69 submissions, not one amendment

In a blatant disregard of community expectations, the council failed to make a single word of amendment to the "no growth" strategy recommended in the latest Rural Lands Study. This was in spite of receiving 69 submissions – most highly critical of the study findings.

Officers' report recommends no amendments

On 19 August 2003, the Baulkham Hills Council Corporate Development & Planning Services Review Committee held a scheduled meeting. Item 10 on the agenda was "Submissions to the draft Rural Lands Study". A report prepared by council officers on the submissions was tabled for consideration. It devoted 4 pages to defending the rural strategy against points raised in submissions, used a further 4 pages to repeat the rural strategy, then concluded by recommending that the council adopt it in full, unaltered. And although the study was carried out by a consultant, the officer's report made no comment at all about any points in it, and recommended that none of the points contained in any of the 69 submissions warranted any change to the rural strategy proposed by the consultant.

This stands in the starkest contrast to the council officers' report following the 1993 study. It contained 10 pages criticising various points in the study, 2 paragraphs supporting submissions received from government departments, then recommended that the entire study be ignored.

Community denied right to address council

Prior to the meeting, members of the community who had made submissions were contacted by letter, advising that the item was to be discussed. The letter also contained a statement of the council's policy regarding requests from the public to address any council meeting. A number of those who had made submissions subsequently contacted council staff to register their interest in addressing the meeting.

Incredibly, at about 4 pm on the day of the meeting, those who had indicated their wish to address the council were telephoned, and told that they would not be permitted to address the council. No substantial reasons were provided.

Councillors vote to accept officers' report

Then, even more incredibly, when the item came up for consideration at the meeting, councillors unanimously resolved to adopt the findings of the draft Rural Strategy report without a single amendment. They reached this decision in spite of submissions drawing their attention to the following points:

• The study is biased, and contains errors of logic. It reaches conclusions that are not supported by the facts. It does not make recommendations that fulfil the interests of the community.
• The reports contain large sections copied from the Penrith Rural Lands Study that have not been adequately edited to reflect the specific nature of Baulkham Hills.
• By far the majority of submissions argue for a minimum block size of 5 acres or less. In fact, this was the central issue in most of the submissions, including one that contained a petition with 146 signed letters, representing 67 properties. The strategy ignores this. Instead, it follows an unsupported ideology of basically "no growth".
• In preparing the study, the community were listened to, then ignored. No significant community concerns are reflected in the recommended strategy.

An insult to the community

Not only does this make a farce of the call for submissions, it fails to satisfy the second stated aim of the study, which was to "Involve the community and other stakeholders in the Study process, to ensure acceptance and ownership".

Acceptance and ownership will only be assured if the strategy is developed according to the wishes of the community, or failing that, if there are the strongest of reasons, accepted as necessary for the common good. In this case, neither applies.

Community consulted, then ignored

At the outset of this study residents were assured that they would have the opportunity to provide input to it. There were to be a series of public meetings with the community, and when submissions were sought, they were promoted as "the most important part of the process". In the council's 2002 State of the Environment report it stated, "Community consultation has been a fundamental component of council's Rural Lands Study". There was even a special Community Consultation Report produced.

Naturally those affected by the outcome took this to mean that legitimate concerns would be incorporated into the strategy, and from there, ultimately appear in the Local Environment Plan.

No-one expected that at the end of the day, after submissions, letters, meetings, and some $300,000, the major concern raised by the community – the very reason for carrying out the study – would be ignored.

Yet this is exactly what has happened.

Overwhelmingly and unequivocally the community expressed the wish to see growth return to the area through subdivision of large holdings to 5 acre lots, but this has been ignored and rebutted, both in the preparation of the strategy, and in the consideration of submissions.

Submissions consigned to the rubbish bin

By their actions it is now clear that the council treats submissions with contempt, as if the authors are all poorly-educated imbeciles with nothing to contribute. Yet reading through the submissions, it is clear that some are very well-researched, and make very sound points. Many draw attention to obvious errors in the draft Rural Strategy, but instead of correcting the strategy, the council chose to ignore the submissions, wasting all the work put into them by the community. It is an excellent example of how to alienate residents and ratepayers, and an insult.

Subsequently the council has impertinently suggested that those in the community who are not satisfied with the findings of the draft Rural Strategy will have the opportunity to "comment" by way of submissions when the draft Local Environment Plan is exhibited.

Knowing that any such "comments" are already pre-destined for the rubbish bin, who will bother?

The reality is that the community have made it crystal-clear for the last 30 years that they want growth restored through  subdivision of large holdings to 5 acres, but the council, at the bidding of the state government, have refused to comply.

It doesn't require hundreds of pages of reports and "community consultation" meetings to understand this. It's common knowledge, yet the council's response is to ignore it, and use the community's own money against them, to produce a plan for the future that achieves nothing.

It's unacceptable behaviour for any council.