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
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 15th 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 18th 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, 14th 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment