Central to
Eveleigh – Some REDWatch Concerns
UrbanGrowth NSW (UG) has just
completed some focus groups about Central to Eveleigh (C2E) issues around a Draft
Concept and Key Issues summary – June 2014.
This was an important discussion
but there were some other issues of the concern that were raised which REDWatch
would like to see addressed. This paper seeks to explain these concerns and put
them on record.
Background on REDWatch Involvement on
the C2E site
REDWatch has been engaged with a
succession of Government bodies since 2004 in discussions about the Eveleigh
part of the C2E site. Over this time we have seen the RED Strategy, planning
controls for ATP and Eveleigh, an approved Concept Plan for the redevelopment of
North Eveleigh, Draft Plans covering the redevelopment of Eveleigh public
housing, the North Eveleigh access road and Affordable Housing proposals, interminable
discussions about Redfern station and an Interpretation Plan for Heritage
across the former Eveleigh Railyards site.
Under the Redfern Waterloo
Authority we were promised significant community engagement which was watered
down to quarterly Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) meetings which provided
some reporting but locked the community out of real discussions about what
happened on the site. The Built Environment MAC (BEMAC) for example was
excluded from seeing any of the design competition entries for North Eveleigh that
were used to prepare the North Eveleigh Concept Plan. The BEMAC was shown the
first Built Environment Plan (BEP1) that dealt with Eveleigh Railyards after it
went on public exhibition, and just before exhibition in the case of the second
Built Environment Plan (BEP2) dealing with public housing redevelopment.
REDWatch was continually pushed into reacting to the plans Government put
together behind closed doors.
Outside this process REDWatch
invited the Government bodies like the RWA / SMDA / UrbanGrowth / Land and
Housing Corporation etc to REDWatch Meetings to discuss issues of concern to
REDWatch that we knew were being looked at internally. We also met with people
from those organisations for briefing and off the record discussions.
With the Planning White Paper
announcement last year being followed by the announcement of work on Central to
Eveleigh, REDWatch saw the opportunity of taking the promise of upfront
community engagement in strategic planning that was proposed for the new
planning system and applying it to work on C2E. REDWatch asked UrbanGrowth and
the Department of Planning to use Central to Eveleigh to model this new
approach to strategic planning.
Resulting from this the
Department appointed UTS to assist UrbanGrowth in planning its community
engagement around this strategic planning. Geoff Turnbull (REDWatch Spokesperson
and earlier BEMAC member) was asked to also participate as a community person
in the planning process. That process lead to three sessions in 2013 (one with
Government and key land owners, one of randomly selected people from the wider
community and one with community groups around the site), the report from these
sessions was made public in Initial
Stakeholder and Community Engagement Report – Jan 2014.
The group responsible for the
initial consultation never met to review the process or to discuss the next
steps. The report was finalised by email. KLA, the consultants finished up, the
C2E project received an updated brief from Government and the C2E Project
Manager changed. UTS was asked to undertake a new set of focus groups as a
consultant of UG’s rather than as a continuation of the earlier process.
When approached about the new
focus groups REDWatch sent a note to UG raising many of the concerns in this
paper. We also met with UG to discuss the note. Our aim was to try to get some
of the broader issues about the shape of the community role in C2E strategic
planning back on the table and get this discussed with the other community
groups rather than just REDWatch. REDWatch has argued, unsuccessfully to date, for
a broader community reference group for C2E.
Finally it is worthwhile
mentioning that as part of the Department of Planning’s Culture Change response
last year that it arranged for two busloads of staff from the Department to go
on guided tours of the C2E corridor to learn more about the area and its
issues. Those tours heard both from UrbanGrowth and REDWatch spokesperson Geoff
Turnbull throughout the tour. There is, as a result of these tours, greater
knowledge of some of the issues within the Department than there may have been
otherwise.
