Where did the "Fair Go" go?

Newspapers are full of articles of our failed planning system that contributes to multiple crises and disasters we are living through. Implementation of our planning system is in the hands of local government. Among other things, local government, according to legislation, needs to implement some basic principles in its operation (including land planning):

• Councils should carry out functions in a way that provides the best possible value for residents and ratepayers.
• Councils should act fairly, ethically and without bias in the interests of the local community.
• Councils should consider social justice principles.
• Councils should consider the long term and cumulative effects of actions on future generations.
• Councils should consider the principles of ecologically sustainable development.
• Councils should actively engage with their local communities, through the use of the integrated planning and reporting framework and other measures.

This reflects basic principles of Australian democracy that are summed up in a term "fair go".

This is a real life play that took place in New South Wales, Australia, that could show how those principles work in practice of a large regional LGA with very scarce population.

Time: April, year 2 of Covid era.

Background: Events took place at an online meeting between members of a landowner's association of 3500-lot subdivision (representing about 5% of all LGA's ratepayers) with the Mayor, Council's General Manager (GM) and Director of Liveable Communities (DLC). Local Council became an owner of about 1000 of those 3500 lots as a compensation for landowners not being able to continue paying rates on a land they can't develop due to planning rules. Association and it's members had made numerous submissions to the process of creation of Council's strategic documents, without results. Their land, previously approved as urban is determined to be rural, by local planning experts, and as such become undevelopable as per rural planning rules. No amount of expert evidence from landowner's association and community was enough to influence Council's own experts. Despite being a part of one of the first agricultural grants, 200 years ago, numerous clearings and current devastation (see photo), Cuncil's expert recommended further down-zoning of this land into "environmental" zoning.

After formalities of introduction, landowners presented, once more, their initiative to resolve long-standing issue of development (or lack there of) in collaboration with the Council who is at the same time largest landowner in the area (about 1/3 of all lots in subdivision). Landowners presented opportunities, economic, social and environmental, for development of this land would make to the area and the whole of LGA.

Landowner1, planning and development expert, - advised that community understands Councils current planning position (that process of creating new LEP is being undertaken due to amalgamation), community would like to be heard from the councillors as they are the ones (that should be) determining strategic goals (as per Local Government regulation) with assistance from public servants like the Director of Liveable Communities (DLC) and strategic planning team. Community, as ratepayers is asking for the establishment of a working relationship with the Council for achieving mutually beneficial outcomes.

DLC asked if he could explain the process of council as he didn’t believe Landowner1 understood it:

"Community members do not meet with councillors – it’s a formalized process. At the request of the council to prepare a study for rural lands, this study will be represented to Councillors and the community. There is an exhibition for the community, after the exhibition process has finalized the community will have a chance to comment. The council will then make their decision."

Council's General Manager (GM), advised this is because Council discusses with the entire LGA, not just little pockets of communities. CGM advised that at this meeting Mayor was present. Council thought that it was important for him to come in a listen, so landowners don’t feel as they are not being heard.

Mayor repeated the point made by GM, about the formal planning process (despite nither of them being experts in that). The basis for it is to prevent individuals getting into unrealistic expectations for political gain. The development of LGA must be done in a strategic fashion so that resources can be managed with the finances we have and the capacity of Council staff.

Landowner1 advised that Council's process is understood but that this process has not produced satisfactory results so far, for the LGA itself and especially not for the local community.

Landowner1 noted the following issues facing the LGA:

• Aging population (among oldest in Australia)
• low employment,
• low education and job retention
• low income levels and ability to fund infrastructure
• environmental issues - flooding (meeting was rescheduled due to catastrophic flooding in the LGA),
• recent catastrophic fires,
• coastal erosion and flooding due to sea level rise.
• Poor connection between the LGA and its Region that is the best performing region in Australia
• Heritage aspect of the subdivision created 100 years ago that can bring tourism, employment

Community's proposals are in line with Council's own vision but also aligned with State's strategies and legislation. (as documented in submissions)

While understanding the procedure, community is presenting alternative, separate procedure for collaborative work on master planning. This could also be presented to the State Government for funding.

Subdivision's landowners were earlier excluded from the preparation of the Local Community Plan, discriminating against this community. Initially, of 200 responses to Council’s own survey, 150 were from those supporting sustainable urban development (as now presented to Council). However their desires were ignored because landowners are differentiated from residents (while they still equally pay rates).

Landowner1 acknowledged that the Council's representatives have already stated that development of this subdivision is not on Council's radar, but wanted to know what could community do to get on the Council's radar after exhausting all previous avenues?

Mayor : “The simple answer to that is, you don’t get on the radar, it’s simple as that, and all the process that has to be carried out, nobody gets on the radar”

-------------------------------------

Epilogue: Two years down the line (year 4 of COVID era),

• Council is still refusing engagement with "pockets of community", even when it constitutes 5% of its ratepayers,
• Council is working on formalizing down-zoning of the land to Environmental zoning, including their own 1000 urban size lots
• Council's budget will be in deficit $10mil every year for the next 10 years
• Council has failed State Government's financial audit
• Mayor has sent out letter to property owners asking them to lease their properties to reduce housing affordability crisis
• Land in subdivision is further degraded and used as a rubbish dump
• Fair Go is nowhere to be found