensure that retail and commercial uses remain the most important’. Pity is, that the ‘truth’ is never spelt out!

Conclusion? Crucial issues involving millions of dollars are thus brushed off with no real explanation or any ‘proof’ to support proposed future actions.

A caveat. We are not planners nor lawyers. However, we do regard ourselves as reasonably intelligent people who are continually scratching our heads trying to understand what the hell is going on. As ratepayers we have the right to expect that decisions that involve millions of dollars and have the potential to ruin the lifestyle of countless residents will be fully documented; that the rationale will be explained; that it will be a given that only on the basis of accurate and comprehensive information provision can any worthwhile decision be made. Hence, as reasonable and intelligent people, we want to know the information that has led to the above decisions. We want the information which will allow us to say ‘yeah’ or ‘nay’ to suspect proposals and public relations spin. That’s when there will be genuine consultation and NOT MANIPULATION.

Residents should take special heed of the following sentence, because it encapsulates this council’s vision and practise of ‘consultation’ and information provision –  ‘opening up ‘hard won’ local policies for public scrutiny potentially risks the continuation of such policies’.

We’ll conclude with this summary:

  • Information provided to residents lacks detail, comprehensiveness, and objectivity
  • Information provided to residents is deliberately skewed to further already determined agendas
  • Information provided to residents fails to include detailed cost benefit analyses
  • Information provided to residents fails the first principle of effective communication