Cost of Information

The documents sent to support the planning for Karridale contained factual errors and misleading statements. For example a report that the Karridale Progress Association prepared to guide the refurbishment of the lavatories and kitchen at the the Karridale hall, written in 2007,was described as a report on Community
Needs in 2013.



I was named as having met with the developer’s agent for the purpose of discussing community needs, which I knew I hadn’t. Michael Hale, a member of a property group based in NSW, was described as a “... local property developer” Two public lavatories were recorded, Karridale has none.

I decided to check the report thoroughly and ensure the good folk at the WAPC were not being misled.

My email sent to Planning Manager 24^th June 2013

Market Research

There are a number of references to extensive market research throughout the document but no indication of the design, methodology, sampling and analysis methods used etc. However, Richard Pawluk does state that the research was provided to the Shire and this should clarify matters to everyone’s satisfaction and will inform an assessment of how well the proposed development will meet future housing needs.

Reply email from Planning Manager 24^th June 2013

I haven’t seen the ‘market research’ that I can recall and can’t find any record of it on our system...  If you could tell me what reference you are looking at that would be useful, the only one I could see is where, in the amended structure plan report it says market research was verified at a Shire Enquiry by Design workshop.  I presume what is being alluded to there is that people at the workshop responded with a preferences for lot sizes similar to what is proposed.  

My email to Planning Manager 28^th June 2013

The position I have at the moment is that the shire have failed to provide me with information relied on to support P212145

"I haven’t seen the ‘market research’ that I can recall and can’t find any record of it on our system."

This is not an answer. Maybe one of your staff has seen it?

I am happy to deal with one of you planning officers direct on such trivial matters of detail, but the devil is in the detail. It is important to the community and to the shire if they are to demonstrate the integrity of the planning process. If the shire have lost the documents they need to obtain a further copy from the proponent. Without this there will be no audit trail.   

We were assured by the WAPC in 2009 that no KHSS would be endorsed without a "demonstrated need". The shire then sent a revised KHSS for endorsement without community consultation. You have an unhappy community in Karridale and we need to be treated respectfully, making it difficult for us to obtain the documents we need is disrespectful.

If the shire no longer have the documents I asked for in my email of 24th June then please ask the proponent for duplicate copies. It is impossible to assess the veracity of the document for which they provide support. Neither community members, nor Councillors, should be expected to assess documents sent out prior to scrutiny by planning officers.

My email to Planning Officer 28^th June 2013

Further to our phone call the documents I am seeking are those given to the shire to support assertions within the Ammended Community Facilities Need Plan January 2013 produced by Melvista Park for Nutan Pty Ltd.  

Page 23 Section 7.3.2 (This research has been provided to the Shire under separate cover)

My email to Planning Officer 5^th July 2013

I really do need the supporting documents I asked Nick Logan for on the 24th June. This stuff is current as there is a second development at Karridale that is supported by the same research and consultations that we have not had a chance to assess.

Reply email from Planning Officer 12^th July 2013

In regard to clause 7.3.2 ‘Provided by Developer’ I have not yet been able to put my hands on the market research provided to the Shire by the developer.  I have just spoken to the Applicant and he confirmed that this research was in regard to discussions with local real estate agents on 3 occasions – the first being in approximately 2006 (with 3 real estate agents).  On the other two occasions, two real estate agents were canvassed each time (however I am not sure of the dates).  I have asked the Applicant to send through a copy of this market research (there is a lot of background files on Karridale and it would likely be quicker to receive it this way).  I will forward this through when received.

Although I fully deserve my reputation as an extremely patient woman by this time I had reason to doubt that any supporting material would arrive to “demonstrate need” for housing estates at Karridale and I made an official complaint to Gary Evershed, CEO, advising him that the quality of the documentation provided was inadequate for a rustic such as myself to form any opinion at all.

How can I comment if I have no information? Do the planning officers and councillors rely on the unsubstantiated statements made by the property developers?

My email sent to Gary Evershed 15^th July 2013   

...... Richard Pawluk was also given the task of reporting on the needs of our community, and for that he seems to have had no need to bring in experts at all. He alone can assess our social and economic needs.

