A resident listening to a developer telling the community of the benefits that might come when the development was approved protested, “We don’t want possibly, we want sure and certain.”
Can we ever
have sure and certain? Not in this life, except for death and taxes. But we can
certainly reduce our exposure to risk by making sure that we have good research
behind any decision making. If our shire is reluctant to reference the
research, ask why?
Our
experience is that too often we are confronted by a “because we say so” rationale that suggests an authoritarian
viewpoint that may be stopping us gaining the benefits of connecting with
others. We can all learn from others. We have used such a strategy to minimise
the damage to our natural environment, but we appear blind to the damage we are
inflicting on our community, and our cultural values.
If the shire
had to provide some references for their arguments, and not only asked the
community to do the same, but gave them some assistance where possible, then
our decision making could really be improved. Better support for the arguments
we use dilutes opportunities for ingroup/outgroup conflict. We would still have
conflict, but it would be focused on the issues and the arguments, and not the
groups or individuals. Other communities have faced the decline of rural
environments and the threat of excess tourism destroying what was once the very
thing the visitors came to enjoy, our point of difference, our environment and
our culture.
An example; much
of the evidence against the proposal to develop houses at Karridale in advance
of any economic development, and the effects that could have on the social
capital and economic development potential, came from European research
literature that mirrored the experience of the rural community here. Jules
Pretty’s book, “The Living Land”, and Norberg-Hodge, Merrifield and Gorelick’s
work “Bringing the Food Economy Home”, were both cited extensively throughout
the community submissions. These comments were dismissed by a curt, “disagree”,
from the planning officer reviewing the submissions. None of the references
were included on the schedule of submissions and he just would not accept that
input from such sources had any relevance.
Karridale is
a rural economy engaged in primary production, the shire want to encourage
tourism, these two factors have been dealt with reasonably successfully
elsewhere in the world. The planning officer would not discuss the evidence of
other communities who have developed food tourism in other parts of Australia,
or other countries.
Ask why?
Another
example; evidence from the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, was also cited,
as we believed it was important to use the latest, tax payer funded, research
to ensure that every factor that could increase or decrease our safety should
be considered. Again the shire officer disagreed and did not transfer the
references to the submission schedule.
Ask why?
Tucked away
in the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge Statement of Planning Policy (LNRSPP) is a
tiny reference to Cuming and Francis (1996);
Clustered Rural Residential Development
A new form of
Rural Residential subdivision and development, which encourages a clustering or
grouping of dwellings into Enclaves, surrounded by larger lots, sometimes
managed as common property. This approach has been adapted in an Australian
context by Cuming and Francis (1996) and offers an alternative approach to
traditional dispersed Rural Residential subdivision that is more efficient in
use of rural land resources and has a design and focus more responsive to the
natural environment. Extract from LNRSPP
I have no
problem with the approach to living that Cuming and Francis proposed; however,
I do have a problem with all development decisions along the coastal strip being
based on their notion of clustered housing. No attempt has been made to update
and develop, what was, in 1996, a proposal based on very little evidence of
practical application of the principles. It was a concept, a similar concept to
that proposed by Bill Mollinson and David Holmgrem when they began designing
some principles for permaculture. The same principles that many traditional
rural communities have adopted throughout the world.
However, since
the LNRSPP was implemented in 1997 the experience of clustered housing around
Australia, and California, has been disastrous. Communities have come to
realise that in high bushfire risk areas it is not possible to develop
clustered housing, of the type proposed, without creating “disposable homes” that will just burn. Clustered housing of the
type we are developing introduces families and retired people into environments
to which they are neither physically nor psychologically suited.
The
Australian governments, at all levels, have realised that the people attracted
to living permanently in the so called “rural
hamlets” are mostly ill prepared for the reality of life in such locations.
For this reason we have had to make many adjustments to the emergency
management we adopt, and to the readiness and response advice. As a nation we
now recommend that most people abandon their homes and flee if a fire is
approaching because it is clear that they are not physically or psychologically
prepared to fight the fire. People dither, they have not prepared themselves or
their property, they have not educated themselves as regards fire behaviour. We
know this because government dollars have been spent on empirical research
programmes. We have the evidence.
Clustered
housing introduces greater risk, but no review of the LNRSPP has been
undertaken. Ask why? Maybe our Council’s attitude is linked to who owns the
land stocks currently identified for clustered housing?
The LNRSPP
was written after community consultation that took place in 1994, apart from
one amendment for the Smiths Beach development it has not been reviewed since
that time. Is that fair and reasonable to the generation who are looking for
employment and housing here in this shire today? We are using a 20 year old
planning document and our civic leaders see no issues with that.
Has the
social and economic landscape our councillors operate within remained stable
throughout the past 20 years? If it has, ask why? If it hasn’t then why are the
planning decisions affecting us socially and economically remaining fixed to a
20 year old plan?
A generation
of young people who are currently trying to make their lives here have never
been consulted about how they would like the area developed.
We can see
that this shire had phenomenal growth in both absentee owners and also
residential housing being used as short term holiday. We have the experience of
ever rising rates because our economy is skewed towards tourism of an
unsustainable type. Tourism where the visitors stay in residential houses is
just not putting enough into our local economy, financially or socially; but still our local residents
are expected to support such events as the Anaconda Race by providing
volunteers, and our local residents are expected to turn out for Clean up
Australia Day, and if there is an emergency our local residents offer rapid
response and support for those affected.
We are
eroding social capital by asking too much of our residents.
If we
continue along the current development path the only thing that can be “sure
and certain” is that a tipping point will be reached and our intangible
cultural heritage, that has sustained us for so many decades, will have been
diluted by incoming values to the point where it is lost. Then what we cherish
most of all, our belief that we live within a caring, supportive, community
will be gone.
We need to
learn from others before it is too late.
No comments:
Post a Comment