|
1
|
- Achieving Community Vision – Noosa Style
|
|
2
|
- Context:
- Queensland
- Noosa
- Community governance principles
- Community vision:
- What is it and how is it achieved?
- The theory and practice of the Noosa approach.
- Community Sector Plans
- Corporate planning, budget and planning scheme relationships
- Administrative aspects of community governance
- Lessons from the Noosa experience
- Conclusions
|
|
3
|
- There are key differences between Queensland local governments and their
counterparts in other States:
- Significantly greater autonomy at local government level;
- Control rate rises within their communities without State involvement;
- Assessment manager for most forms of development application;
- Control subdivision;
- During the 70-90s Queensland was at one end of the spectrum, with
market-led development approaches.
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
6
|
- City Symbols:
- High-rise
- Big bulky buildings
- Open space is hard to find or difficult to access
- Traffic congestion
- Parking meters
- Multi-lane roads
- Development dominates the landscape
|
|
7
|
- Escapism
- Character and environment associated with place
- Lifestyle that flows from the place
- Maintenance of Noosa Shire’s economy
- Preserving the Noosa we know as residents and perhaps you know as
visitors
- Importantly, also preserving the Noosa character and environment for the
children of the future
|
|
8
|
- Noosa Shire has:
- A strong and focussed vision to around 2009 that has been embraced by
the community and supported by the courts;
- A planning scheme that was used as the key means of delivering vision;
- A defined development potential (politically articulated as “the
population cap”) through its planning instruments; and
- A strong history (and expectation) of active community participation
with a large and powerful range of influencing community groups.
- So there is a cautionary note to be sounded for the full application of
the Noosa model elsewhere.
|
|
9
|
- Professors Clarke & Stewart from the University of Birmingham in
England identify six principles underpinning community governance:
- The concern of the local authority extends beyond the services provided
to the overall welfare of the area.
- The local authority's role in community governance is only justified if
it is close to and empowers the communities within and the citizens
that constitute them.
- The local authority must recognise the contribution of other
organisations – public, private and voluntary – and see its task as enabling
(not controlling) that contribution.
- The local authority should ensure that the whole range of resources in
a community is used to the full for the good of its area.
- To make the best use of those resources the local authority will need
to rigorously review how needs are best met and to be prepared to act
in many different ways.
- In showing leadership the local authority must seek to reconcile, to
balance and, in the final resort, to judge the diversity of views and
interests.
|
|
10
|
- The Clarke & Stewart principles guided the evolution of the Noosa
model, however the following were also used:
- Government alone cannot guarantee sustainable outcomes and acceptable
quality of life.
- Reliance on market mechanisms alone has failed to produce the
environmental and quality of life outcomes to which our communities
aspire.
- Community governance recognises that ownership of the issues rests with
the community as a whole.
- Effective solutions require the cooperation of many participants, each
of whom has a part to contribute to an answer.
|
|
11
|
- Planning Scheme
- Community Sector Plans
|
|
12
|
- Planning schemes have effect on growth or change
- So as growth and change diminishes, so too does a planning scheme’s
ability to achieve vision
- Other tools must then be found
|
|
13
|
- The planning scheme that guides and controls growth and change i.e.
development;
- Infrastructure and service delivery plans (Federal, State & Local
Government plans and some community organisation plans);
- Undertakings by the private sector that are not reliant on public plans;
and
- In Noosa - community sector plans.
|
|
14
|
|
|
15
|
- Where are we now?
- Where are we going?
|
|
16
|
- A process component of community sector plan preparation looking at the
community’s existing issues and concerns:
- The issues today and the concerns about tomorrow
|
|
17
|
- This is another process component of community sector plan preparation
looking at where the community is going:
- Where will the community end up if it does nothing?
|
|
18
|
- A role of the community sector plan is to define where the community
wants to be. This is carried out in two steps:
- First the community must decide where it wants to be at the horizon
year (in Noosa’s case 2015).
- Then the community needs to look backwards from the horizon year in
about 2-4 year increments, to identify strategies to achieve the vision
at the horizon year.
|
|
19
|
- Another role of a community sector plan is to define, in greater detail,
the first step in achieving the vision.
