Position Statements

HCAG publishes Position Statements on various matters within its area of interest.

Healesville Freeway Reservation

HCAG PS05 – July 2021

HCAG_Position_Statement-Healesville_Freeway_Reservation_Released_July_2021Download

Acknowledgments
HCAG acknowledges:

  • And appreciates the State Government’s commitment and action taken to preserve the Healesville Freeway Reservation (HFR) for open space passive and active recreation.
  • The work the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) has undertaken to get this initiative to the stage it is at.
  • Whitehorse City Council for its initial and ongoing advocacy and efforts to secure the Healesville Freeway Reservation as open space for all in the community.

Forward
HCAG has undertaken extensive research in order to put together this Position Statement.  The Statement is based on a summary of the main points of this research.  It is by no means exhaustive.  If we consider there is a need to provide more detail we may issue a supplementary Position Statement or commentary on our website linked to this Position Statement  HCAG PS-05.

Background
In 2014 as part of its election campaign the Labor Party promised to retain the Healesville Freeway Reservation as passive and active open space.  The Liberal Government position at that time was to sell the land for residential development. Since winning the 2014 election the Labor Government has proceeded with its election promise although:

  1. It has sold off several parcels of land which were held by VicRoads as part of the reservation and which were not referenced as for sale in the election promise.  (If such land sales were part of the election promise we invite the State Government or DELWP to show the written evidence at the time of the promise of such an intent.)
  2. The State Government appointed the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) to manage a process of converting most of the reservation to crown land, conduct community consultation (Which occurred in the first two and a half years after 2014 but does not appear to have any documentary evidence of having any substantial occurrence since then and up to the present time.  In 2018 DELWP issued a HFR Concept plan.
  3. DELWP recently advised that it may dispose of more land being 73 Morack Road and possibly an area comprising all or part of 403319 (2163) 403318 (2163) (is one of these No 33 142 Boronia Rd?)  which we are led to believe are currently leased on a month to month basis.  Although the HFRT Concept Plan Section 10 Recommendations item c.  infers it is VicRoads owned land.  (See our Note under Healesville Freeway Reservation Concept Plan points below.)
  4. The process to date has taken 6 going on 7 years and is still un-finalised.  HCAG finds this extraordinary and unacceptable.

As an observation, it does not appear that communications (in either direction) between DELWP and Council have been very effective.  Both parties seem to be on different “wavelengths” and approach the subject from largely opposite perspectives.

It appears to us that the City of Whitehorse position arises from a serious concern about its role, authority and limitations if it accepts the role of Committee of Management.  This has never been fully enunciated and is a legitimate concern and in our view must be addressed if a solution is to be agreed.

On the other hand, it appears that DELWP’s position arises from a concern as to whether Whitehorse has the ability to undertake such a master plan and implement it, and whether it will fully take into account all previous inputs from DELWP itself and those of the community and community organisations.

HCAG has absolute confidence in Whitehorse’s capabilities with respect to master planning and its implementation and believes it is the only logical choice to be given the responsibility and authority to do so.  Its intention as to whether it will complete a master plan conforming to community expectations and inputs is uncertain.   

As part of the preparation and research for this Position Statement HCAG has contacted DELWP on several occasions seeking to clear up some questions and gain a better understanding of the process being undertaken and status of the deliberations. Some of the information obtained as a part of this communication is:

  • That DELWP is just the interim manager of the land while it negotiates for an ongoing land manager.  It is not involved at a detailed level of planning that would cover many of the questions HCAG has raised.  (This does not seem to be the understanding arising from Council’s officer assessment of DELWP’s offer.)
  • There is no design for the proposed shared path, including minimum width. This would be done by the future land manager as part of master planning.
  • DELWP is aware that part of the golf course is encroaching onto 2155\P398316.  Whether the encroachment will be permitted to continue or not will be a matter for the future land manager to consider as part of master planning for the reserve.  (This implies that Whitehorse Council as the future land manager proposed in DELWP’s offer will be responsible for the master planning for the reserve and the “enchroachment” of the golf course onto the reservation.)
  • DELWP will not be doing any detailed planning, so it is not in a position to collate and consider submissions on the best design of the reserve.  Once a land manager is appointed, DELWP’s representative expects they will take the results of the 2018 concept plan consultation to help inform a master plan. (The question is – is the 2018 concept plan advisory or mandatory?)

