Call the Commission?

Over the past six years I have attempted to review many shire documents but the procedure is always hampered by reports being published without a date, or an author, or a version number. When Cr Colyer gained approval for his subdivision in 2009
using what I believed was a draft report, the Karridale Concept Plan, that had never been back to Council for adoption I asked a question on 27 August 2010

Question: Are there currently any operational controls within the Shire administration to protect our councillors from potentially misleading statements, and references to obsolete reports, being used to support planning directions and decisions?

The response was a long time coming and when it arrived after eight months of harassing the staff with emails reminders and follow-up phone calls, it was quite bizarre. It made no attempt to provide an answer, and like so many responses it merely raised more questions.

Reply: The adoption of the Karridale Hamlet Strategy as a draft would mean that it has had the same status as concept plan. As the council adopted the revised settlement strategy as a final strategy, it is now the relevant document. Any reference to previous or other strategies are now purely as planning history and the Shire has advised they should not be considered as policy any further.

My original criticism was that the shire president used a draft document in support of his planning application, in 2009, and that without prior knowledge anyone reading the planning application could not know the Karridale Concept Plan was defunct.

At the time of Cr Colyer's application and this response the subsequent document, the Karridale Hamlet Settlement Strategy was also only in draft.

The shire response was received 15^th April 2011, the Karridale Concept Plan was most probably scrapped in May 2007 (the shire have not been able to answer that question), a new Hamlet Settlement Strategy planning exercise was commenced in late 2008 and there was no endorsed plan for Karridale until 18^th July 2011.

Throughout the six years that I have been trying to follow the process of planning for growth in Karridale every request has been treated in a similar way. As we approach the end of the dreadful experience I have made my first formal complaint, in the hope of receiving a quicker response, possibly a more thoughtful and meaningful result. It was certainly a faster response, but lacked quality. I complained about the Acting CEO writing false statements to the ABC and local newspapers, and Gary Evershed said he was sure they were “unintentional.” I complained that documents relating to planning applications that are out for public comment contain inaccuracies and misleading statements, and in some cases missing information. Gary just said this was normal, and “unintentional.”

Next week the Council will make a decision that will have profound effects on all our lives when they decide whether lots clustered around the junction of the Bussell Highway and Brockman Highway are to be approved for rezoning and subdivision. In 2009 the WAPC advised the community of Karridale that no rezoning or subdivision would be allowed until there was a demonstrated demand for lots in Karridale. 

The shire were given market research data provided by the proponent, but they have not allowed the community to have access to this. Despite many reminders all we have received are deferrals. The decision will be made next Wednseday, 14^th August 2013 and we have been denied an opportunity to comment.

Has the information been provided to the councillors? The difficulty with any situation where information is closely guarded and not freely available is that we might not all be sharing the same documents. When documents are available on the website and available for access and download by anyone, anywhere, we can be more certain that we are not being misled. Of course the documents do still need dates, version numbers, etc, but I don’t see our administration agreeing to that.

Our shire appears to have many similarities with how the City of Waneroo conducted its affairs before the Commissioners moved in and undertook a review. The Commissioners’ Report on the City of Waneroo is worth reading, and available for download. I include an extract here to give a flavour of the tone and content;

“There emerged from all the evidence of council staff before the Commission a clear picture of firm resistance to change and any criticism of their collective actions or procedures.

At the City of Wanneroo over the relevant period the administration was relatively large. It was nonetheless very set in its ways and very inward looking. Very few of the staff would readily admit to a mistake or the possibility that the way in which a matter was approached was the wrong way. ..... There was no evidence to suggest that senior staff learned from the problems that arose. .... in general sloughed off the criticism as of no consequence or relevance. .... was rigid and self-protective.

It is evident from the report that lessons from past mistakes and experiences have not been learned. For example, references in the report to a lack of written procedures, unwritten departmental practices, a misleading report containing factual errors and omissions, unwillingness to take responsibility for a report, lack of record keeping and a general failure of management are all problems that have been encountered .......

For all the reasons discussed in this chapter I believe the only way the conduct of local authorities can be kept within acceptable bounds of behaviour is by constant and fairly restrictive supervision by a very alert overseer. That task presently falls to the Department of Local Government. I believe the City of Wanneroo experience demonstrates a need for that department to be well resourced and very active. It is quite clear from the investigation carried out by this Royal Commission that local authorities at both councillor and administration levels cannot be relied upon to maintain proper standards and a proper level of service to the community without strong and constant supervision from above.”

It may be time to approach a higher level to discuss how a Commissioner’s review can be requested.