- The plan therefore sets out actions, responsibilities and funding
commitments to ensure that the first 2-4 year incremental vision is
achieved.
|
|
20
|
- The theory of approach required that the plans:
- Be prepared external to, but in consultation with Council.
- Include a vision to 2015 and identify the key strategies necessary to
achieve that vision.
- Have a 2-4 year life (to coordinate with Council elections and
preparation of Council’s corporate plan).
- Contain a series of action plans, for which responsibilities would flow
to community organisations, State agencies and Noosa Council.
- Contain a set of criteria against which performance of the actions is
to be tested.
- May include funding ramifications that are tied to the performance of
actions.
|
|
21
|
- Remains responsible for the preparation of the planning scheme;
- Has a facilitation role in the preparation of community sector plans;
- Is responsible for delivery of a lot of the infrastructure and services;
and
- Importantly, it also acts as an advocator/facilitator for services and
infrastructure provided by other agencies.
|
|
22
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
27
|
- Community Boards comprise 10 members (9 community representatives and 1
Councillor). A senior staff member also participates in board
proceedings.
- Positions are honorary, with around 2-year appointments.
- Appointed via a defined process:
- Nominations were invited by Council.
- Nominees tested against criteria:
- Extensive experience and a keen interest in the theme of the sector
plan in the Noosa context.
- Sound experience in strategic business planning or thinking.
- An understanding of sustainability issues within the Noosa community.
- An ability to represent community interests in areas apart from the
theme of the particular sector plan.
- Capacity to take a whole of Shire view.
- Enthusiasm for the project and a commitment to see the project to
completion.
- Nominations were reviewed in single process involving the Choosing
Futures Sub-Committee, its Community Advisory Panel and senior staff.
- Recommendations were then brought before Council from this panel, with
Council following its recommendations.
|
|
28
|
- The theory of approach sees the boards required to:
- Prepare the plans in consultation with relevant community
organisations, State agencies and the Council.
- Submit the plans for endorsement by key stakeholders (usually State
agencies, Noosa Council or community organisations).
- Following endorsement:
- An agreement relating to the sector plan is supposed to be prepared and
signed by relevant community organisations, Noosa Council and State
agencies.
- The plan is then supposed to be forwarded to relevant community
organisations, Noosa Council and State agencies for implementation of
its action plans.
- The boards are required to prepare an annual report to Council and
relevant State agencies on the performance of the action plans across
the various sectors. Action agencies will be expected to report to the
board annually on progress.
- Noosa Council and the State agencies are to give consideration to the
performance by the various parties in the allocation of any funding.
|
|
29
|
- The following key principles are being observed:
- As the democratically elected government for Noosa Shire, Council’s
endorsement provides a mandate for the sector boards’ plans and actions
and a platform for the boards to facilitate implementation of their
plans. The boards, and the Council as the sponsor, seek to work
positively and cooperatively in partnership and in pursuit of community
governance objectives.
- Council shall not unreasonably hold back endorsement of a strategy or
objective that a board has identified in its consultation processes and
which is consistent with Council’s corporate policy.
- Where consensus on any issue between the boards and Council cannot be
reached, the Council, given its legal and democratic status, must
adjudicate. In exercising this right, Council shall be mindful of the
principles and context of the partnership with the boards. The boards
may request that any strategies or objectives not agreed to by the
Council be noted accordingly and remain listed in a schedule to the
plans.
- The community governance process should not be seen as a shift or
transfer of power and authority of the Council, but a process for more
inclusive decision making. To
this end, the Council values and respects the voluntary commitment and
experience of the board members and will provide reasonable levels of
administrative and financial support to enable the boards to fulfill their
roles and responsibilities. The Council will ensure proper levels of
consultation and communication with the boards in order to achieve
consensus before it exercises any final decision making.
|
|
30
|
- Following completion of the first community sector plans and the boards’
first full year of operations:
- Noosa Council’s 2003/04 budget includes 34 direct new initiatives
identified by the boards, of which 22 required direct new funding
($5.15M).
- Noosa Council’s infrastructure and service delivery roles have been
fine tuned and significant direction has been provided for Noosa’s next
planning scheme.