These are not all of the matters discussed but are the most relevant.

The DELWP HFR COM Proposal may contradict some of these statements and clarification is needed to be sought and obtained by the Council.

We have also reviewed in detail all of the attachments referenced in Council’s recommendation put at the ordinary council meeting of 28th June 2021 – This recommendation was adopted with a 10 to 1 vote by the elected council. The referenced documents are:

  • DELWP HFR Concept Plan (Released 2018)
  • DELWP HFR COM Proposal
  • DELWP Renaming Submission
  • Council 2014 HFR Vision (Released 2014)

And in addition several related documents including the DELWP letter of offer to the City of Whitehorse.

HCAG comments on these referenced documents are as follows:

Healesville Freeway Reservation Concept Plan (2018)
Section 10 Recommendations. HCAG:

  • Agrees with a, b, d, (d is essential).
  • Does NOT agree with c. Parcel 33 being sold. (142 Boronia Road must in our view be retained.)
  • Has serious concerns about e. which compromises and delays the development of the reservation as linear open space.

Note:  The change in nomenclature used in the concept plan compared to all references and documents before it is confusing.

DELWP HFR COM Proposal

See the detailed HCAG position statement section below.

DELWP Renaming Submission

HCAG supports an aboriginal name given that there is a link to pre-European fauna and flora and the fact that aboriginal naming was a popular choice of the community engagement process.

Our support is conditional. (See the detailed HCAG position statement section on the following pages of this document.

Council 2014 HFR Vision (2014)

This document is historical and is a response to VicRoads’ proposals and intentions at the time.  VicRoads at that time were intent on selling off all of the reservation they could to property developers.  There was no intention by VicRoads for any community engagement  The Labor Party election promise of 2014 overturned that intent.  The Council Vision 2014 put forward alternative proposals, one of which included high-density residential development along (mostly the north side) of the reservation. As we see it, this document is irrelevant to the present situation and has served only to introduce ambiguity and confusion.

Early map of Healesville Freeway Reserve (as supplied by DELWP)
Early map of Healesville Freeway Reserve (as supplied by DELWP)

Position Statement

  • HCAG has in principle support for Council’s adopted recommendation for the Healesville Freeway Reservation, (Item 9.2.2 Ordinary Council Meeting 28 June 2021).  Our support is CONDITIONAL and the conditions are embedded in various positions stated below.
  • We consider Council’s recommendation to be a counter proposal aimed at leading to further negotiation and not in any way terminating the process.
  • A dot point of Council’s recommendation – recommendation 3 “That the Crown Land be converted to freehold land and transferred to Council for a nominal consideration” is supported subject to conditions in the contract of sale regarding the use of the land and scope.  We believe that the last land sale by a state department to Council was that of the Nunawading Primary School site by the Education Department (abbreviated title).   We suggest that DELWP review this transaction to determine whether there were any conditions related to the sale which would set a precedent and justification for DELWP to do so with respect to  the HFR.  We would expect that any such conditions by DELWP would be reasonable and the minimum essential.
  • We are extremely concerned that the process so far has taken 6 going on 7 years and are of the belief that with good will it could be finalised in 6 months.  Good will means that DELWP and Council should stop positioning, start talking (final negotiations), and get to a contract signing.

Other HCAG positions:

  • That the HFR use be solely for passive and active recreation whilst accepting existing users and occupiers.
  • That active recreation be in the Davey Lane area of the reserve and be constructed in such a way that it does NOT restrict or substantially narrow the passive recreation east – west linear path.  We have some thoughts about how this could be done and are available to discuss them.

