Seminar Two - Community Participation

Richard begun the lecture by defining Planning as a process, not as an end product.  The process of planning involves power relationships between stakeholders, and is affected by individual and group interests.  Previously planners were technicians providing specialist advice and when employed by the government could make decisions that were generally not open to public scrutiny prior to their implementation.  However, this changed quite some time ago, and over recent decades the planning process includes community consultation and engagement.  No other public policy area seems to invoke as much passion or interest as planning, and the community expects and demands to be able to have a voice, and participate in decisions that might affect the urban landscape, especially where it might impact on their own backyard.

I thought the ladder of citizen participation article by Sherry Arnstein (1969) was really relevant. Interestingly, and despite the age of the article, I also encountered this same model being used to explain public engagement practices by government in public sector management literature, and therefore appears to hold weight with the broader social science community.

Michael Pilbrow, Managing Director of Strategic Development Associates, was the Guest lecturer for the topic.  As discussed, my previous exposure to citizen participation theory was through a governance lens, yet Michael presented a different perspective, explaining how the practice of Citizen participation by developers and private interests could facilitate better community outcomes while saving developers considerable time and money.  It makes sense.

Consider this; planners at ACTPLA (now the Environment and Planning Directorate, or EPD for short) are required under statute to make the public aware of larger development proposals, so as to provide an opportunity for the community to make comment and representations regarding the proposal so that those concerns can be considered during the development application assessment period.  The community can raise any number of issues, and make any number of recommendations, some of which could be very reasonable but well outside the scope of the development application.  The simple fact is this, while the government is empowered to make the final decision on the application, they are generally not (except in the case of some public private partnerships) the entity funding, commencing, building, and integrating the development and do not have a mandate to remodel a development proposal in any major way.  EPD are effectively acting as a go between or mediator between the developer and the community, whilst trying to assessing the proposal for compliance with development codes and overlays.  I would argue that  EPD are able to pass suggestions on to the developer, or even require some modification to the development in the form of a conditional approval, but it is the developer who needs to be creatively engaged with the community, and listen first hand to the voices of the various interest groups.

I applaud the community engagement that Michael has undertaken with the proposed West Belconnen/Yass development.  A developer engaging the community at the grass roots level, making sure their voice is heard, acknowledging their concerns and working to find solutions and actively incorporating creative suggestions as part of the development is empowering for everyone, helps to ensure a good outcome, and saves the developer (and the community purse) significant costs.  Any development approval by the government for a large scale development is subject to third party merit review in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT).  This is an expensive process for all parties.  Money spent by the government defending a decision in ACAT is money it can't spend on health, education and roads, with the amount of time spent in court potentially delaying a development by months and in same cases years if the ACAT decision is appealed to a higher court.  Better for the developer to engage with the community from the outset and together fine tune a prospective development before presenting it to the government for a decision.

Michael didn't come to talk about the West Belconnen/Yass development, but if he did I would have asked him about proposed linkages with NSW.  Would there be a bridge across the Murrumbidgee River linking those living in NSW between Wee Jasper and Uriarra to Belconnen?  Would there be a way for those living on Wallaroo Road in NSW to cross the Ginninderra Falls ravine and enter this new NSW town?  If not then the well defined geographic boundaries of this area would basically mean that no one could come from NSW to the NSW side of the development without going all the way around and back through the ACT first.  Without sufficient linkages this isolated part of NSW would simply be a part of the ACT with complicated administration.  I hope the potential for increasing linkages with isolated parts of Yass Shire are explored as part of this development.  Anyone who has driven to Wee Jasper through Urriara will know exactly what I am talking about.