Huon Valley Guessing Games People in Cygnet are starting to monitor more closely the behaviour of Huon Valley Council, and a catalyst in this process has been council’s dysfunctional and dissembling approach to its controversial car park project behind the Town Hall.
Mayor Armstrong
At last, it seems, some in the community are waking up to two of council’s weak points in its running of the municipality: insensitivity towards (sometimes contempt for) constituents; and an all-too-frequent failure to pay attention to detail.
Before considering various aspects of the car park project (the bus shelter component has been abandoned, council having realised the stupidity of even thinking of including one), it is instructive to highlight yet another manifestation of these two weaknesses.
On September 19, at council’s monthly meeting, as is usual, on each chair in the public gallery were two sheets of paper: one a list of agenda topics; the other, notes on “public question time” rules, the names of councillors and council officers, and council contact details.
In the councillor list, after the mayor’s name, was “Deputy Mayor Gary Doyle”. Those who follow council affairs — and certainly anyone connected with council — would have been aware that Gary Doyle died suddenly early in August. Not only that, sitting there on September 19 in the deputy mayor’s chair was Doyle’s successor, Cr Mike Wilson.
It was an unfortunate error, and one that should not have occurred. Yet somehow it symbolised how this council so often gets it wrong — in its decision-making and in the often-poor execution of projects it undertakes. The new toilet block in Cygnet’s Loongana Park and the car park project behind Cygnet Town Hall are prime examples.
For years, Mayor Robert Armstrong brushed aside the need for a car park behind the Town Hall. Observers wondered why he showed no enthusiasm for a development that would enhance the efficiency of this busy township. Then, suddenly, last year, he was going on about putting in a car park.
It turned out that a state-financed plan to bury Cygnet’s main-street power lines was too expensive to implement. So, instead, council had got a promise from Labor that the money — about $300,000 — could be used to construct a car park in the area designated in the 2010 township plan. (The 2010 plan is a far less visionary, much emasculated version of a plan rejected by the Armstrong-led council in 2004.)
We’ll probably never know who promoted the silly thought of a bus shelter at the lonely end of a dark Cygnet alley, and a bus shelter was still in the design approved by council in May.
The Cygnet Township Committee (CTC) had earlier voted unanimously for the highest-level public consultation process (Level 5) for what one of its members described as “the biggest development in Cygnet since the turn of the century”.
But, at council’s May meeting, Castle Forbes Bay’s Councillor Wilson (who has since passionately stressed at another council meeting how important it is that township committee recommendations be respected) was having none of it: he countered the wishes of the CTC by putting up an “alternative motion” for only a Level 3 consultation, which does not require council to call for submissions or hold a public meeting.
Of course, he got his way, only the two Greens councillors, Liz Smith and Rosalie Woodruff, and the CTC chairman, Cr Bruce Heron, a member of the mayor’s power bloc, voting against. (It is questionable whether Heron would have voted that way had his vote been crucial to the mayor’s men getting their way).
So, when the Level 3 consultation was advertised in July, inviting Cygnet folk to respond, the cobbled-together car park plan, ridiculously, still incorporated a bus shelter. Surely someone at council should have known from the word go that crime-prevention policies would never have allowed a bus shelter to be put in such an out-of-the-way place.
Also, I am guessing, after looking more closely at the May-approved plan, and then considering the implications of the plethora of stakeholder titles involved and the prospect of resistance from some of them, council realised it would be difficult to acquire enough land to achieve a wide enough frontage from Mary Street for buses to be able to get to and from the bus shelter area with safety.
When Version J of the plan came to council on September 19, the bus shelter was gone. Irrespective of what it was that caused council to eliminate it, at least it meant that council had realised the error of its ways. So, to this extent, good sense had prevailed.
However, yet again, council appeared ready to settle for “near enough is good enough”. Even though the May plan had been specially designed to accommodate the complications a bus shelter involved, the ‘J’ plan, apart from the omission of the bus shelter, is little changed from the May plan.
