GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

March 9, 2011

How it Could Be Done!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
[4] Comments 

We’ve repeatedly highlighted the inadequacy and shortcomings of Council’s ‘consultation’ methodology, methods and feedback loops. This was really apparent in the Planning Scheme Review which we’ve contrasted with the extensive approach(es) taken by Bayside. As further evidence of what can be done where there is a will and genuine attempt to gauge community feeling, we compare and contrast the questions that both Councils put to residents on the Planning Scheme.

All Glen Eira produced in its so called ‘discussion paper’ were vague statements not generally tied to specific issues and/or objectives and that were also dependent on an extensive knowledge of State  and local Planning Policy that was not fully explained. Some examples were:

Does the MSS represent Glen Eira’s general planning policy directions?

Does it reflect sound planning principles?

Are the policies effective in terms of providing housing opportunities on the one hand and a level of protection to valued neighbourhoods on the other? 

Do State Government ideals match local community expectations?

Bayside on the other hand is asking for residents’ feedback by directly linking their questions with the 34 page review (and numerous ‘fact sheets’). Questions are specific, open ended, wide ranging and always tied to the objectives and goals identified in the preliminary review. – ie

“Your thoughts about the Bayside Planning Scheme Review:

Through reviews of the Planning Scheme over the last 10 years a number of key issues/aspirations have been identified (refer to page 8 of the review). 

Q1a. Do you agree with these key issues/aspirations on page 8 and are they still relevant today?  Please list any new issues that you think should be included, in order of priority 

Q2a. Do you think that the Bayside Planning Scheme adequately addresses the key issues/aspirations listed on page 8? If no, what do you think needs to be improved?  

Q3. What additional strategic work should Council be undertaking to address the key issues/aspirations listed on page 8?  

Q4. Do you find the Planning Scheme easy to use when either preparing or responding to a permit application? If no, what would make it easier to use?  

Q5. What issues, if any do you encounter when using the Local Planning Policy Framework? Are they hard to use? Do they cause you problems? What are these problems?  

Q6. Are the Zone and Overlays Schedules difficult to interpret? If so, which zones and overlays? Can you recommend any improvements?  

Q7. Are you aware of any recent VCAT decisions that raise issues that are currently not addressed by the Bayside Planning Scheme?  

Q8. Can you think of a property/area that you believe to be inappropriately zoned or have inappropriate overlay controls? If yes, what is the address and what do you think it should be zoned as (used for) and/or what overlay should it have/not have over it?  

Q9. Do you think that there are any directions contained with the State Planning Policy Framework that the Bayside Planning Scheme does not implement?  

Q10. How prescriptive do you think the Bayside Planning Scheme should be in relation to built form?

□ Prescriptive – applications determined on the basis of whether they meet mandatory height and setback controls.

□ Performance based – applications determined on the basis of whether they meet defined objectives. 

Q11. Please use the space below to provide any other comments on the Preliminary Planning Scheme Review and ways the Bayside Planning Scheme can be improved. You may of course add additional pages if required.

 

February 20, 2011

Residents – The Missing Link!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
[4] Comments 

 

February 17, 2011

Compare & Contrast

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
[5] Comments 
        

How to get involved

Be involved in shaping Bayside and your neighbourhood!

Forums, briefing sessions and walking tours

Expert panel

Come along and hear three experts discuss the challenges facing Melbourne and Bayside from historical, planning and economic perspectives.

View event details:

Perspectives on new housing in Bayside

Come and explore views on new housing in Bayside from the perspectives of an architect, resident groups and the development industry.

View event details:

Walking tours of three Activity Centres

Led by renowned urban designer and planner Roz Hansen, of Hansen Partners planning consultancy, come and look at what works and doesn’t work in three Activity Centres. Each walking tour is limited to 25 people.

View event details:

Briefing sessions

Hear about Council’s proposed approach to key planning issues and managing change in Bayside, then talk to Council staff about the topics being considered: Housing, Activity Centres, Employment, Open Space, Environment, Transport and Planning Scheme implementation.

View event details:

Planning for Real: Community workshop

This workshop is based on the principle that local people have the ideas, skills and experience to help shape the future of Bayside. It will be an opportunity for the community, in an informal environment to provide detailed feedback on the Council’s proposed approach to managing change.

View event details:

You can register for these events online, or by calling (03) 9599 4635.

Displays

Bayside’s libraries will host displays of the strategic choices which are being considered for managing change in Bayside.

Our libraries are also locations to pick-up copies of documents associated with the consultation and to leave your comments.

The display will also be at Council’s offices at 76 Royal Avenue, Sandringham.