We:

  • Accept the NADRASCA existing use but oppose any expansion north that would block or restrict the linear path.  We are likely to support a westward expansion to where there is an old dam subject to any such expansion being kept to the south boundary such as not to constrict the linear path.
  • Oppose the Vermont Secondary College’s desire to encroach onto the HFR if it involves any type of building but are amenable to some activity such as sports so long as it does not restrict of otherwise compromise the linear park and pathway.  We note that the Education Department does NOT appear to support VSC’s position, stating that it is unnecessary.  
  • See the Council 2014 HFR Vision (2014) as being no more than a superseded  reference document some content of which we support and much of which we oppose.  In particular, but not limited to, its vision that the east – west shared trail and bio-link would be only 12 metres wide and configured as a:
    • 3 metre wide shared path
    • 2 metre wide buffer on either side of the path
    • 2.5 vegetated strip on either side of the buffer

      Where there are no other activities on the reserve our view is that the path and bio-link should be the full width of the reserve save possibly for any minimum necessary fire breaks at the boundaries.  Anywhere else 12 metres is not enough, including the active precinct at Davey Lane.
  • See a need for a schedule to be attached to any master plan and implementation that must be strictly adhered to.  We are concerned that thus far the finalisation for the reservation scope has to date taken over six years and we regard it as unacceptable if does not proceed rapidly to develop a master plan and implement it.  (We are not suggesting here that corners should be cut.) 
  • Oppose any further land sales related to the HFR.
  • Do NOT support a vehicular road connection between Moore Road and Livermore Close.  We are open to a pedestrian/bicycle path which would intersect the main east – west trail.
  • Do NOT support a vehicular road extension of Stanley Road across the reservation to Jolimont Road.  We are open to a pedestrian/bicycle path which would intersect the main east – west trail.
  • Do not support any other new road crossings.
  • See a key failure of all proposals as being the treatment of the reservation as being for the local community and accessible only to walking and cycling users.  This reservation is about 40 hectares total, (DELWP supplied assessment).  It is not a local park it is a major if not regional park serving the whole of Whitehorse and beyond.  Focus in reports is also on walking and cycling and this implies a bias towards fitter people and not the more frail or those with limited mobility.  Less able people in the community also need and are entitled to have access.  To achieve all of these matters car parking and toilet facilities are needed at more than one location, and perhaps food facilities are needed, as well as playground facilities for younger users.   
  • See proposals from both DELWP and Council as being deficient in that there are no clear “gateway” entrances to the reservation.  The logical places for gateway entrances are at each end of the reservation.  Secondary entrances could be at Davey Lane, Morack Road, and possibly Terrara Road and Livermore Close.  Minor entrances at other locations. 
  • See proposals from both DELWP and Council as being deficient in that there are no car parking provisions anywhere along the reservation.  The logical places for car parks are at each end of the reservation, Davey Lane, Morack Road, and possibly Terrara Road.  All work undertaken by both DELWP and Council fail to address car parking needs.
  • See the Dandenong creek end of the reservation having ample opportunity for a gateway entrance and car parking especially if no more land is sold off.  The Springvale Road end of the reservation is seriously deficient in car parking and has been compromised by the works Council is presently undertaking at Strathdon House and the orchard.  We believe this is a consequence of undertaking developments in a piecemeal “in isolation” manner rather than looking at a big picture co-ordinated approach. (We appreciate that a big picture approach is difficult since the final scope and function of the reservation is still a moving target.)
  • Support an aboriginal name but if it has not been finalised before any agreed hand over it should NOT delay that handover – it can be finalised at a later date.
  • Believe that there has been an in principle agreement between Council and the North-East link authority to provide for significant tree planting and believe that some of it be used for reafforestation of the HFR provided Council becomes the land owner. 
  • Believe that some of the Council’s Open Space Reserve (funds) could be used to help develop  the HFR provided Council becomes the land owner. 
  • Note that the letter of offer from DELWP to Council of 22September 2020, Item 10 advises of DELWP’s intention that all areas will be cleared prior to the land manager being appointed.  HCAG supports DELWP undertaking the work but believes it should be referred to the master planning process and undertaken AFTER the completion of that process.  This is to ensure that opportunities are not lost by premature clearing of sites. There may be more solutions than one. For example fire safety referred to in the document could compromise the master plan.
  • Consider that passive and active recreation must be a higher priority of the state planning department for Melbourne and in particular Whitehorse where there are still some opportunities like the HFR.  The perception is that the state planning department is singularly focused on higher and higher density residential development which without matching recreational opportunities  can only result in a less and less liveable city.  
  • Believe that a bipartisan approach is needed at a State level, especially since in 2014 both major political parties had very different and opposite intent with respect to the reservation.   We are aware of the Member for Forest Hill’s recent support for the reservation’s use for passive and active recreation but urge the opposition to now support it at the highest parliamentary level.
  • Finally see the HFR as a key link in a network of linear parks that provide a walking and bicycle paths throughout the northeast, eastern, south eastern region of Melbourne.   This should be part of any consideration and master plan.  There has been a lot of talk of it over the years but further commitment and action is needed.  The actions to bring the HFR into being must not compromise this ambitious larger programme.

