In 2017-2018, nearly 90% of Queensland’s population growth occurred in the south-east corner of the state – but is our planning system favouring growth at the expense of communities?
The Mt Coot-tha Zipline development saga demonstrates some of the problems with public consultation in our current planning system. It shows there are knowledge gaps in the community, feedback from Council is not always transparent or consistent and decision-making may be more responsive to short term politics than to the long-term aspirations of communities.
The Mt Coot-tha Zipline
In 1879, the Mt Coot-tha area was declared a recreational reserve for the purpose of “a public park for the recreation, convenience, health and amusement of the inhabitants of the City of Brisbane…and for no other purpose whatsoever”. Fast-forward to 2018, and following a mayoral electoral commitment, the Mt Coot-tha Zipline development application was lodged for a material change of use to establish a zipline and eco-tourism mixed-use development.
In accordance with the Brisbane City Plan 2014, the proposed uses were listed as impact-assessable development, requiring the application to be publicly notified for consultation. The application received 3,683 submissions during the public notification period. Submissions were also received outside the formal consultation period, demonstrating a lack of understanding from the community about when to provide comments but also the importance community members attach to having their voices heard.
Despite a large number of objections, Brisbane City Council (Council) approved the development. The community’s submissions were addressed within the assessment report, but the justification provided was contradictory and inconsistent.
The Planning Act 2016 allows submitters who made a properly made submission the right to appeal a decision made by Council. An appeal was filed with the Planning and Environment Court by the community group, Mount Coot-tha Protection Alliance Incorporated, to appeal the approval. In April 2019, Council decided to not contest the appeal resulting in the appeal being allowed and the development application refused.
News articles framed the decision not to contest the appeal as “scrapping the project in the face of overwhelming community backlash” and “based on the views of the community”. This suggests that community feedback was the primary reason, but Brisbane City Council had previously approved the development despite receiving adverse feedback during the assessment process. Does this raise the question, would Council have continued with the appeal had the timing not been so close to council elections?
Bridging the knowledge gap
The Mount Coot-tha Zipline proposal shines a spotlight on the knowledge gap that exists between local governments and their constituents. Academic sources state that “citizens have a lack of confidence in the local government to do the right thing” and “when facilitated properly and effectively, public participation can increase trust and improve relationships between citizens and public institutions”. The lack of community engagement in the concept development phase solidifies the academic literature. The general lack of knowledge about how and when to make submissions on a development application or what to expect from the appeal process fosters mistrust between the community and local governments.
Bridging this knowledge gap is critical to ensuring the public and local government have a positive relationship. A more front-loaded consultation period, prior to lodging the development application would allow for more community feedback. This would allow collaborative consultation with the community, council and the applicant promoting trust and transparency.
Decision making: clear as mud?
The submissions against the development application were dealt with in Council’s assessment report.
That report states:
“where there is any non-compliance with the assessment benchmarks, the application demonstrates relevant matters exist to overcome any non-compliance, including substantial community and economic benefits”. [author bold]
The argument for economic benefit was used again within the statement of reasons yet, the report responds to submitters’ claims there was no economic need for the development by stating “that is not a relevant planning consideration within the benchmarks”. This exemplifies the confusion that would be experienced by the community through Council’s decision-making.
To address these issues, planning schemes need to state relevant assessment criteria more clearly and
applicants should be required to meet all the relevant performance criteria. Confusion is exacerbated when applications that do not achieve complete compliance are approved regardless. As one community member stated;
“The performance-based nature of the Queensland planning system makes it difficult to understand what could go in any given zone with some justification. From the community’s viewpoint it is what was consulted on (at the planning scheme consultation stage) but people do not realise that they can be endorsing something that achieves the intent or purpose of a zone rather than the ‘healthy, wealthy communities’ they are promoting.”
Greater transparency is the key: if the community can understand why a development has been approved, they may be more receptive to the decision, whether they agree with the final outcome or not.
Pro-active planning is collaborative planning
The primary goal of planning should be to meet the long-term needs of the community. After all, it is the community that will have to live with the decision made about a development application. On paper, an application may appear to offer a good outcome but in reality, input from the community is needed to ensure communities are being enhanced and not fractured by development. Reform is required to ensure the community is heard and not just told what is happening in their neighbourhood.
Mt Coot-tha’s Zipline proposal demonstrates the need for reform of Queensland’s planning system to encourage constructive public participation on development applications. Good planning outcomes will only be achieved when the community and local government work collaboratively for a better tomorrow.
Written by
Jack Collings
Griffith University student