SOUTH
HOBART PROGRESS ASSOCIATION INC.
(Incorporating
Cascades Progress Association)
Founded 1922
ABN 65 850 310
318
|
President: Mr. Kevin Wilson
|
Hon. Secretary: Mr.
David Halse Rogers |
The
Chairman
Local
Government Board
GPO
TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION
WITH RPDC LETTER
Dear
Sirs,
Local Government Board
Review of The
Under the Local Government
Act, 1993.
The South Hobart Progress
Association Inc. (SHPA) is
grateful for the opportunity to submit comments relating to the Local
Government Board’s General Review of The
Hobart City Council (HCC).
You
will see that the Association has appended a copy of a letter, originally
written to the Resource Planning &
Development Commission (RPDC). The letter raises general issues relating to
…”matters pertaining to the overall
objectivity and transparency of the planning process”… specifically as they
pertain to local government amendments to planning schemes. Recently, the SHPA has had discussions with
the Executive Officer of the RPDC. It
was decided that the issues raised in our letter were far too broad for the
RPDC’s remit, and would be dealt with, more appropriately, by the present
Review. The actual amendment referred to
in that document is retained only to illustrate the problems community groups
and individual ratepayers experience with the overall planning process.
Community Development,
Communication and Consultation:
Whilst
it is true that the HCC has taken initiatives, of late, to appear to present a
more positive attitude to the community which it serves, much of what has been
achieved is “merely window dressing”, rather than showing a solid commitment to
providing the community with a real sense of consultation, participation, and
equity.
On
the positive side, the publication of the quarterly Hobart Council News and the advent of a dedicated Hobart City
Council website have done much to provide the community with information
relating to Council’s programme of works, access to staff and aldermen via
e-mail, and access to some, but not all, of Council’s agendas and minutes. However, much of this can be seen as Council
propaganda, rather than a genuine attempt to become a truly transparent,
inclusive organisation.
The
community perception is that these initiatives, laudable as they may be, are an
attempt to hide the fact that, when it ‘comes to the crunch’, Council’s
loyalties lie very much with the powerful, the moneyed, and the
entrepreneur. The HCC appears to be
incapable of genuine community participation and consultation. An attitudinal change is needed by both the
aldermen of the Council and HCC staff, who often actively work to oppose
genuine community involvement in issues.
In fact, there is a sense of alienation and hopelessness engendered
within the community by comments and attitudes of aldermen as to the bona fides
of progress associations and other community groups to legitimately represent
their constituents.
Even
when Council does initiate consultation with the community, as instanced by
Council’s attempt to comply with the requirements of the Dog Control Act, 1987,
the public perception is that the HCC is merely ‘going through the motions’ in
an attempt to be perceived as “inclusive”.
Again, the public perception, especially amongst dog owners, is that the
agenda had been pre-determined, and that only minor modifications to already
preset guidelines will be tolerated.
Genuine community communication and consultation only occurs when
Council is prepared to listen to the concerns of ratepayers from the outset,
before draft policy is even determined.
The
SHPA has not been tardy in congratulating Council on examples of good
process. For example, the recent Macquarie Street Townscape Project was
adjudged to show a good balance between the need for professional input and
local community knowledge. That the
findings and precepts of this excellent document have been subverted by recent
aldermanic interference with the planning process only reinforces, in the
community mind, the development bias of the HCC.
A
totally positive example of process, whereby individuals and community groups
feel enfranchised, is instanced by Council’s Traffic Management
Committees. Locally, the South Hobart
Traffic Management Committee, which comprised residents, business owners and
HCC staff and an alderman, produced outcomes that appear to have satisfied all
“stakeholders” (to use that dreadful term).
Not only was the planning and execution conducted in a true spirit of
cooperation but the staff of Civic
Solutions (aka the HCC) became goodwill ambassadors of Council. Many in the community commented upon their
professionalism and courtesy favourably.
Aldermanic
Accountability:
Section
9.9 of the Act requires that the voting intentions of aldermen should be
recorded in all minutes and in all cases (subcommittees and full council). It is very difficult to obtain this
information, and only recently (to the SHPA’s knowledge) have voting intentions
been made available to the public on a regular basis. The SHPA suggests that when future IT
upgrades are made, programmes should be designed to allow the extraction of
information relating to aldermanic voting patterns.
The
Annual General Meetings of Council are, for the most part, a daunting
experience for the ‘average Joe’. For a
start, the aldermen sit in splendid isolation with backs to the gallery, both
physically and mentally: a better unconscious example of closed mindedness
would be hard to imagine. Intimidation
need not be overtly expressed to be readily apparent to the hapless ratepayer,
who would rather keep quiet than run the gauntlet of aldermanic indifference. The AGM should be held away from the Council
Chamber, in surroundings conducive to lively and productive debate.
Advertising
Issues:
Whilst
aware of the need for prompt processing of development applications (i.e: 42
days), the Association considers that a return to the previous policy of only
advertising on Wednesdays and Saturdays in The
Mercury should be considered. At
present, it is too onerous for the average person to have to keep abreast of
daily DA notices. In fact, the whole
process of Council notifications is open to query. Is it another ploy of Council to confuse the
average ratepayer? The Review Board is
respectfully asked to obtain a copy of page 70 of The Saturday Mercury of
The
SHPA would also like to see the process of notification to adjacent property
owners broadened to include a more generous interpretation of who exactly is an
affected neighbour. Commonsense in most
cases would provide the answer or a site visit.
At present, those most affected by contentious developments are excluded
from the notification process. The
Association would like to see a policy of: “When in doubt, NOTIFY!”
The
SHPA has for years been attempting to have copies of local DAs sent
automatically to affected community associations, but has been fobbed off with
excuses that such a process is too time consuming, or expensive, or impossible
technically, or all of the above. With
today’s IT departments, such a transfer of information should be feasible and
would greatly enhance the feeling of cooperation that Council is attempting to
portray.
Asset
Management:
The
SHPA is aware of community concern regarding the apparent cavalier attitude by
Council and planners to public open space.
Public assets, such as beachside parks, are for all the community. A culture of ‘entrepreneurism’ has grown up
within Council since the advent of Economic Rationalism, which puts a dollar
value on assets that have intrinsic worth not readily apparent to the rapacious
adherents of this now discredited religion.
And yet when the community or individuals oppose such plans, they are
dismissed by local government employees and aldermen as reactionary and
self-interested. The Board could
recommend to the State Government that such activities overstep the remit of
Council.
Amalgamation
of Councils:
The
SHPA is of the opinion that much taxpayer money is wasted in unnecessary
duplication of equipment, staff and activity in the Greater Hobart area with at
least six local government authorities acting for less than 150,000
people. The parochialism reached new
heights when Hobart City Council spent over $30,000.00 erecting signs saying
Welcome to
Finally,
to return to a planning issue: this submission has referred to aldermanic
interference in the recommendations of Council’s own professional staff on
contentious development issues. Whilst not
denying the fact that these are the democratically elected representatives of
the community, it seems to this Association that when aldermen take actions,
which override recommendations of their own council staff, they should be
required to provide a statement of reasons under the ADJR Act to account for
Council’s actions. At present, there is
no process, when a planning appeal is lodged, to require the HCC to justify its
actions. Under present legislation, the
Association has been told that HCC documents, which are in the public domain,
are inadmissible before the Resource
Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal
(RMPAT). This loophole needs
urgent attention to restore equity to the planning process.
The
Association thanks you for your time and hopes that the points raised will be
taken in the spirit in which they are intended.
Kevin
Wilson.
President. (SHPA Inc.)