Reading his documents proved difficult because there continue to be delays in obtaining supporting material relating to the Karridale proposal. Documents that were cited in the report as “... lodged with the shire” were not available. The fact that the supporting reports were not readily available is a strong indication that nobody within the shire has attempted to authenticate any of the material supplied by Richard Pawluk.

One of the responses from your Planning Manager;

“I haven’t seen the ‘market research’ that I can recall and can’t find any record of it on our system. ..... I presume what is being alluded to there is that people at the workshop responded with a preference for lot sizes similar to what is proposed.”

Are you comfortable that strategic planning for our community is based on presumption and allusion of what property developers would like to sell?

He replied by Auspost.

Clever.

This introduced an element of delay that hints at why he is earning significantly more than the planning officer. And it was a terrific response, so reassuring.

Reply letter from Gary Evershed 26^th July 2013

.... It is entirely typical and appropriate that proposals put forward for rezoning and structure planning are supported by information that is prepared by and at the expense of the proponent. This information is then subject to evaluation through the assessment and consultation process and I would encourage you, if you have issues with that information or comments that may inform the process, to make formal submission through that process...... which is informed by an opportunity for the community to comment through the formal consultation process.

I appreciate your observations and look forward to receiving any comments you may have as a submission to assist this process.

I was rather afraid that relying on the material provided by property developers always had been typical for this shire. But he does want my comments if I have issues with the information, so that’s good. I’m still waiting to see the information.

My email to Planning Officer 8^th August 2013

On 12th July you advised that as soon as you received the market research provided by the developer you would send it to me, this was first requested from your manager on the 24th June. Have you sent it? If it has been lost please resend your original email and telephone me to confirm. 

Reply email from Planning Officer 12^th August 2013 at 4.10pm

In regard to your email below and request for market research information from Richard Pawluk - this has been received and I will forward to you now under separate cover.

Second email from Planning Officer 12^th August 2013 29 minutes later at 4.39pm

(clearly looking for a sympathy vote, this is the “dog ate my homework” moment)

I just spent about an hour getting the various documents from Richard Pawluk together to email you – but the scanner on the photocopy machine has just decided to stop working!

Therefore unfortunately I am unable to send through this information to you until tomorrow morning.  I will do it as soon as I can in the morning.

Would you believe it!

Me neither.

All that office space and the shire has just one scanner, and no possibility of sending it by post to this old lady who has already discussed the fact that she’s only on dial-up and can’t easily receive large data files as downloads.

Just as well there was an equipment failure because at the precise moment they were poised to deliver the information the FOI officer must have joined in the discussion about sharing the information.

Maybe just wandered over to see what was happening around the broken photocopier?

Next morning I waited, and waited, but four days elapsed before I heard the news.

Response email from Planning Officer 16^th August 2013

I apologise for undertaking to send through the market research information to you.  I had initially assumed that I could forward this straight on, but the Freedom of Information officer has confirmed that this needs to be requested through FOI.

I note that you are also concerned about inaccuracies contained in the ‘Community Facility Needs Plan & Developer Contributions Plan’ report prepared by Melvista Park Pty Ltd.  This report has been prepared by the developer to support their application.  Part of the purpose of the advertising process is to receive feedback from community members and government agencies about the accuracy (or otherwise) of supporting documentation.  I note the concerns that you have raised and once I have finished collating all of the issues arising out of the advertising process I will be going back to the Applicant to discuss.  In particular it is critical that the conclusions of these supporting documents are sound.

Did you notice the statement explaining the purpose of the advertising process?

They really do want my feedback about the accuracy, or otherwise, of the documentation and it’s critical that the conclusions of these supporting documents are sound, but they can’t give me any information.

Both the Planning Manager and the Planning Officer have been working at the shire for many years, these are very experienced planners. Is this the first request for supporting information they have ever received?

Should it take close on two months to be told that the information is not available without a FOI request?

In a commercial organisation no document would be sent out for comment before the accuracy of data is checked, it is just wasting everybody’s time. We may all have different opinions, and that’s good, but we need to be working from the same data.

Can you wonder the rates are so high?

We need to remove local planning departments completely.