Exhibition panel

Brighton Library
14 Wilson Street, Brighton
From: Monday 21 March 2011
To: Sunday 10 April 2011

Beaumaris Library
96 Reserve Road, Beaumaris
From: Monday 11 April 2011
To: Monday 25 April 2011

Document collection

Sandringham Library
2-8 Waltham Street, Sandringham
From: Monday 21 March 2011
To: Monday 25 April 2011

Hampton Library
1D Service St, Hampton
From: Monday 7 March 2011
T:o: Monday 25 April 2011

Council Offices
76 Royal Avenue, Sandringham
From: Monday 28 February
To: Monday 2 May 2011

Road shows

There will be a road show at shopping centres throughout the municipality hosted by Council’s planning staff.

These will provide the same information as the library displays but with Council staff on hand to answer any questions you have.

The road show will be at seven different locations around the municipality:

Beaumaris Concourse
South Concourse – Outside IGA supermarket
Thursday 7 April 2011
11:00am – 2:00pm

Brighton
Bright n Sandy Festival
Sunday 6 March 2011
11:00am – 6:00pm

Brighton (Church Street)
Church Street – Outside Safeway
Saturday 16 April 2011
10:00am – 1:00pm

Gardenvale
140 Martin Street opposite the train station
Monday 28 March 2011
2:00pm – 5:00pm

Hampton
Hampton Street – Outside Safeway
Saturday 9 April  2011
10:00am – 1:00 pm

Highett
Highett Road – Outside the Highett Librar
Wednesday 23 March 2011
11:00am – 2:00pm

Sandringham
Station Street – Sandringham Train Station
Wednesday 27 April  2011
2:00pm – 5:00pm
Page last updated: 16 Feb 2011

 


 

February 16, 2011

Consultation or Manipulation?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
[3] Comments 

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
 

January 8, 2011

A New Beginning, or More of the Same?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication
[4] Comments 

The next 3 to 4 months will reveal much about the mindset of councillors. Residents will be able to judge whether the few sparks of resistance and independence by a minority of councillors will go down in history as a mere flash in the pan, or become the catalyst for real change in Glen Eira. Crucial issues loom – the C60; the racecourse centre development; planning delegations to council officers; a ‘review’ of the consultation policy (commented on previously) as well as potential changes to the Local Law in terms of alcohol free zones and the introduction of a vexatious questions clause. Each of these issues, how they are handled and how much the community is involved, will tell residents all they need to know about these nine men and women.  We will know exactly:

  • Whether councillors are fulfilling their legal obligations to shape and direct strategic planning
  • Whether councillors are finally exerting their mandate to rule (in line with community values) leaving administrators to simply administrate
  • Whether councillors are finally paying more than lip service to principles of community engagement and consultation

There can be no ‘new beginning’ for Glen Eira until councillors fully embrace the following principles as set out by the International Association of Public Participation (and endorsed by the VLGA). Nothing will change unless councillors insist that these principles become the bases of decision making within Glen Eira.

Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation

  1. Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process.
     
  2. Public participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision.
     
  3. Public participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communicating the needs and interests of all participants, including decision makers.
     
  4. Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision.
     
  5. Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate.
     
  6. Public participation provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.
     
  7. Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.

We sincerely hope that 2011 will bring a revolution to the way this council operates and to the current perceived mentality of ‘we know best’! Such practices have been disasters. To continue along these same lines will only further alienate many in the community and signal the continued erosion of democratic process, accountability and good governance.

 

December 5, 2010

Consultation and Planning

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication
[5] Comments 

From the classic Sherry Arnstein ‘s  A Ladder of Citizen Participation

The bottom rungs of the ladder are (1) Manipulation and (2) Therapy. These two rungs describe levels of “non-participation” that have been contrived by some to substitute for genuine participation. Their real objective is not to enable people to participate in planning or conducting programs, but to enable powerholders to “educate” or “cure” the participants. Rungs 3 and 4 progress to levels of “tokenism” that allow the have-nots to hear and to have a voice: (3) Informing and (4) Consultation. When they are proffered by powerholders as the total extent of participation, citizens may indeed hear and be heard. But under these conditions they lack the power to insure that their views will be heeded by the powerful. When participation is restricted to these levels, there is no follow-through, no “muscle,” hence no assurance of changing the status quo. Rung (5) Placation is simply a higher level tokenism because the ground rules allow have-nots to advise, but retain for the powerholders the continued right to decide.

Further up the ladder are levels of citizen power with increasing degrees of decision-making clout. Citizens can enter into a (6) Partnership that enables them to negotiate and engage in trade-offs with traditional power holders. At the topmost rungs, (7) Delegated Power and (8) Citizen Control, have-not citizens obtain the majority of decision-making seats, or full managerial power.