(Already in an advanced stage of construction in main street Cygnet is another council disaster area: the imposingly huge and drab Loongana Park public toilet block. It is an edifice that was resisted by petitions with more than 700 signatures. These signatures council chose to ignore, so fixated was it on splurging near to a quarter of a million dollars on a new block when not much over $100,000 would have refurbished the quaint, non-intrusive, 40-year-old besser-block structure decorated in the early 1990s by the delightfully naive artwork of local primary students. The new, largely plastic, so-called “historic” toilet block will be viewed by many in Cygnet as yet another cock-up, a consequence of insensitivity and refusal to listen to a community that has to live with council’s ill-thought-through decisions.)
At the September 19 council meeting, Smith, with the support of Woodruff, presented an alternative car park design empathetic with the objectives of the 2010 township plan. Predictably, Smith, the only councillor with formal land-use planning credentials, saw her suggested redesign dismissed by Wilson as “amateur”, and then voted down 7-2.
“Let’s get on with it, bugger the detail” appeared to be the mayor’s men’s attitude. Armstrong’s is a power bloc that seems ready, when it suits, to ride roughshod over stakeholder considerations; and it rarely seems aware of, let alone interested in, the need to pay attention to detail.
Smith, according to council documents, raised “Points re proposed Cygnet car park” with council staff as far back as June 1. In them, she observed: “This is not simply an engineering project, it is about the amenity/liveability of the township and its attraction to tourists and residents. The plan must be the best for the long term, not just for now.”
Her notes, which preceded council’s decision to eliminate the bus shelter, indicated her belief that behind the Town Hall was not where a shelter should be. She observed: “It looks as if the placement of the bus shelter has affected the concept plan for the design of the car park.” She asked: “What design for the whole project would be most efficient if the bus did not have to go through the car park? Would it be the one shown in the Cygnet Township Plan 2010? . . .”
Smith went on to suggest that, with the new roundabout at the southern end of Mary Street, “there may be new options for bus stops that were not there before. Why should there not be . . . bus shelters in two places — one for each direction? Has this option been explored? Have any other options been explored?”
At the September 19 meeting, Mayor Armstrong was not impressed that Smith had talked to stakeholders and other constituents about their concerns with the car park plan.
At the same meeting, just before the car park vote, Armstrong launched into a rambling attack on “all those” who want to stop progress in Cygnet, naming no names, of course. What Armstrong seems determined not to acknowledge is that Cygnet people are rarely, if ever, against progress; it’s just that they want sensible, well-thought-through progress.
What critics of council are sceptical of is knee-jerk “progress”, sometimes leapt into because a lump of federal or state money suddenly becomes available and has to be spent by a cut-off date. This is the case with the car park project: the money offered by the State Government, Armstrong insists, must be spent by June 30 next year. Interestingly, he was saying just same things last year, but then he was citing June 30 last as the cut-off date.
Despite his cries of wolf, that money is, of course, still available — and you really can’t imagine Tasmania’s embattled Labor leaders, as they precariously cling to power in Hobart, chopping it off simply because council comes to its senses and decides to spend a bit more time fine-tuning the car park plan so that it is more sensitive to the vision of the township plan.
Among people in Cygnet concerned about council’s idea of “progress” is a relative newcomer, Elizabeth Haworth. Council’s rejection of a Level 5 car park consultation process was a main factor in her decision to write to each of the seven members of Cygnet Township Committee on August 28, a date well into the Level 3 consultation. Haworth copied her letter to the mayor and council’s “head of planning”.
Inter alia, she wrote: “As you know, there is considerable disquiet in Cygnet over the recent downgrading of public consultation . . . As you are aware, the make-up of . . . Cygnet is changing. Many residents now want more meaningful involvement in . . . decisions about the future of our town. We, Cygnet residents and visitors alike, believe that Cygnet is a beautiful place with great potential for an excellent way of life, offering wellbeing for all and encouraging successful local business and tourism with its appealing town infrastructure.”
Haworth wrote that a “low-key petition” to test local and visitor opinions — “within a couple of hours” during the Sunday Town Hall market on August 19 — had attracted 112 signatures of people who wanted “a full council consultation . . . on current and future council plans for our town’s development”.
She also wrote that the signatories had “indicated support for a central pedestrian square/plaza” in part of the council car park in front of the Catholic Church buildings, an area that is leased by council from the church.
Haworth, who appealed to the CTC and council to “involve residents more directly and responsively in important planning changes” offered to attend a meeting of the CTC “to discuss how Cygnet residents might feel more included and be involved in developing and improving our town and our community”.