Naming of Heatherdale Reserve Pavilion – Simpson Ward

HCAG PS-01 – June 2021

Background
Ray Woolridge was a founding member of the Heatherdale Football Club and was prominent and active in the establishment of the sporting activities in the area that became Heatherdale reserve. This football club was so important to the district for the young boys and all the parents. It contributed so much in well-being to the Community from 1969.

Position Statement
In recognition of the contribution by Ray Woolridge to football and the Heatherdale Football Club, of which he was a founding member, located at the Heatherdale Reserve, HCAG proposes that the new pavilion be named “The Ray Woolridge Pavilion.”

Appendices
Appendix 1
Another highlight. Including everybody in sport means having the proper facilities. $200,000 upgrade at Heatherdale Reserve means women – who are already playing sport in ever-increasing numbers – can feel at home when they do.

Appendix 2
$2 million in federal Funding (arranged by Michael Sukkar) has been secured for the redevelopment of Heatherdale Pavilion. This will finally provide the Heatherdale Cricket Club, Heatherdale Juniors Cricket Club, Heathmont Jets Junior Football Club, Donvale Crusaders JFC and Mitcham Eagles Junior Football Club a first-rate facility. Work is progressing with Whitehorse City Council on the planning and timing of the project.

Yarran Dheran – Walker Ward

HCAG PS-02 – June 2021

Background
Yarran Dheran is a very significant passive recreation area:

  • considerably greater biodiversity than Blackburn Lake Sanctuary (much of that sanctuary’s vegetation are planted ‘indigenous to Australia’ species that are NOT indigenous to the area)
  • within Whitehorse, it has links to Schwerkolt cottage open space area and Antonio Park via the new 21 Wattle Valley Road linear park
  • beyond Whitehorse, it has walking links to Manningham passive recreation areas via the Mullum-Mullum creek valley walkway, including Mullum-Mullum Park, Mullum-Mullum Linear Park and Currawong Park (Blackburn Lake Sanctuary has no such similar connections)
  • it has native species unique to the Mullum- Mullum valley
  • the links also provide corridors for native habitat (including kangaroos).

At an on-site meeting in 2015-2016, then Crs Stennett and Daw, together with Gay Gallagher of the Yarran Dheran Advisory Committee, advocated to Mr Bill Morrison that a Master Plan should be developed for the reserve and that the visitor centre should be substantially upgraded. Mr Morrison at that meeting indicated that it was not a priority and would be undertaken in about two years. Now six years on, and after several deferrals, a minimalist update of the visitor centre, that is nowhere near deserving of what is warranted given the importance of the reserve, may start this year.

