Was
there a note of surprise in Sandy Powell’s headline last week, “Council Votes
in favour of residents”? Why would that be? Council are elected to represent residents and so favouring us
should surely be expected?
Reading
Ian Earl’s comment suggesting that the blending of holiday houses with
residential homes can somehow be acceptable because the police and shire have “mechanisms” I was reminded of the case
of Mr K, who lives at Gnarabup.
I
don't know Mr K personally but we do have something in common, we were both
unhappy with the actions of the planning officers during 2011-12.
But
there was big difference in the response we received in reply to our
complaints.
Mr
K asked his questions at a Council meeting and the reply was published shortly
after, he was assured by Ilya Hastings that the planning officers were highly qualified and in a section of the
response not included here Ilya stated that he wished to continue to work with
Mr K in a respectful manner as befits a public servant.
Mrs
M, on behalf of the Karridale Progress Association, sent an email to Cr Smart
and waited 7 months for a reply, which arrived long after the planning proposal
had been approved. Mrs M was advised by the shire president, Cr Smart, that the
planning officers were unfamiliar with
the area, inexperienced, and management of their work was inadequate due to
illness and that Cr Smart was not prepared to discuss any further matters
with Mrs M.
An
interesting divergence of both opinion and style. I realise that being highly qualified and/or respected is no guarantee of competence, but Ilya was seeking to reassure Mr K that his issues had been dealt with correctly, that due process had been followed; whereas Cr Smart confirmed what the community had long complained about, that due process was not followed and Cr Smart made it clear he was not going to resolve the problem.
Cr
Smart's opinion is also at odds with former shire president Cr Harrison who
heaped praise on the planning officers back in 2009, including the late Geoff
Broad. It was Mr Broad who refused to listen to complaints from residents when
they saw that the first plan produced by those professionals stated the LNRSPP
required an additional 1,000 persons and this was just wrong. The Karridale Progress
Association's assertion that growth to a maximum of 500 person was required has
since been acknowledged as correct by the Minister for Planning, John Day.
The planning team who produced a strategy document, advertising it for public comment, when it was clearly based
on a false figure, and did not reflect the LNRSPP it claimed to be referencing, were also highly praised by Cr Middleton, who called the planning
officers "highly professional". For a psychologist who enjoys discourse analysis his use of the word impartial reveals much.
Strangely
Cr Smart was happy to nod through a third attempt at a Karridale strategy
without any advertising at all, no opportunity for public comments.
How
does that reconcile with his comments in the article above relating to the wishes of residents?
How
could he possibly know if the residents were supporting him in wanting Brian
Burke’s friend Michael Hale, of the Prevelly Development Trust Pty Ltd, to have
his NE block included in any Karridale strategy? But that was what he wanted.
Recent
years have certainly seen a few inexplicable activities in this shire. If the current shire president is correct in his assertion that the planning officers lacked
adequate management over the years of Geoff Broad’s illness then possibly that
could account for another resident’s concern.
Ms
F has very recently been angered by the siting of the new petrol station,
claiming that the land use was changed subsequent to her purchasing her home
and she was not notified.
I have no knowledge of her particular case, but I can
tell her that Karridale residents received no notification of proposed planning
activities and when challenged the shire admitted it was an "officer level oversight".
The unreserved apology after the planning exercise has been completed does not enable the exercise of democratic right to consultation. The mention of 300 letters to landowners was surprising as few residents received one, maybe every member of the various corporate bodies had a personal invitation?
The reference to no "behind the scenes" discussion is interesting to note because within the same set of submissions there is a comment from Michael Hale that strongly suggests he had some discussions that other residents were not aware of;
In fact he was so annoyed at how the Karridale meeting went that his town planning consultant wrote to the shire. He also contacted the Karridale Progress Association and provided us with a copy of the letter he wrote to the CEO, here is just a small extract;
It was not just the resident farmers who had been treated badly at the meeting, and it was not merely a bunch of amateurs who judged the whole process to be fundamentally flawed. Mr Niardone understands development and was shocked at how it was being managed in this shire. He complained.
Then what happened?
Did you read the submissions extracts above, where mention is made of a 13 page booklet?
In that booklet it clearly stated that Brian Burke's friend Michael Hale had lost out on his speculative investment because this shire was not going to expose itself to the risk of having development that could create a traffic problem in the future;
The 13 page booklet was all just nonsense, but it was the last communication from the shire and many resident are still under the misapprehension that all development will be to the west of the highway. Once Michael Hale had a word with the men who matter his block was included and approved for a new housing estate on the east side of the highway. It always helps to have friends, or even just representatives who can make the case for you.
Was the petrol station problem caused by Ms F just not receiving notification of the change of use? An officer lever oversight?
Or was the development necessary because someone had decided to take profits and they had a word with the decision makers?
Maybe
her problem is due to the same problems that Karridale experienced, as advised by Cr
Smart;
"The
poor judgement of a couple of inexperienced planners, dealing with an
environment they were not familiar with, whilst being led by a highly qualified
and respected Director who was unfortunately in the latter stages of fighting
terminal cancer, resulted in a less than desirable outcome.”
Maybe
Ms F is experiencing another less than
desirable outcome, which could be unfortunate for her as her home might be
the biggest single investment she has.
Cr
Smart brushes off residents' complaints with a shrug, explaining them away as
just the less desirable outcome we must accept because we had a planning
department where the planners have poor judgement, are inexperienced, and lack
any management oversight. Has anything changed since the years 2006-2014?
Are the
usual suspects are still in post as shire planners?
Who was Cr Smart referring to? Do they still have poor judgement? Or are they now experienced enough to make
sound recommendations? Do they now have a leader who is competent?
(I stole the 'usual suspects' term from Barry House, he uses it to
describe the same few residents who are always complaining)