Current Concerns
Prior to the latest focus groups
REDWatch raised some concerns about the process proposed with UG. Of prime
concern was that, for many of the community groups, the focus groups were their
second meeting with UG and as key stakeholders there were other issues that
also needed to be discussed. This was especially the case as there had been no
follow up process from the initial stakeholder engagement. There were as a
result continuity questions from the previous meeting and stakeholder issues
that needed to be also discussed.
While the community groups’
session did discuss some of the participant’s wider questions and concerns, it
also rehashed some old concerns without really addressing the questions raised
by UG or making alternative suggestions. We did not get time for discussion of
the issues which UG was raising, resulting in less than desirable outcomes in either
of the areas discussed and a lost opportunity to engage around the questions UG
were asking.
This could have been an
opportunity to lobby for a new school, affordable housing, expanded green
space, childcare and creative spaces. It could be a chance to influence place
making and the shape of the master plan (if it goes that far). We should have
looked closely at the ATP which will be the first cab off the rank
probably and addressed the question on the sheet “if ownership of the
ATP were to change…..” which raises many questions about its future that
we should have been pursuing.
The meetings need to be more
focused and adequate time has to be allocated to address the different areas
people want to discuss. As part of this there need s to be time for the
discussion of what UG wants discussed and time for what the community groups
want discussed.
Below are some of REDWatch main
concerns.
Focus Groups:
As well as focus groups UG needs
to also consult about all relevant issues with community groups. To do this it
is necessary to allow adequate time for input from community groups through
their representatives. Ideally groups should be able to discuss the issues
under consultation with their committees and general meetings. If the process
is rushed then there should be flexibility to allow representatives to feed-back
input from their groups in the weeks following the focus group. Focus groups are
not the only engagement Community Group’s should have with UG over C2E. As
stakeholders they should be involved more broadly in discussions about the
project and its processes.
The initial consultation last
year had a randomly selected focus group that excluded people who were members
of residents groups or involved in planning or development. This is not a
random selection especially in an area where lots of professionals live and
there are many residents groups. We are advised that such people were not
excluded in the focus groups undertaken in June 2014 and hopefully they will
not be in the future.
Where there is not existing
expertise within groups they can be more easily influenced by the input
provided by the facilitators. The inclusion of an independent observer in the
2013 initial consultation was aimed to provide some external monitoring of the
process. Describing the groups as deliberative was dropped as a result of this
process.
Focus Groups should not be an
alternative to input from a wider range of stakeholders be they residents
groups or developer lobbies who bring perspectives from their experience and
knowledge of the development and planning processes. So called independent
deliberative processes need to have access to the broad range of views
including that of community groups.
In the case of the focus group
for community groups there was also the need to report on and check the process
between the focus group meetings – how did we get from there to here? Did we
record correctly what you said last time? This is what we have done with it. The
specific process issues which needed to be addressed included:
- Feedback on consultation report – any concerns?
- Were the undertakings we made last time
honoured? – Was the appropriate material posted on the website – Architectus
report, background material on the area? Were there any problems with the
material currently posted? - UG reworked the 9 key themes from the December consultation
report into the 6 points presented to the second meeting – is this OK? Are
there any Issues?
Transparency
The C2E process must be as
transparent as possible so that the community can understand what is happening
and be involved in the discussion. Up-front strategic planning requires transparency,
opportunities to understand what is being proposed and why, and time to comment
on it. Strategic planning is not about preparing plans out of public view and
just involving the public during a limited exhibition. In part strategic
planning is about minimising the surprises for the community and taking them on
the journey of its preparation and addressing the issues along the way.
This requires a good
communications strategy. This was not delivered in the preliminary consultation
phase and apart from Ministerial announcements remains lacking in C2E. UG
should have provided at least a timeline for Communications Strategy to the
community groups and by now should have had one in place.
In the absence of an UG
Communications Strategy it falls to community groups to find out what is
happening and to pass on what is known about what is happening to our networks
and to encourage their understanding of and input into the issues under
consideration.
There is a need to advise the
community and to discuss the issues with them. Almost a year down the track a
small number of community group representatives and some people randomly chosen
for focus groups remain the only people in the local community who have been engaged
in the process.