At this point in time, the Yarran Dheran visitor center upgrade proposed by Council officers is what would be best described as a “more of the same but better” solution. What HCAG believes is needed is a substantial upgrade to increase its size and scope to an equivalent capability and capacity as that at Blackburn Lake Sanctuary. To make matters worse, HCAG has also become aware money allocated in the council budget to update the visitor center at Yarran Dheran is being eroded by diversion into Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliance issues at the center and which will consume a large part (if not the majority) of funding allocated.

Position Statement
HCAG advocates that Council should:

  • re-open its assessment of the Yarran Dheran project scope and commit to a process of (as a minimum) deliberative engagement with the community, embracing ALL of the considerations below; nevertheless, the timing commitment for this project should not, once again, be deferred
  • recognise the importance and significance of Yarran Dheran in the wider scheme of things, including its biodiversity and linkages to the wider area, including beyond Whitehorse
  • recognise the importance and significance of the reserve – it is not a local park; it has Whitehorse-wide importance and is regionally important; council should base its scope of work on these wider needs and importance
  • revisit its budget commitment regarding Yarran Dheran, with a view to increasing that commitment
  • funding of DDA compliance issues should be treated separately to the redevelopment of the visitor center – they should have been fixed years ago
  • encourage and accept any and all funding from other sources, including other levels of Government
  • ensure that all characteristics and features of the area are conveyed with recommendations so that Councillors can make informed decisions.

Simpson Park Off-Leash Dog Park – Simpson Ward

HCAG PS-03 – June 2021

Background
The Simpson Park land was donated to the City of Nunawading by the Blooms family years ago, and before the merger of Nunawading and Box Hill Councils in 1992. Prior to the donation, it was the orchard of Mr. Blooms who grew pear trees and harvested the fruit. For a number of years, the reserve was called “Blooms Reserve” until the Nunawading Council mysteriously renamed it, Simpson Park. The rationale and circumstances of the renaming still remain a mystery, but it is controversial to some members of the local community.

Nunawading Council cleared the land for passive recreation and sporting activities. Originally, the sporting area was sloped down to Cochrane Street, following the natural terrain. Later, the Nunawading Council levelled part of the reserve for a much-needed sporting oval, while retaining an open passive recreation area to the north, and an indigenous treed area to the south. At some time, the City of Whitehorse designated the sporting oval as an off-leash dog park (there is minimal use by a cricket club and only short-term use by other sporting groups).

The City of Whitehorse now has a significant deficit of sporting facilities, in particular, but not limited to sports ovals. Once Whitehorse had around 80 sports ovals – now it has a few more than 40. We suggest this is largely due to the Education Department selling off schools and their sporting facilities (a practice that continues to this day), in spite of a growing population needing more recreation (space both passive and active) and sporting activities and venues. We also note some recreational open space is being lost through appropriation to more intensive use such as, but not limited to, residential development. This only serves to exacerbate the problem (the Healesville Freeway reservation was, we think at this point in time, a near-miss for the same fate).

There are a number of issues we have been made aware of with regards to the Simpson Park off-leash dog park:

  • it largely denies sporting clubs the use of an important and much-needed sporting oval
  • some dogs are not under the control of their owners as is a required condition of an off-leash dog park
  • while dog excrement pick up bags are plentifully supplied around the park, not all dog owners use them
  • as a result the mostly young people playing sport on the oval (when they are allowed), have to contend with sloshing around in dog excrement
  • a website lists the Simpson Park off-leash dog park as being a 24/7 facility – does this mean dogs are allowed on the ground when sports are in progress?
  • we note at least one member of the Heatherdale Creek Parklands Advisory Committee (formerly the Simpson Park-Somers Trail Advisory Committee) is opposed to Council’s new off-leash dog park proposal saying the existing arrangements are fine – respectfully, we don’t think so
  • it appears the Advisory Committee is not much aware of what is happening in their area of responsibility – or is aware and thinks it’s OK.

We believe recent works on the oval by council includes redressing and a new sprinkler system – this logically is most beneficial for sporting activities rather than off-leash dog park activities.

