Suspects or Citizens?

I’ll say up front that I like Barry House. He’s always seemed a very amiable and pleasant man, but unfortunately his views on the planning activities of the Augusta Margaret River Shire do not accord with my own. Neither his experience of the planning “process”, nor his assessment of the results of that process, match with my own experience as a resident of this shire.

Where he sees the "usual suspects" who should be ignored, I see concerned citizens fighting to retain their culture and community in the form that they honestly believe is the most appropriate and sustainable for them. Where he sees community consultation I see communities being sidelined and ignored and having no meaningful engagement with the planning decisions that affect the quality of their own lives and the lives of future generations who will live here.

But in the interests of fairness I’ll include the following extract which, in his own words, indicates just how divergent are our perspectives on community consultation and the need for more investment housing in this shire.

If he had actually looked at the Karridale Concept Plan, rather than taken on trust what James Trail and Steve Harrison were telling him, maybe his view might have been different. If he had read all the letters in the AMRTimes from community members, his view might have been different. If he had known, as we who live here know, that the plans were intended only to take profits from this area and not to deliver affordable housing, or even to locate housing in a sensible location, maybe, just maybe......

But then again Gary Knight and Associates, Public Relations Consultants, were working the room on behalf of the Karridale developer, and we can guess how well Gary can spin a story. I’ve no idea if Gary was offering anything at all to the movers shakers in our state and local government, and if he was I expect it was more than just the Beads-on-a-String the Karridale locals were supposed to be tempted by.

Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 1 April 2008]

 Hon Kim Chance; Mr Vincent Catania; Deputy Chairman; Hon Simon O'Brien; Hon Peter Collier; Hon Barry House; Deputy President; Hon Ken Baston

Shire of Augusta-Margaret River — District Planning Scheme — Adjournment Debate

HON BARRY HOUSE (South West) [10.28 pm]: At the beginning of today’s proceedings, Hon Giz Watson tabled a petition that called for an inquiry into the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River on the basis of some totally unsubstantiated allegations of some apparent discrepancies in the planning process. In the usual style, this had already been preceded in the local press by her Greens (WA) colleague Hon Paul Llewellyn quoting some pretty sensational things about the shire. The Augusta Margaret River Times of Friday, 28 March carried a big banner headline on the front page “Council inquiry call by South West MLC”. The paper contained an article quoting Hon Paul Llewellyn, stating that he was seeking an inquiry into the affairs of the Augusta-Margaret River shire council. I will pick out a couple of sentences from the article that will illustrate the motives of certain people. It states — He — That is Hon Paul Llewellyn — told the Times he didn’t claim the expertise to suggest there was definitely anything untoward in the behaviour of the Augusta-Margaret River Shire Council.

That was very wise on the part of Hon Paul Llewellyn.

The article states that he said that he had been approached by a host of Margaret River people in the past year. It also states — Shire president Steve Harrison said the council would always make available any information asked of it by the State Government, but there had been no approach from Mr Llewellyn or mention of a petition.

He was exposed pretty badly at that point. The next paragraph states —

Mr Llewellyn said he believed the work of earlier councils to constrain development in the shire had been “side-stepped” by the present council.

This gives away the agenda of the Augusta-Margaret River shire council of three or four years ago, which I will refer to in a few minutes.

Hon Kate Doust: Will you table that article?

Hon BARRY HOUSE: I am happy to table the newspaper article. I seek leave to table the article.

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon George Cash): Hon Barry House seeks to table the document, which he has identified as a newspaper article.

Hon BARRY HOUSE: It is from the Augusta Margaret River Times dated Friday, 28 March 2008. Leave granted. [See paper 3841.]

Hon BARRY HOUSE: The petition tabled today by Hon Giz Watson contained 32 signatures. That is not exactly an overwhelming number. I have a copy of it, and an examination of the signatures reveals the usual suspects. There are a couple of disgruntled former councillors, their families and a handful of friends. There is also the group who inhabit the Margaret River Regional Environment Centre. These are standard names in any minority protest in the Margaret River area. They vocally object to virtually anything progressive. This group made up the support base for the shire council of three or four years ago, which was universally acknowledged by all but this handful of people as being a total embarrassment to the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River, and to local government in general. In fact, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, as Minister for Local Government, visited the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River to try to find out for herself what was happening. To her credit, she did find out for herself what was happening; she found out that the council was dysfunctional and a total embarrassment. Things changed at the subsequent elections and since then the council has, in my view, done an outstanding job. The people who are signatories to this petition operate on an agenda of resisting any change or any form of growth; they seem to hate even seeing the word “growth”. They do not want any expansion of Margaret River, particularly to the east, to provide land and opportunities for young people.