- Community governance is now embedded as an ongoing process in Noosa and
in Noosa Council’s contract with its community.
- Using Scott Davidson’s community wheel of empowerment, the community
sector plan process has advanced Noosa Council and its community from
the 3-6 o’clock range to the 6-9 o’clock range and for some elements
the 9-12 o’clock range.
|
|
31
|
- It is a relatively expensive exercise:
- Budgeted $300,000 2001/02, $120,000 2002/03 and $100,000 2003/04.
- Project management and administrative support is necessary:
- Administrative load was more significant than initially realised,
particularly for the staff members sitting on boards.
- Strong potential for power sharing, with a broader base for
decision-making:
- The boards are powerful, well-networked and broad-based. Whilst their
advice is not readily ignored, the Council remains the decision-maker.
- A strong breeding ground for future Councillors has been created:
- A ready-made group of people with strong understanding of the community
they would potentially serve has been generated.
|
|
32
|
- Protection against rogue Councils:
- Our democratic processes can sometimes lead to poor Councils.
- Opportunity to harness the energies that exist in the community:
- Noosa’s lifestyle attributes attract retirees and barefoot executives
with great knowledge and abilities and their capacity has been
harnessed. The corollary is that for other sometimes prominent
community members, opportunities are provided to broaden their
knowledge and abilities.
- Good project management is critical:
- Attempts to keep the process at arm’s length from Council influence
(politicians and staff), initial project management badly damaged the
process. Competent project management with appropriate strategic
oversight is critical.
- Better community ownership of the plans:
- Noosa has had a fair record in this respect previously, however this
time there should be a much stronger understanding of the shared
vision, with spin-off benefits for all sectors. At the same time
though, the potential strength of the result produced concern from
those that chose to ignore the process from the start.
|
|
33
|
- Assumptions about the levels of knowledge and capacity of the board
members were wrong:
- The boards demonstrated an enormous capacity and commitment for work,
producing very rich products. Despite this, it took the boards
considerable time to understand that a lot of planning was already in
place – a common syndrome - because they did know of the planning, it
did not exist.
- The goal of having boards achieve endorsement from government and
community organisations is too lofty:
- Perhaps it was inevitable that these tasks would fall to a formal
government-led process, though the goal of the community achieving
sign-off remains desirable.
- Achieving belief that the Council is committed to the process and will
implement findings has been difficult:
- Despite the commitment to funding, the integration of the process to
formal corporate and land use planning processes, the acknowledgement
that the structure of the Council and the services it provides may need
adjustment for consistency with board findings and the continual
reference in formal Council publications to ongoing community
governance, we have not been able to dispel doubts about the ongoing
future of the process.
|
|
34
|
- The establishment of a trial process is very valuable:
- Testing the capacities within the community and bureaucracy to cope
with the demands of community governance.
- Bringing all participants (boards and Council) together from time to
time is invaluable:
- Assists with trust, finding common ground and boosting participant
confidence in the process. It has also been valuable in identifying and
solving problems, through a process of peer pressure, rather than
Council intervention.
- Establishment of operational protocols is desirable and probably
necessary:
- There have been some behavioural problems from time to time and these
would have been better resolved with a set of protocols established at
the outset.
- Transitioning from the plan-making phase to the implementation phase is
difficult:
- It is not a factor of exhaustion, though it plays a role, rather the
skills and capabilities for visioning are quite different to the
rolling up the sleeves processes that are necessary for implementation.
|
|
35
|
- The boards believe they are performing a valuable service – and they
are.
- The Council remains committed to the process.
- There are some that are less convinced about the process, however this
appears to be due to:
- Contemporary circumstances and politicking, rather than a relative
evaluation of circumstances between today and yesterday to reveal how
things have changed; and
- More important is the fact that many of the benefits of community
governance processes are intangible, long-term and/or are difficult to
measure.
- Formal evaluation of the process is currently being undertaken. In the
interim period, Noosa’s community governance model is producing rich
results and has received the ongoing endorsement of the Council and its
community. Perhaps this is the best measurement of performance so far.
- Finally, some may ask has Noosa gone from 10 Councillors to 40-50 …
|
|
36
|
|
Notes