Position Statement
HCAG:

  • fully supports off lead dog parks
  • advocates that all off-leash dog parks should be purpose-specific and should not be shared with other activities, especially sporting activities
  • and in particular advocates the Simpson Park oval should be dedicated to sporting activities and should be fenced to keep dogs out and placarded to advise that dogs are not permitted on the oval. We believe that the oval could be better utilised and in addition to football and cricket could be opened up to other ball sports such as baseball and softball. The existing building might need to be upgraded to provide male and female change rooms and toilets. Fencing is a logical next step to the re-grassing and sprinkler system
  • there is currently a proposal by council officers to construct a dog park in another section of Simpsons Park north of the oval. We fully support this proposal and believe it cannot come too soon. Since this area would be further away from the existing building some duplication of facilities such as water bowls etc. might be needed
  • furthermore, we submit all registered dog owners in Whitehorse receive council correspondence advising of their responsibilities, conditions of use of an off-leash dog park, and liabilities if they ignore them
  • and it is an offence to leave the scene without leaving their contact details if there is an incident involving their dog(s).

HCAG is aware Somers Trail has also been designated an off-leash dog area. At this point in time, we have no comment on the Somers Trail area but recognise there may be difficulties keeping a dog under control if it runs ahead of its owner and encounters another dog coming the other way. We believe that in the medium to long term there is a need for a Simpson Park master plan for which logically should include Somers Trail (if one already exists it needs to be updated).

Draft Whitehorse Community Engagement Policy 2021

HCAG PS-04 – June 2021

Feedback
Current Council practice on advising the community of these opportunities to provide input does not accord with the policy proposed practice. The policy practice, particularly on this matter, could be implemented NOW rather than after the policy is approved. For example, we found out about this process and opportunity Friday 29 January by chance through a councillor’s Facebook page. On approaching another councillor, the councillor claimed no knowledge of it. We have already missed a deadline for nominating to participate in the early process and have contacted a relevant council officer about it. We would have thought that having registered our interest we would have automatically received notification of further steps in the process, be invited to comment, and advised of deadlines for submissions. Apparently from this very example, not so! Could you please rectify this failure? (For all contributors and not just us.)

The draft policy appears to be acceptable as far as it goes but omits a number of points and scenarios including but not limited to the following:

  • As a community engagement policy it is very one-directional in that its focus is very much on putting forward to the community Council’s position, but at face value does not allow the community to enunciate or put forward its position

Extract from Whitehorse Community Engagement Policy:
Summary of Community Feedback
What you told us
The top five ways Council can improve its community consultation and engagement are: …

  • This is a very welcome analysis, however, it may miss a lot of important detail. We would like to see a compilation of all statements (unedited) from the community be they from individuals or groups. We understand the need for confidentiality and do not see this being compromised if the identity of the submitter is not revealed.

Extract from the policy:
Our engagement practice will be informed by the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) model which details a spectrum of engagement which recognises that in some instances this may be simply “informing” the community and in others “empowering” the community to make decisions.

  • The policy refers to a hierarchy or level of interaction starting with “inform” – which is NOT in our view consultation – or is a minimalist form of consultation. Who makes this determination of the level of engagement? What Council (presumably council officers) regards as an “inform” level of engagement may, and we believe will frequently be disputed by community individuals and groups. This hierarchy of levels of engagement is open to improper positioning of levels. For example, we suggest VicRoads has an obligation stipulated by the State to engage with the community but the only examples we have ever seen is VicRoads informing the relevant section(s) of the community. “There – you have been informed, now go away and let us do what we want!” seems to be VicRoads modus operandi. It is nothing more than going through the motions to satisfy State requirements on community engagement/consultation.

Extracted table from the policy:

Whitehorse Engagement Policy table

Extract from the policy:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2020 REQUIREMENTS – The Local Government Act (Vic) 2020 requires all Councils in Victoria to develop a Community Engagement Policy (Section 55).