Although her letter was in documents to council’s September 19 meeting, it elicited not a mention from the mayor’s six-strong power bloc. The intransigence of their position was summed up by Heron, who dismissed Smith’s eminently more township plan-compatible design in a blunt few words; and by Wilson, who, with Armstrong, seems determined to crash headlong through the resistance of those who would prefer Cygnet to measure its stride into modernity, all the while maintaining a watchful eye on those characteristics that have made it the leading country township of interest to mainlanders and foreigners considering investing in, or living in, Tasmania.
One wonders if Armstrong, or the rest of his council power bloc, bothered to read the 43 submissions that flowed to council after the Level 3 consultation was announced. He certainly was unimpressed that Smith had spoken to the Direen family, who own the IGA premises near the entrance/exit (at the southern end of Mary Street) to the proposed car park. The Direens, as council documents show, were concerned about retaining “access along the side of their business and . . . that semi-trailers would still be able to back into their store room”.
Clearly miffed that Smith had spoken to the Direens, Mayor Armstrong assured the September 19 meeting that he, too, had spoken to the Direens, and they had told him they had no problems with the car park plan.
This was not the first time Armstrong had made no bones about it that he is not impressed when opposition councillors have the temerity to communicate with their constituents. It seems it’s OK for him to talk to anyone — but not for his opponents to do the same.
Here are extracts from among communications council included in documents for the September 19 council meeting:
—Transition Cygnet, May 27: “ . . . council overturned a recommendation by the Cygnet Township Committee and council staff that there be a full consultation over the proposed new car park behind the Town Hall. This . . . directly contradicts the council’s public position of consulting the community that elects them . . . This has virtually guaranteed a major battle, in the same way that the council’s attitude with respect to the Loongana Park toilets and [Mary Street subdivision] pocket park also resulted in battles and major divisions in the community. The pity of it is that it would have been so simple to avoid.”
—Roger Hart, stakeholder, July 25: “I support the idea of extra car parking . . . but clearly you will have some objections to deal with if the right-of-way access is changed.” (This letter from a stakeholder came long after council had claimed it had consulted all those affected by the project.)
— CTC member Pat Synge, to General Manager Glenn Doyle, June 18: “It seems incongruous that we have just successfully conducted a Level 4 consultation for the landscaping of a small park (that can be altered at any time . . .) and then, for a major piece of infrastructure that, once built, would be extremely difficult/expensive to remodel, HVC has voted for a Level 3 despite the township committee having recommended at Level 5. As you know, this does not even allow for public submissions or stakeholder referrals . . . It is both arrogant and hypocritical of HVC to consider that the local community should not be given the opportunity to make contributions to the design of a car park that they will have to live with for decades to come . . . Using the HVC consultation assessment tool, it is clear that this current project warrants a Level 5 consultation . . . Stating that HVC ‘must always involve the community in any decision that affects either the landscape or social integrity of their township and surrounding areas’ in order to ‘develop a relationship of trust and predictability’ is all very well, but talking the talk is one thing — it is walking the walk that counts . . .
Synge continued: “I do not know what you can do to influence councillors’ attitudes (or even whether you would want to). I have heard it stated often enough by various councillors that Cygnet is difficult, and I imagine that I am, from time to time, singled out as being one of the more difficult elements. I wish it were not so, but until HVC gets consultation right I will continue to be difficult.”
— Synge, to the council planning officer, June 26: “As you know, the long-term plan is to have a 2-way street along this side of the township. If the car park is built as currently planned, the road would have to bifurcate through the car park. In other words, all through traffic will be passing through the car park. This is far from ideal, and in the township plan and in the community discussions that helped Inspiring Places [also the designer of the rejected 2004 township plan] formulate it, it was envisaged that the car park would be ‘off street’. This township plan has been endorsed by HVC. This current plan does not accord with it.”
— Synge, responding to a reply from a council officer, July 1: “Surely it must be possible to have the main body of the car par adjacent to the rear of the buildings [on the east side of Mary Street] with the street passing outside [the car park] and still have good vehicular access to the rear of the buildings?”