In my view, the petition and the attendant media campaign are insulting to the present council, which is a very good council. It is led by shire president Steve Harrison, CEO James Trail, six other dedicated and hardworking councillors, and the council staff, who have done a very good job over the past couple of years restoring the council’s credibility. They have gone a long way towards restoring some respect for the council. They have rolled up their sleeves and gone into some medium to long-term planning.

The district planning scheme, which is referred to in the petition, has been in draft form for 16 years. I do not feel it totally unreasonable to expect the council and the government to try to get it finalised; I think it is long overdue. The council has moved, with extensive community consultation, to town site planning strategies for the main towns in the shire, including Margaret River, Cowaramup, Witchcliffe, Karridale and Augusta. It has done an excellent job on that. The main issue in Margaret River is the perimeter road. Members who know the town will know that Bussell Highway goes through the middle of the town. As the town becomes busier, it is becoming an increasingly noisy and dangerous road. There is need for a perimeter road to the east of Margaret River to carry the heavy traffic and to restore the amenity of the main street and to improve safety within the town. The final alignment cannot be sorted out until these planning documents are finalised. Once again, this seems to have the support of 98 per cent of the Margaret River community, but is opposed by the small, local, oppose-everything brigade.

As in many other places, housing affordability in Margaret River is almost at a desperate stage. Young people cannot afford properties or houses. Rental properties are not available. There is an enormous labour shortage in the hospitality and viticultural industries in Margaret River because there is no housing.

This group of petitioners has ignored these issues because it does not rate them as important.

I applaud the action taken by the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River. The negotiations that the shire had with developers who intend to develop in the vicinity of the perimeter road have already been undertaken. I understand that the shire has entered into negotiations with three or four major landholders to the east of Margaret River who will be affected by the proposed expansion, for which the planning needs to take place as soon as possible. The shire is to be applauded, because my understanding is that it has received commitments from those three or four landholders to contribute somewhere between one-third and one-half of the cost of the perimeter road, which is in the vicinity of $20 million. That is a huge funding model and I urge the state government to get on board as soon as the planning documents are finalised and support the perimeter road, because that would open the way for the private developers’ money for that road to be forthcoming.

This group of petitioners does not want Margaret River to grow in any way. Obviously, it does not want the kids in the town to have job and housing opportunities that would give them a future in the area, and it does not want local businesses to be able to attract labour. The group appears to want Margaret River to revert to a poverty stricken country town in which nobody, except them, wants to live. The fact is that that will not happen.

Margaret River has developed a momentum of its own. It is an international brand name and a vibrant town that offers enormous potential for the future. The role of local, state and commonwealth governments is to provide support by way of infrastructure and planning mechanisms to allow that to happen in an orderly manner. That is happening at the local shire level.

In summary, I urge the Minister for Local Government and the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, when the petition is referred to it, to treat it for what it is worth. It is scaremongering at its worst and it should be given very short shrift.

END OF HANSARD

As a reminder: Karridale has been professionally “planned” to have two major highways intersecting at the centre of the hamlet townsite, the Bussell and the Brockman.

The documents supporting the structure plan due to go before Council on the 11^th or 25^th September 2013 state;

“If rental houses were to be constructed in the early stages of development, adjoining the crossroads, the appearance of the estate might diminish through poor maintenance and presentation, with a consequent loss of purchaser interest in the estate. It is imperative that the first few stages of development are located on the most attractive land and match the target market. Development of owner-occupied dwellings will ensure a high level of presentation and maintenance, which in turn assists in attracting others to the area.” Karridale West Local Structure Plan

Melvista Park Pty Ltd January 2013

Sounds a bit too exclusive for my liking, and it doesn’t give a warm feeling about the affordability factor either.

Are we all comfortable with Barry’s opinion that the “usual suspects” should be ignored?