  • This begs the question – is Council doing this because it is obliged to do so or because it genuinely wants engagement with the community.

With respect to the following sections of the policy:
THE ROLE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS
WHAT IS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT?
WHY IS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IMPORTANT?

We agree with these sections of the policy but feel it necessary to say:

  • that for a minority of councillors their advocacy seems to be narrow and single-minded and not focussed on the broader and diverse community needs
  • Councils are clearly delineated by legislation into an elected council and separate and independent operational group managed by the CEO. The development of this Whitehorse Community Engagement Policy IS a policy matter falling into the elected councillors domain of responsibility. They must in our view be included throughout the process and NOT just at the tail end of it when it is put forward for a vote (generally only a few short days before the vote and without sufficient time and opportunity to come to an informed decision).

THE POLICY SCOPE
including but not limited to the:

  • Development and review of key strategic documents/plans such as the Community Vision, Council Plan, Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan, Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Plan and Road Management Plan.
  • Making of Local Laws
  • Making amendments to the Planning Scheme or deliberating on planning applications under the Planning and Environment Act 1987
  • Development of annual budgets
  • Development of Council policies that directly impact the community
  • Upgrades to Council venues and playgrounds

Some Council decisions will affect the whole community, but most often affect some people or groups more than others. We also recognise that some people or groups face barriers to engaging with us.

We will focus our efforts on engaging with the most directly affected members of our community and use methods that reduce barriers to participation.

As part of our planning process we will identify the people and groups that may be affected by or interested in the decision, action or strategy being made or developed. This may include the Whitehorse community, associated key stakeholders and staff or teams internal to our organisation.

We may identify or define those in our community who are most affected or interested by place, interest, demographics or hard to reach.We agree with all the items in the policy scope but have concerns about how you are going to determine who is or isn’t to be invited to participate, and what you are going to do if a community individual or group takes issue with your determination. That assumes that all individuals are told of the activities and the rationale for their exclusion – which we believe is essential.

We agree with all the items in the policy scope but have concerns about how you are going to determine who is or isn’t to be invited to participate, and what you are going to do if a community individual or group takes issue with your determination. That assumes that all individuals are told of the activities and the rationale for their exclusion – which we believe is essential.

We seek inclusion in all aspects of the policy scope. We seek inclusion in all aspects of the policy scope.

CITY OF WHITEHORSE ENGAGEMENT PRINCIPLE

The words all sound good. Whether Council lives up to them remains to be seen. We believe very much in actions not words.

MANDATORY ENGAGEMENT

We agree with all in the above table and wish to be invited to participate on all such activities.

WHEN INFORMING MAY BE APPROPRIATE

We have already made comment on this and have some concerns.

DELIBERATIVE ENGAGEMENT

Under your heading “Council will undertake deliberative engagement:” we believe that a fourth scenario should be added along the lines of “When representatives of the community request a relevant case be considered.”

We see deliberative engagement as being a significant (perhaps the most significant) mode of community engagement.

With respect to the following sections of the policy:
YOUR SAY WHITEHORSE
OUR APPROACH TO ENGAGEMENT
REVIEW OF THE POLICY
RELATED POLICIES & LEGISLATION

We agree in principle to all of these sections as written.

HCAG practice and commitment:

  • Our practice and commitment as a community organisation are (unlike at least one community group that we will refrain from naming) to work collaboratively with all areas of Council inclusive of both the operational area of Council and elected councillors.
  • We seek to represent community views and aspirations in our area of operation and to do so canvass the community in order to provide maximum understanding and accuracy.
  • Our objective is to achieve the best outcomes for the community and a positive relationship with Council in which to do so.
  • We will be providing comments impartially and objectively as we can which may at times be controversial. We do so where we believe Council needs to hear rather than what it wants to hear.

Subject to HCAG committee approval, we will be providing copies of this submission to Ward councillors in and adjoining our sphere of activities. We believe that they have as much right to transparency and information as we consider we should have.