We welcome the www.central2eveleigh.com.au link
and the public provision of a number of documents used in the process so far.
We await details of some of the initial market soundings and the UTS input into
the preliminary consultation. We are of the view that if a flythrough of what
the site could become was important enough to fund, present to the Property Council
and to make available to Channel Nine then it to should be released to the
community rather than it only be available on YouTube and in stills from the
Channel 9 news on the REDWatch website.
REDWatch currently awaits the
release of many studies undertaken by the RWA / SMDA / UGDC, such as a review
of the area’s community facilities that remain locked up until the Government
decides to release them as part of the exhibition of planning controls by UG.
REDWatch does not think withholding reports until the end of the process is a
good way of undertaking planning or community consultation, and we encourage UG
to make public as many reports as soon as possible throughout this process.
Regular Reporting
There need to be mechanisms for
regular reporting to the community. This needs to be both broad and covered by
a good Communications Strategy and it also needs to be with local community
groups that allow the local group representatives to ask questions and gain an
understanding of what is happening. In RWA terms this could be a bit like the
RWA BEMAC – meeting quarterly for a briefing on what has been happening.
Some parts of the site lend
themselves to long term strategic discussions but there are other parts of the
site where planning deadlines are more immediate – eg taking to market ATP
development sites or making arrangements for the CME’s building. There needs to
be opportunities for discussion about a range of issues of concern to the
community not just those determined by UG.
Some of the information that is
of interest to REDWatch and should be available to all groups at the moment
includes:
a)
Update on
what has happened in UG since last community groups’ meeting
- Report back to Govt in 2013 – what was proposed
& what did Govt decide - What is overall timeframe and next steps
- Explanation of expanded study area shown on C2E
maps - Basis and reason for fly through preparation and
its use and the issues raised – eg who thinks it is OK to put a new building
through the Loco workshops? - What can be made public about the work undertaken
by C2E to date? - What work / studies are currently being
proposed– eg EOI’s currently out for Urban Design Services – what is their
scope? etc - C2E working with City of Sydney Council – MOU
& practical involvement in process- What has been agreed and what is
envisaged? Concerns about UG MOUs on WestConnex. What is happening in case of
CoS to ensure genuine involvement on CoS expertise at a high level in the
project rather than just embedding a CoS staff member like proposed for
WestConnex?
b)
Updates on
what is happening across the C2E site
- ATP – building sites – outcome of EOI process –
who is handling? - ATP privatisation / restructure – what is
happening in this discussion? - South Eveleigh Public Housing – How is LAHC
involved? - Railway Corridor – Report on Transport Master
Plan & Second Harbour Crossing - Redfern Station – Timeframe and any indication
of our promised lift? - North Eveleigh
- Proposal
for Stabling yards on fan of tracks – is this still on?- CME’s
building & Scientific Services going to market?- Access
Road to North Eveleigh and cracking of nearby houses- Other
three sites and main park (moving electrics progress)- Place
of Carriageworks and Arts in this precinct- What
is mechanism for resolving issues on NE site?
- Central Station (including explanation of what
is being “offered” internationally on Central to Eveleigh by NSW Government
Trade & Investment Offices – China in Investment Opportunities Tourism and
Property).
A Community Reference Group?
Ideally a one way flow of
information does not make for good strategic planning and it is important that
both local groups know what is happening but that also local knowledge is fed
into the process. In an ideal world there should be a community reference group
to help guide how C2E engages with the local communities around it.
Such a reference group does not
preclude working groups or taskforces that might come together around
particular issues or problems. Indeed REDWatch continues to push for the
re-formation of the Redfern Waterloo Heritage Taskforce that earlier met under
the RWA and which worked on heritage issues across the Former Eveleigh
Workshops and beyond. Such working groups bring in specialist expertise that is
invaluable to the process. Such specialist groups do not however replace a
wider Community Reference Group.
