The Central to Eveleigh (C2E) urban renewal project is a case in point. When it was announced, I immediately arranged a meeting with the then head of UrbanGrowth (UG), the new government quango in charge. This meeting was followed by two well-run workshops led by an academic and attended by senior UG personnel. These workshops were attended by representatives of local groups who had considerable knowledge of both the C2E area, and experience in planning issues.
In contrast, the last workshop I attended late last year was a less than satisfactory experience. The workshop was heavily attended by the new community engagement team members who had managed to identify a number of people (with little or no prior experience of planning issues) selected at random.
I congratulate the organisers on their efforts to expand the reach of their consultation program, but many attendees were not convinced of the efficacy of the growth scenario in their local area and others were outright opposed to the whole concept.
I am advised that some found the workshop useful, although I switched off as we were swamped with planning-speak slogans and buzzwords with little real substance. One comment from a new participant at my table on being asked to ascribe human characteristics to the vision was: “F … bullshit.” I had to agree, although I would not have expressed it in those terms.
The workshop referred to the Bays Precinct International Summit held in November, to which none of us were invited. Reports I have had from those members of the Bays community who did attend were very positive – indeed inspirational – and I was able to pass on to the C2E community engagement team support for the idea of kick-start projects to build trust. I was pleased that this idea was incorporated in the latest C2E workshop, where many participants strongly supported the erection of a temporary access-way across the railway to link Newtown/Chippendale to Redfern. But I have been advised subsequently that this strongly supported kick-start project is not possible. So much for that idea to build community trust.
I have suggested that the next workshop focus on great international examples of urban renewal to get people excited about the opportunities and benefits that C2E can bring to the community. UG should try to win over the sceptics and those who don’t want change for what they perceive as change’s sake. However, if UG presents reasonably fully-formed plans for C2E this will confirm the impression that the government is going through a sham consultation.
At the next workshop UG could announce some kick-start projects and ask people for feedback on those aspects which appeal to them. A follow-up workshop could show how all the comments could be implemented – perhaps with two or three scenarios – and seek further comment.
As has been said often, this is a 30-year project. No need to rush. Yet rushing they are. I have just now learned that expressions of interest for the purchase of the Australian Technology Park close at the end of January, with a decision as to whether to proceed with a sale to be made in February, just a month before the next NSW elections!
The one aspect which still hasn’t been addressed is governance into the future. The government needs to announce how this will be achieved and how the planning principles will be enshrined in the terms of reference. My preference would be for an independent statutory authority, with two community representatives on it. There could also be a Community Reference Group or Community Liaison Group (when construction starts).
Another problem to be addressed is how to get all the government silos working together to achieve the agreed vision. Some departments, for example Roads and Maritime Services, stay outside of all consultative mechanisms, although Transport for NSW is more cooperative.
I have also sought the opportunity to attend a workshop which is also attended by representatives of the silos. I don’t think it’s very useful in the long run for the “community” to be kept at arm’s length from the government. It just sets up an “us and them” environment and doesn’t help to win trust.
We in Pyrmont and Ultimo have suffered from the silo, pass-the-buck planning environment, particularly at Darling Harbour. The developers say “not in my brief”, and the silos refuse to be drawn into discussions on the need for physical and social infrastructure, including direct access to the CBD and expanded educational facilities to serve all the new families moving into the urban renewal areas. But no one body seems to have overall control or coordinating responsibilities.
But all this “engagement” must, in the end, be worthwhile, not just for the government and the developers who stand to profit, but for the people who live and work along the C2E corridor. The government has to do a lot more than engage legions of public relations folk to massage us into acceptance. It must build our trust by incorporating our ideas into its plans, and delivering tangible, worthwhile outcomes for all of us. I think we are all so over participating and not being heard.
