Is Council listening? What happens to your feedback when you comment on planning proposals

by

What is the point of public consultation on planning proposals? A recent development at Howard Smith Wharves suggests your participation in the planning process may not be considered in any meaningful way.

Howard Smith Wharves at Boundary Street, Brisbane

This article examines three types of public consultation on development plans for Howard Smith Wharves – participation in the making and amending of planning schemes; participation in a voluntary consultation exercise and public submissions on impact assessable development. All three had their strengths and weaknesses but, in every case, there seems little evidence public submissions have any bearing on final planning outcomes. 

Redeveloping Howard Smith Wharves 

Brisbane City Council’s plans to redevelop Howard Smith Wharves have gone through numerous revisions and have faced unrelenting community backlash. In 2011, the Council’s plans to redevelop the site were rejected by the State Government due to flooding concerns. Undeterred, in 2014, Council listed the redevelopment of the site as one of six priority projects for the next five years.  A revised plan included a river walk connection; redevelopment of the wharf buildings; improvements to the public realm and parkland; commercial redevelopment, and opportunities for a river hub. Public notice and /or consultations were conducted in 2010, 2013 and 2015 as described below. 

Reaching out: Planning scheme amendments

In 2010, Council proposed amendments to the City Plan to alter the New Farm and Teneriffe Hill Local Plan, and to make a new park management planning scheme policy. Council was required to publish at least one newspaper notice inviting the public to make submissions. In today’s world, this requirement fails to accommodate the various ways in which people receive information or recognise how often they read the news. It is a paltry and ineffective approach to public engagement that received only twenty eight submissions. 

Let’s party: the 2013 ‘ideas fiesta’

In 2013 Council tried a different approach to public engagement. It held an ‘Ideas Fiesta’, inviting the community to submit ideas that would supposedly influence the drafting of a new City Centre Master Plan. This Ideas Fiesta attracted over 16,000 attendees, and received over 1.2 million social media views. Quite a contrast on the law’s more formal methods of public notification! The ‘Ideas Fiesta’ more faithfully reflects Council’s Community Engagement Policy objectives and garnered much more community interest. But, when it summarised all the community’s responses into eight ‘most popular ideas for the city centre’ it clearly did not acknowledge the thousands of other responses that did not fall within these headings. At the end of the day, it seems there was little uptake of the ideas generated through public consultation.

Following the ‘Ideas Fiesta,’ in late 2013 the community were invited to contribute to a final round of feedback on the draft City Centre Master Plan. It listed the development of Howard Smith Wharves as one of six priority projects. Twenty-seven submissions were received during the formally required notification period, eight of which opposed the construction of a hotel on the site, zoned for commercial redevelopment. Council responded to those submissions by confirming the draft City Plan made no mention of hotel development. Nevertheless, a hotel was included in the final City Centre Master Plan. 

Do you have a concern? Making submissions on development applications 

In September 2015 Council received a hotel development application for Howard Smith Wharves. The application was classed as impact assessable development meaning the public would need to be consulted on the development proposal (not just the plan). The application attracted thirty-eight submissions opposing the development but the application was approved regardless. Council – which is obliged to respond to public submissions – defended its decision to approve the application saying it was acting within the guidelines of the Neighbourhood Plan. It gave no further details. Submitters were left in the dark about how their particular concerns had been considered and addressed. 

Once again, the number of submissions received as a result of the formal notification of proposed development was substantially smaller than the thousands received as a result of the 2013 voluntary consultation exercise (considered above). This raises important questions about how effective statutory engagement methods are in soliciting public participation on impact assessable development. The evidence points strongly to an overhaul of current methods. 

Conclusion

 Development at Howard Smith Wharves demonstrates how little weight is given to public input in whatever mode it is delivered. It appears public submissions are seldom considered in any meaningful way. This raises significant doubts about what the Council is really trying to achieve through planning consultation. We desperately need a system and government that listens to those most affected by the outcomes of the planning process, to restore community satisfaction and confidence in the system.

Written by

Hannah Laviano

Griffith University student 

Further Reading –