REDWatch is of the view that
there should be a number of people / groups with a variety of views involved in
a Community Reference Group. This does not mean that individual groups still
cannot engage UG on issues they think are important but it removes any
perception that UG is only talking to a limited number of individuals or
groups. It also provides a broader set of inputs to UG that will better reflect
the opinions of the communities they are working within.
Community Engagement
Tapping community knowledge and
networks are particularly important in the discussion about how C2E engages
more broadly with the community. As an example Community Centres in Redfern and
Waterloo service a broad range of community groups and activities across the
area – this is evident each year at the Redfern Waterloo Volunteers awards –
they are a key resource in reaching out to people and groups in the community.
They are just one example.
Some of the Community Engagement
Questions are:
How do we go about engaging the broad community so that:
- The broader community know what is happening and
can have a say and own the process - C2e can get best community input
What should we be engaging on:
- The initial discussion that only 20 reps were
involved in - The next steps
- Not until there is something concrete
Who has not been engaged to date that needs to be involved in this
discussion and suggestions for the how and when of their engagement?
- Existing stake holder groups with an interest in
the site – North Eveleigh Working Group, ARAG, CRIG, FOE – are some public
meetings the best way of starting conversation with these large stakeholder
groups? - The local human service agencies, community
centres, politicians offices and media that people go to with questions or look
to for information - The planning professionals that live in the area
that have a professional interest - The broader engaged community
- Those that are not engaged but need to
understand and own C2E if the “1 in 4” referred to by Minister Hazzard is to be
engaged
What is the role and process for focus groups in the process and how
will they be conducted?
- Eg non exclusion of professionals or the engaged
unless genuine / monitored (who should do this?) deliberative process. Process
needs to be made public and subject to scrutiny due to suspicion about the
process. - What is the purpose of this consultation and
what is the role of focus groups and ongoing engagement with locals involved in
the focus groups?
Make it clear what the community can influence and what it cannot
- In all community engagement it is important for
those undertaking the consultation to be clear about what it is they are
consulting on and what they are prepared to change. This stops people being
frustrated by thinking they can change something in the process that they can
not. - If we know what is negotiable at the start then
we can decide if we want to participate in the process or try and change the
process.
Where to from here?
In the absence of UG taking up
broader community engagement it is up to community groups to let their
memberships know what is happening and to solicit their views. Currently
REDWatch is doing this by alerting people to the materials on the website and
encouraging them to respond to UG C2E. REDWatch also had C2E as the focus for
our July monthly meeting.
REDWatch has found that it is
not desirable to wait to be consulted, but to be more proactive and to initiate
discussions about the issues. As part of this REDWatch for its meeting on 7th
August will hold a session with Peter Phibbs on the Economics of Development to
help us understand the economic imperatives that drive development. We have
also asked Peter Phibbs to consider trialling around C2E a Planning for
Non-Planners seminar he is developing for the Department of Planning to improve
people’s understanding of the planning system. We encourage other community
groups to also look at how they can resource and engage their communities to be
able to have a say around C2E.
There also needs to be a multi-group
mechanism for the community groups to discuss C2E issues with one another and
with UG. In the absence of a mechanism initiated by UG then REDWatch will call
a meeting of interested group representatives and invite UG C2E to attend and
provide an update quarterly.
Big picture (strategic) planning
is not something that has been done well in Australia, especially not with
significant community engagement. This was recognised in the work done about
the new planning system. While the future of the new system is not clear,
improved strategic planning is not dependent on this progress. Community groups
should be expecting of Government and its agencies like UG that they will
deliver world’s best practice community engagement in strategic planning. This
is what REDWatch asked the Dept of Planning and UrbanGrowth for last year and
it is still what we want to see happen around Central to Eveleigh.
Conclusion
We hope that this document
provides some useful background to some of the issues of concern to REDWatch
regarding the C2E processes midway through 2014. It is produced to encourage
discussion and debate about how we can make the best of the current opportunity
to deliver the best possible outcomes for our communities.
Geoffrey Turnbull
Spokesperson
REDWatch
16 July 2014