The Queensland government claims to value community engagement as a key part of planning. It’s Community Engagement Toolkit for Planning cites genuine public participation, transparency, accountability and community confidence as key principles of planning, but community members in Maleny, Sunshine Coast, believe these values were not reflected in a recent development assessment. They have been left feeling angry and frustrated with the code assessment process provided by Queensland’s performance-based planning system and the outcome it delivered.
Maleny, Sunshine Coast Source: Esta Knudsen 2019
Maleny has a unique character and strong sense of place. This identity gives Maleny a point of difference that supports its tourism and local economy. Community groups in Maleny have continually endeavoured to protect this identity by resisting pressures for commercial development which is inconsistent with the town’s heritage character. In 2012, it mobilised a campaign opposing a proposed service station at 19 & 21 Bunya Street and that proposal was subsequently withdrawn.
But their success in 2012 was not replicated in 2019. In April last year, the Sunshine Coast Regional Council (Council) approved a service station and food and drink outlet on the same site. In both campaigns, the location of the service station site was the primary issue, as it is opposite the Maleny primary school, 30 to 40 metres from classrooms, playgrounds and the pool. This proximity to the school raised concerns about children’s exposure to toxic vapours from the site, the risk of fire and explosion associated with fuel outlets and the increased vehicle emissions and traffic congestion in the already congested school precinct.
In contrast to the laudable principles of the Community Engagement Toolkit, key community members felt completely shut out of the code assessment process. They also felt frustrated by the lack of Council action to amend the intended uses for the site after the 2012 campaign. This article examines two key barriers community members faced when opposing the service station development: the lack of weight given to the Maleny Local Plan (MLP) and the absence of any mechanism allowing them to challenge and raise concerns about the proposal.
Amended and approved plans of Maleny service station. Source: Verve Building Design Co. via Sunshine Coast Development.
Disappointment in the Maleny Local Plan
The development site is located in the District Centre Zone and MLP area, so it was assessed against these codes in accordance with the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014. The purpose and overall outcome of the MLP code is to “provide locally relevant planning provisions for the assessment of development within Maleny Local Plan area”. This and other language in the MLP code led the community to expect full compliance with the assessment criteria stated in the MLP code. They believed the MLP code would be strong enough and clear enough to defeat the proposal but, to their dismay, that was not the case. Council’s interpretation of the MLP code was more subjective and discretionary than the community expected. When it actually counted, the MLP code seemed to be given little weight in the assessment process compared to the District Centre Zone code. And, as one disappointed community representative observed, the District Centre code is “so open, you could drive a truck through it”.
With so much discretion and flexibility built into the assessment of code assessable development, the community’s faith in the MLP code was misplaced. Councils are required to consult communities when they prepare their planning schemes and codes. Why are these codes then so readily disregarded in favour of developer interests during the assessment process? Why should the community get involved and provide feedback on draft planning scheme codes? In the Maleny case, the subjective interpretation of the MLP code and its insubstantial weight in the assessment process made that local code useless in serving its intended purpose. It simply misled community members into thinking their interests were protected.
Proposal concerns
The development was code assessable, and as such excluded formal community submissions and appeal provisions. The code assessment framework still allows the public to make submissions, however the assessment manager is not required to give them any weight. Equally concerning, there are no legal mechanisms available to the public to challenge elements of the proposal which are risky, potentially unsafe or demonstrably incorrect in their assumptions.
For instance, the MLP code aims to protect a future planned road upgrade and designated bypass route on Cudgerie Street. The developers argued the proposal would not compromise future road infrastructure and Council appears to have readily accepted that assertion despite exhaustively researched and well documented evidence to the contrary submitted by the community.
The site is also located across from Maleny Primary School, raising health, safety and traffic concerns. Community members highlighted serious traffic issues including errors in the traffic impact assessment. The community group raised these issues through various avenues but felt both State and local government avoided or dismissed their concerns. This was particularly disheartening for the community when they will be the ones living with the development decision.
There is a clear conflict between the messaging on community engagement from the State government and the existing code assessment process which excludes any form of public participation provisions.
Protecting community interests
One representative described the experience of being a community member up against a performance based planning system as “never being in the race to begin with”. While the intention for code assessable applications is greater efficiency, the side effect is the limitation of community rights when there are legitimate concerns. The emphasis put on the zone code over the local plan code in this case exposes Maleny to development applications that erode its character and identity, its point of difference and brand. The loss of character in hinterland towns will be inevitable should regional developments be assessed against criteria designed for urban areas.
If local area plans were applied more rigorously and took precedence over the zone code, perhaps they would better serve their intended purpose and community interests. Similarly, mechanisms enabling parties to challenge information in proposals they believe to be incorrect, in this case the traffic impact assessment, would give greater accountability and transparency to the code assessment process. Increased genuine public participation would lead to better planning outcomes for Queensland’s hinterland towns, retaining character and increasing community confidence and trust in the planning system
Written by
Melissa Lane
Further reading:
Community engagement toolkit for planning, 2017, State of Queensland.
Plans abandoned for new Maleny Service Station, 2013, Hinterland Times.
State planning policy, 2014, State of Queensland.
Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014, Sunshine Coast Regional Council.
Acknowledgement
I thank Esta Knudsen and Richard Francis in helping me establish the story behind this development, and how the service station development has affected the Maleny community.