In the name of citizen participation, people are placed on rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards for the express purpose of “educating” them or engineering their support. Instead of genuine citizen participation, the bottom rung of the ladder signifies the distortion of participation into a public relations vehicle by powerholders.

In some respects group therapy, masked as citizen participation, should be on the lowest rung of the ladder because it is both dishonest and arrogant.

Informing citizens of their rights, responsibilities, and options can be the most important first step toward legitimate citizen participation. However, too frequently the emphasis is placed on a one-way flow of information – from officials to citizens – with no channel provided for feedback and no power for negotiation. Under these conditions, particularly when information is provided at a late stage in planning, people have little opportunity to influence the program designed “for their benefit.” The most frequent tools used for such one-way communication are the news media, pamphlets, posters, and responses to inquiries.

Meetings can also be turned into vehicles for one-way communication by the simple device of providing superficial information, discouraging questions, or giving irrelevant answers.

Inviting citizens’ opinions, like informing them, can be a legitimate step toward their full participation. But if consulting them is not combined with other modes of participation, this rung of the ladder is still a sham since it offers no assurance that citizen concerns and ideas will be taken into account. The most frequent methods used for consulting people are attitude surveys, neighborhood meetings, and public hearings.

When powerholders restrict the input of citizens’ ideas solely to this level, participation remains just a window-dressing ritual. People are primarily perceived as statistical abstractions, and participation is measured by how many come to meetings, take brochures home, or answer a questionnaire. What citizens achieve in all this activity is that they have “participated in participation.” And what powerholders achieve is the evidence that they have gone through the required motions of involving “those people.”

 

 

December 3, 2010

Consultation

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication
[7] Comments 

A report from the Consultation Committee was tabled, and its recommendations adopted, on November 3rd, 2010.  

One recommendation read: 

The Committee agreed that the current consultation framework should include the following information to better inform the community about Council consultation processes.

􀂃 The benefits of community engagement;

􀂃 Principles for undertaking community engagement;

􀂃 How Council will communicate and engage with the community; and

􀂃 Tools that Council will use to engage with the community.

Recommendation: Officers to review the ‘Six sets (sic) to community consultation’ paper approved by Council in 2007.

Moved Cr Pilling, Seconded Cr Hyams. Motion Carried.

The above motion inevitably leads to questions:

  1. Is the objective of the recommendation merely to ‘better inform’ – that is, will the ‘review’ actually alter/adapt/amend anything that is currently contained in the policy? Or will it merely represent another exercise in ‘spin’?
  2. In requesting a ‘review’ by officers, which will presumably then come before council for decision, will the public have an opportunity for comment? Ironically, will the community be ‘consulted’ on this new version of the ‘consultation’ policy? Or will council again rubber stamp a document written, directed, and engineered by officers and the public will be excluded from comment?
  3. With what confidence can the community accept that this will be a fair dinkum review of ‘consultation’, when all the directives involve ‘engagement’ as opposed to ‘consultation’. The difference is fundamental to outcomes. Does this therefore represent a lack of knowledge by councillors, or a deliberate manoeuvring – in short a ‘clayton’s review’?
  4. Will this review provide what is currently missing – detailed scenarios, criteria, and performance and evaluation measures that clearly and unequivocably establish the VARIETY of consultation methods for each possible project, policy, master plan, etc. In other words, will the community have council’s commitment to utilise a multiplicity of ‘consultation methods’ that are correlated with the perceived impact of any policy? For example: will council commit to a policy that mandates the use of three ‘consultation’ methods when the potential impact of the proposal is likely to affect 20% of the community? Or four methods when the impact will reach 40% of the community? Or will it become mandatory that all methods are used for something as vital as the budget, the council plan, or issues such as the racecourse?
  5. Will there be any recommendations that list options to IMPROVE current methodology and method?

 Of course, any consultation policy, methodology, and method is only as good as the underlying philosophies and practices which generate the policy. If there is real commitment to ‘engage and consult’ in order to better inform decision making, then it is likely that anything will work. When however, we have a situation that is designed to merely pay lip service to such principles, then all methods will produce the desired result! Time will tell with this one!

 

November 30, 2010

Public Realm: Consultation

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
[3] Comments 

This email and an attachment arrived this morning:

Dear Gleneira Debates,
 
I just read your entry on the middle of the Racecourse and I am appalled at the way such a Public issue is being handled. But then I am not surprised at that.
 
I am attaching Council’s letter of 22 November about changes of the road arrangements on Glenhuntly Rd cnr Manchester Gve. The letter invites comments by 7 December. I am a trader nearby and really do not have time for writing and commenting on such a complex in my view issue. The corner has Safeway with 20,000 visitors per week and a 4 storey building being built on the corner. Again there will be a huge influx of cars and people using Public Transport.
 