— Synge, August 28: “It should not be forgotten that this is . . . Stage 1. There is no need for this layout to be defined by paving that would make it expensive to change should a different layout be considered preferable in the future . . .”
— Kate and John Reed, Southern Swan stakeholders, July 18: “We have not had any member of council approach us to discuss or inform us of proposed plans at any stage . . . We look forward to hearing from you so that we can have the discussion and feel more comfortable that council and residents can work together for the best outcome for all concerned in Cygnet.”
— Jurgen Harder, August 1: “Why was it determined to put the bus top in the car park? If we want to promote public transport, wouldn’t it be better to have a bus stop in the middle of the town?”
—Farah’s IGA, July 24: “I have the property on 10/12 Mary Street where the car park is being built behind. Look, I’m OK with the idea. The way you guys went about it is wrong . . . just want to talk to someone . . . about the loading zone or car spaces at the back of my place . . .”
— Bruce Pidler, Old Bank B&B and a stakeholder, August 17: He pointed to inconsistencies in council’s Car Park Concept Plan data sheet and the plan attached to the data sheet. Pidler expressed concerns about rights of way to the rear of his property. He also questioned the ability of long vehicles to access a private road (at the northern turning point of the car park development) once the car park was in place, envisaging that it would “increase the number of large vehicles reversing in from, or out to, Mary Street”. All alternatives, he said, “have serious negative road safety potential consequences”. Pidler also asked about night noise and night-time light spill.
— Clare Byers, manager of Balfour House, a stakeholder, July 26: “I think around the back of a building, out of sight of general street life/activity is a terrible site for a bus stop. I would not feel safe . . . after dark. Nor would I let my children wait for buses unaccompanied. Bus stops need to be visible . . . where people feel safe. I am curious to know whether council has consulted with the community members who use the bus service.” Byers also observed that the new double-door garage that Southern Swan had installed “with council approval” had its “access blocked by car parking spaces”.
— Byers, July 30: “I would like to know how the proposed car park allows for my right of way as marked on the title . . .”
— Byers, August 1: “It has been brought to my attention that decisions were made by the committee [CTC] based on the premise that all land owners affected by this proposal had been contacted and consulted. This is untrue . . . Your letter received at the end of July was the first communication we have had from council . . . The actions and recommendations of the CTC are based on misleading information and should be discredited.”
— Byers, August 8: “In all my experience of using public transport around Australia and the world, the bus stop in Huonville would be one of the scariest bus stops I have ever used . . . it is not a place to find yourself alone after dark . . . Again I ask, have the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design been applied to this [Cygnet] project. The Huon Valley Council has a responsibility to make bus travel an attractive, accessible and safe option for all members of the community.”
— Lydia Kokotos, August 7: “What are the reasons behind removing all the current bus stops on the main street into the car park [behind the Town Hall] when this change was not part of the original car park concept?”
—Theresa Daley, May 28: “I think it [the decision for a Level 3 rather than Level 5 consultation] is rude of the HVC and certainly arrogant in nature.”
Council, for whatever reason, may have given ground by eliminating the bus shelter from its car park project, yet its plan is still not compatible with the endorsed township plan. And, like the Loongana Park toilet block project, it appears to be yet another over-engineered/designed project, as was Cygnet’s central car park on Catholic Church land on Mary Street.
Some day, the yesterday’s men who control the Huon Valley Council will wake up to the fact that, not only are they servants of the community, they must be far more attentive to its needs and values. Better still — this day-before-yesterday’s writer hopes — they will realise that they’ve had their chance and they’ve failed the tests of civic leadership and open government. It would be a much better world in our lovely valley if it were not necessary for someone to feel obliged to keep a watchful eye on the behaviour of a council that, far too often, governs badly. — Bob Hawkins
Bob Hawkins is a close friend of the Greens’ Councillors Smith and Woodruff.
Note: This subjective attempt to describe what has been going on since council embarked upon its half-baked Cygnet car park plan has been written mainly because no one else publicly monitors how council behaves. Council meeting “minutes” make no mention of views expressed by councillors; no media representatives attend council or township committee meetings; and all council “workshops” are closed to the public, with councillors not permitted to divulge their content. Perhaps, one day, a historian looking into Huon Valley events of the early part of the 21st century will find my report useful.