This is a Public Realm issue and should have a meeting of residents and users of the area. The traders should be invited to a presentation and verbal detailed explanation not just a drawing, which may or may not be understood. The issue of Parking is also briefly mentioned, but my impression is that it is a fait accompli.
 
This may be a disaster intersection, since future traffic flows are not being accounted for.
 
It’s clear that the Engagement process and communication to the Public is unsatisfactory. I just wonder if the changes were simply done on behest of the 2 stakeholders: Safeway and the Developer without any reference to the Public. I also wonder if Councillors themselves know anything about these changes.
 
Could you please alert your readers and the Public of this project.
 
Unhappy Trader

JamesGlenhuntlyCrossRoads.[1]

 

November 30, 2010

C60: Another ‘Swifty’ by Council?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication
[14] Comments 

Today’s Glen Eira Council advertisement in the Caulfield Leader. We quote:

Notice is given pursuant to Section 89(4) of the Local Government Act, 1989 that a meeting of Glen Eira City Council’s Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee will be held on Monday 13th December 2010 in the Council Chamber, corner of Hawthorn and Glen Eira Roads, Caulfield, commencing at 7pm.

The business to be transacted at this meeting will be

  • Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) Planning Scheme Amendment (C60) – to consider either approval (adoption) or abandonment of the amendment and
  • Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) – to consider a planning application for works in the centre of the reserve (the construction of a car parking area, amenities, playground equipment, and sport/fitness equipment).

We have major concerns with this announcement which we believe amounts to an attempt by this administration to ram through an unpopular option as quickly and quietly as possible. We demand answers to the following:

  1. Up until now the centre of the racecourse has been treated by Council as a ‘normal’ planning application. Suddenly it has become the domain of a Special Committee with delegated powers. Why is this application removed from an open council meeting?
  2. Were ALL councillors consulted/informed that this was to happen?
  3. The size of the advertisement is a further indictment on this Council and its genuine attempt to engage and inform the community. When half page ads can be taken out to promote ‘concerts’, then surely a half page ad –  at least –  can be taken out to inform residents of the most significant planning issue that has confronted the municipality!! We conclude that the intention remains – the less people know, the better!!

 

 

November 29, 2010

C60 Special Council Meeting

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication
[11] Comments 

Council’s letter announcing the Special Meeting of the Racecourse Precinct Committee contained the following information:

  • Purpose was to consider the rezoning amendment
  • To ‘facilitate retail and residential development’
  • Agendas would be available at libraries, website, on the Friday preceding the Monday 13th meeting

One sentence in particular stood out: ‘You will not have the opportunity to address the council meeting’. The letter was signed by Susan Ross, Strategic Planner.

The results of Saturday’s election however, have cast an entirely different complexion on the issue. We cite a recently received comment from ‘Curious’ – “What an incredible result we got in Victoria. And the unnecessary spend and/or waste and/or lack of services clearly were the key factors in delivering the Government to Ted Bailliue Liberals. But the most surprising outcome is the result in Bentleigh, where Rob Hudson was rolled. I reckon that the unnecessary and therefore quite wasteful spend on GESAC, which attracted lots of money from Labour Governments has became a negative for Rob Hudson.

I think there is a lesson in that for the Glen Eira Council. Do not ignore community views! They were clearly not acceptable by many! The full impact of this huge GESAC project is yet to be revealed. And we are still to see how the issue of Caulfield Racecourse Recreation Public Ground and Public Park issue is going to be resolved by the Ted Baillieu Government? CONGRATULATIONS TO DAVID SOUTHWICK, ELIZABETH MILLER AND TED BAILLIEU FOR A STUNNING SUCCESS.”

What we now have is an entirely new ball game. Madden is gone, Southwick has declared his support for appropriate development of the Racecourse and surrounding precincts and Miller will follow suit. Even Huppert in her response to our questions laid the blame at Council’s doorstep! Now is the time for concerted opposition to Council’s inertia, and neglect of community opinion. Their latest effort in denying residents the opportunity to address the December 13th meeting must be challenged. Councillors must be made acutely aware that ‘a new age’ has dawned and their days of rubber stamping of administrative proposals is a thing of the past. We urge all residents to:

  • Email the mayor demanding your right to address Council
  • When your request is denied, inundate the wider media, parliamentarians, neighbours and friends with your disgust
  • Highlight again and again how the community is being effectively muzzled by the ‘gang of four’ and how undemocratic and anti-community this is
  • Demand the suspension of this meeting

Any other suggestions, thoughts, comments by readers are most welcome.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »