Community Consultation and the 2014 Camden Town Centre Enhancement Strategy, a draft discussion paper

Draft Discussion Paper

31 January 2015

Abstract

The community consultation process for the 2014 Camden Town Centre Enhancement Strategy has sparked controversy and concern among residents and stakeholders. Pieter Versluis and others express frustration and distrust towards Camden Council’s decision-making process and lack of genuine consultation. The proposed strategy, including a controversial decked car park, has divided opinions and fueled mistrust. Despite the council’s efforts to engage the community through forums and surveys, stakeholders remain unconvinced, leading to a notable trust deficit. The lack of early and robust community engagement, as well as a sense of parochialism and localism, has contributed to stakeholder discontent and scepticism.

Community Consultation and the 2014 Camden Town Centre Enhancement Strategy, a draft discussion paper

If the councillors are so convinced public opinion supports the changes they have approved, Camden Council must release all responses for public viewing. Those of us strongly opposed must not simply accept the council decision. Camden Chamber of Commerce opposes the changes, many residents do; and I suggest, so do most visitors – the current charm is why they come to Camden. The public consultation process has, in other quarters, been labelled a ‘farce’. Oppose the changes with action. It seems the mayor has heightened political ambitions – a good start might be to consult with the people she should be representing. Last I looked we still live in a democracy. Oppose the changes with action.   Pieter Versluis, Kirkham. (Versluis 2015)

Introduction

I recently came across the Versluis letter in a local newspaper, and it summarises what many have been saying about the community consultation process involving the Camden Town Centre Enhancement Strategy.  The letter illustrates the writer’s frustration with the consultative process and the apparent disregard of his views by Camden Council.  The strategy involves several elements: a decked car park; traffic lights; additional street lighting; new street furniture; and landscaping, signage and footpath development.  Of these, the car park is the most divisive issue, with the longest and most controversial past dating back to the mid-1990s.

Versluis’s loss of confidence in Camden Council is symptomatic of a wider political trend where public institutions are seen by many citizens as distant, unaccountable and even corrupt, especially in the light of recent findings of the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption.  Whatever the reality of these matters, a trust deficit has opened between Camden Council and some stakeholders in the community consultation process.  How has this situation arisen? Is it widespread? Should it be a concern?  Architect Paul Pholeros, who was part of a panel discussion at the University of Sydney on the New South Wales New government’s new planning legislation, expressed the view that urban planners needed to listen to the community, and there was a need to build trust and understanding between stakeholders. (John Brockhoff, et al. 2013)  [Appendix]

Community consultation is an ordinary part of urban planning processes in local government and is a legitimate part of active citizenship. Yet it has caused enough concern that community consultation is ‘front and centre’ in the new planning bill currently before state parliament in the form of a Community Participation Charter. ( New South Wales Government Department of Planning and Environment 2014) There are seven key principles: partnership, accessibility, early involvement, right to be informed, proportionate, inclusiveness and transparency. (NSW Government (Brochure) 2013)

The proposed state government planning legislation drew on the 2010 Grattan Institute report ‘Cities: Who Decides?’  This looked at the governance of eight overseas cities, and one of the outstanding findings was that residents must be involved in decisions. The cities that made and implemented tough choices had early and deep public engagement – an order of magnitude different from what often happens in Australia. (Kelly 2010, 4)  The report states that the type of engagement matters a lot, and there were a number of common characteristics, which included: engagement must start early before decisions have been made; genuinely engage a significant proportion of the population; be focused on real choices and be clear about their consequences; there should be no promotion of a ‘favoured approach’; and there must be a commitment to follow through. (Kelly 2010, 45)

This paper examines the town centre strategy consultation process and answers the questions: Does resident stakeholder Pieter Versluis have legitimate concerns? Or is he just a disgruntled stakeholder?

Camden Town Centre Enhancement Strategy

Camden decked car park rises like a ‘phoenix from the ashes’

The effective start of the community engagement process for the town centre strategy occurred in May 2014. The District Reporter broke a story about the re-emergence of a decked car park in the council budget papers. (Abrahams, Camden car park in the budget 2014, 4) This was shortly followed by The Macarthur Chronicle front page, which screamed ‘Driving debate’. It went on to state that:

A plan for a new decked car park in Camden’s CBD has divided opinion. Businesses say the lack of parking has reached a crisis point, while some residents fear a new structure will harm the area’s heritage appeal.

The newspaper’s Facebook page

boiled over with posts on the issue last Tuesday, with some readers saying it would benefit the CBD and others believing it would have a negative impact. (Thompson 2014)

The decked car park had risen like a ‘phoenix from the ashes’, and Camden resident Phillip Dunshea proclaimed that ‘the old chestnut is back’. (Dunshea 2014) Public debate on a previous car park proposal raged in the Camden press for over a decade from the mid-1990s. The council investigated three sites, conducted a feasibility study, and ultimately voted down a car park proposal after initially approving it. (Willis, Democracy in action in local government, Camden NSW 2007)  This was not the most auspicious start for the town centre strategy or any meaningful community engagement with the community. It hardly constituted deep and meaningful engagement in the council’s planning processes.  

The Camden Town Centre Enhancement Strategy was part of a suite of measures first released for public gaze in the council business papers of 8 July 2014. The measures were prompted by Camden Council’s 2012 decision to relocate its head office from Camden township to Oran Park. Consequently, in mid-2013, the council established an internal committee to develop a range of strategies and options to enhance the Camden and Narellan commercial areas in preparation for the departure of the council’s head office.  (Camden Council Business Paper (8 July) 2014, 103-105) The move created several concerns amongst local business owners and residents alike. Business owners were anxious about the loss of customers and other indirect effects, including parking, which led to questions about the future and viability of the town centre, similar to concerns around the earlier decked car park proposal.

As part of the same process, Camden Council commenced a review of the Camden town centre infrastructure, including traffic movements, car parking, drainage, street lighting, paving and furniture. The aim was to update the 2008 Camden Town Centre Strategy while respecting the area’s ‘unique history’ and ‘Camden’s country town feel’. The initial workshops were held in November 2013, followed by more in June 2014. The council then planned to have ‘extensive consultations with all stakeholders, including residents and business’.  The council intended to initially start works to upgrade Argyle Street and then construct a decked car park.  (Camden Council Business Paper (8 July) 2014, 103-104) [Appendix]

By June 2014, frustration and concern over the decked carpark and the council’s move to Oran Park were causing concern.  The issues were raised in a front-page story in The District Reporter (13 June) by local businessman Eddie Dekleva and Camden Chamber of Commerce liaison officer Maryann Strickling. A council spokesperson stated

The council will explore a range of options and opportunities for the future of the current administration building in John Street before deciding on what will be best for Camden and the community.

 Ms Strickling felt that there had been no consultation with the chamber or the wider community over the move, and in her view, there had been ‘little vision or understanding’ of Camden’s current strength and potential. Councillor Warren was concerned that one of ‘the most important things…is a solid exist strategy’. He said, ‘Expanding at the John Street premises was not a viable option in regards to cost and heritage factors.’ (Abrahams, Council’s exit triggers concerns 2014)

The District Reporter editorialized the story and stated:

Camden Council needs to open up a dialogue with the local chamber and include it in the future of the town. The council officials don’t do themselves any favours by being quiet about the future of the township.

The upper level of Camden Council continues to portray the local government department as a ‘closed shop’ where transparency, accountability and discussion with businesses and the community are way down on the list of priorities. The general manager and mayor of Camden need to make it a point to get information out there – at least to show they care about Camden business people and the town residents… The Key [sic] stakeholders should be consulted with about the future of the Camden town centre sooner rather than later. (Abrahams, Consultation on town centre needed now 2014)

This prompted a strident response from Mayor Symkowiak the following week (27 June), and she stated

I was dismayed to read your article last week on the council’s exit from Camden. Your newspaper has a history of these sensationalised council-bashing stories where you conveniently do not ask me personally for comment – because the truth may get in the way of a good story.

The mayor claimed that there had been meetings with the chamber of commerce in February and April 2014 and that the council’s general manager had also been present.  The mayor stated that the consultation process timeline would begin in mid-2014 and be finalized by mid-2015. She claimed that final reports on the strategy elements were only presented to the council on 17 June 2014. As far as she was concerned, ‘there is no use in having plans if there is no money to carry them out’. (Symkowiak, Council has plans for CBD (Letter to editor) 2014)  Mayor Symkowiak stated in the Macarthur Chronicle that sufficient consultation was a main concern of the process. (Elmerhebe, Town centre talks promised 2014)

Council endorses town centre strategy

The Camden Town Centre Enhancement Strategy and the associated reports on the decked car park, a traffic study, paving and street furniture were released as part of the business papers for the council meeting on 8 July. The council endorsed the proposals in a 6-1 vote. (Camden Council Minutes (8 July) 2014, 5)  [Appendix] As part of the process, the council also considered a commercial study of the town centre and options for the future use of the council office building. (Camden Council Matters on Exhibition (29 July) 2014) The strategy was to be put out for public exhibition and comment in an eight-week period from 23 July to 17 September 2014.

The chamber of commerce lamented the process’s lack of ‘transparency’. Chamber president Miriam Roberts stated that the chamber only received a copy of the strategy report on 7 July. Former chamber of commerce president David Cadden was critical of what was presented and stated the consultation process should have begun earlier and was mystified ‘why the council wouldn’t say anything before the release of the report’. Mayor Symkowiak defended the council’s position and stated that the process was ‘not a fait accompli’ and ‘there would be significant community consultation’. She felt that there were ‘exciting times in Camden’ and that the proposal took a ‘holistic approach’. (Abrahams, Chamber laments lack of consultation 2014)

The council announced a public exhibition of what the council website called ‘a package of exciting works for the Camden Town Centre’ in July.  The council encouraged community members to ‘Have your Say!’ and then outlined three community forums that would be held at the Camden Civic Centre during the consultation period. The council made plans, samples and information available at Council Customer Service Centres, Libraries and on the Council’s website. (Camden Council Matters on Exhibition (29 July) 2014)  The council employed a team of consultants specializing in community engagement, distributed comment forms to residents and announced an online survey.

The mayor wrote to all Camden businesses and invited them to register with the council if they wanted regular updates on the strategy development process. During the consultation period, she was featured in a series of ten advertisements in the Camden press outlining elements of the strategy. (Camden Council (29 July-17 September, Advert) 2014) She also appeared in a front-page story in the Macarthur Chronicle in July with local pharmacist Aneek Mollah, who backed the proposal. (Elmerhebe, Vibrant future, Council facelift for town centre shopping 2014)

Disquiet continued with claims and counterclaims in the Camden press. Camden Chamber of Commerce liaison office Maryann Strickling criticised the council’s decision as ad hoc and stated that in her view, ‘when things are put on exhibition, they are a fait accompli’ and claimed that ‘the council had been trying to engage the council in a dialogue about the future of the Camden town centre for months’. Mayor Symkowiak defended the council’s position and claimed that ‘her leadership team had met with members of the chamber executive to discuss the progress of the work’. She said she was disappointed the chamber had ‘formed such a negative opinion about the package of works before they’ve read the information or looked over the report’.  (Armstrong, Chamber slams town centre plan 2014)  The chamber suggested a people panel to ‘help guide Camden Council, ’ similar to an approach adopted by Melbourne City Council. The chamber re-stated that its principal complaint was the consultation process and the council’s ‘lack of inclusiveness’. Chamber president Miriam Roberts maintained that it, or another organisation,  ‘should have had a seat at the meetings’ in the previous 12 months in the planning process. (Abrahams, Chamber seeks ‘People’s Panel’ 2014)   These events support the Grattan Institute’s contention that ‘early and deep engagement’ is not typical of urban planning processes in Australia.

Council Community Forums

The council proceeded with its three community forums, which were well attended.  The first community consultation forum was held on Wednesday, 24 July, at the Camden Civic Centre in an air of expectation by those attending, as this was one of the few times that the council had held this type of event.  The evening attracted a large crowd, with the author counting 148 present from 86 community and business representatives. Participants were seated at tables, each with a facilitator provided by the council. The evening was introduced by the mayor, and she explained how the evening would be conducted. A scribe was appointed, and the facilitator directed the discussion through the parts of the strategy. After about 40 minutes, each table of participants elected a spokesman who briefly outlined their views. The mood was cordial and welcoming, and supper was served afterwards. One wag suggested to the author it was a bit like being back at school.  After the forum, Mayor Symkowiak sent a letter to all participants on 22 August 2014, where she presented a summary of points and ideas raised at the forum. (Symkowiak, Correspondence from mayor to participants of forum (email) 2014) [Appendix]

The second community forum on 27 August was similarly well attended when over 80 community and business representatives turned up. Participants stressed the need for a distinct and vibrant town centre that is accessible to the community as a whole. (JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd 2014)  The third forum on 3 November attracted fewer participants. The council reported that during the eight-week consultation period, its representatives had delivered presentations to over 600 residents, received 587 formal submissions, and, within these submissions, considered over 3,000 individual comments. (Capaldi 2014)

The community response to the forums was mixed, while the Camden press maintained that the proposed upgrades had become a ‘hot topic’. (Armstrong, Town’s future reviewed 2014, 1)  Resident Peter Standen felt that the council was recycling old ideas (Standon 2014), while Camden Historical Society’s past president, John Wrigley, praised the council for seeking feedback from the community. (Town centre consultations set to continue 2014)  Councillor Penny Fisher appealed for members of the  Camden Historical Society to support the council’s strategy. (Fisher 2014) and resident Micheal O’Brian was less than impressed with the whole consultative process. He stated that he attended the second forum with an open mind and left with the impression, in his view, ‘that the council has already made the decision to carry out the work’. He claimed that the location of the carpark had more to do with appealing to ‘potential tenants’ of the vacated council headquarters building. (O’Brien, Why Bother Asking? (Letters to the Editor) 2014) 

 The chamber of commerce felt that additional expertise was needed to inform the debate and ran its own workshop that coincided with the second council community forum. The chamber’s workshop was called ‘A Viable Enduring Future’ with guest speaker Director of the University of Sydney’s Urban Design Program Associate Professor Rod Simpson, architect John Johannsen from the Lane Cove Alive Leadership Group and urban designer Maryann Strickling.  Speakers stressed the ‘good bones’ that the Camden town centre possessed and the need to use the existing structure to encourage the growth of the town. They outlined how smart design through a collaborative community approach could deliver quality outcomes and improve the overall town environment. (Abrahams, Community cross-section consider town strategy 2014)  Resident Thiru Nagan was very impressed with the Chamber of Commerce workshop but not the council’s forum. He stated

What a difference. There were ‘activities’ [at the council forum] that my wife does with her Year 5 students at school. It appears the council has made up its mind. This forum is held just to tick a box… [the] car park… It is an eyesore…  I left the forum with the impression I was in Russia or North Korea. You can choose whatever colour you want as long as it is red. (Nagan 2014)

The Camden Narellan Advertiser’s Michelle Burrell best summed up the situation in its editorial

It is pretty clear from the feedback we’ve received that residents feel passionately about proposed changes to the Camden CBD. We’ve had a steady flow of letters during the past six weeks or so opposed to the building of a decked car park out the front of the Civic Centre. And on this I’m in total agreement. (Burrell 2014)

Mayor Symkowiak was disappointed to hear some people say the council would do whatever it wanted whether the community wanted it or not’’ (Armstrong, Residents not convinced town centre plan is right one 2014) The mayor addressed the September Chamber of Commerce meeting where a dispute arose over the recording of her presentation. There were accusations of ‘slander’ in the Camden press, and the mayor stated she was ‘considering her [legal] options’. In the end, the council cancelled its membership of the chamber. (Armstrong, ‘Outburst’ denied by mayor 2014)  Tensions within the chamber of commerce were taking a toll and two executive members resigned. (Armstrong, Council cuts ties with chamber 2014)

Sadness and disquiet continued

By September 2014, melancholy and exasperation had crept into resident concerns. Betty Yewen voiced her opposition to the town centre strategy and wanted the council to ‘be gentle with Camden. We love it so very much, and reading the survey on Camden Enhancement Plan leaves us in a state of sadness’. (Yewen 2014)  Resident Jeanette Testoni opposed the carpark and stated it was an ‘ugly waste’, while Michael O’Brien felt that only an election would send a message to some of Camden’s councillors. (Testoni 2014) (O’Brien, Opposition obvious 2014) Resident A Childs also felt that ‘the council has already made up its mind on the Camden Town Centre vandalism’. (Childs 2014) Meanwhile, some took direct aim at the mayor. Sheila Williams felt that the mayor was ‘determined to put the final nail in to the heart of Camden’. (Williams 2014)  Meanwhile, word spread across Sydney about the level of disharmony the town centre strategy was creating in Camden. A group of North Sydney Probus members stated that their October visit was driven by a desire to see the town before the town centre strategy upgrade ‘ruined’ the town centre. (Abrahams, Pedestrians out of the CBD upgrade 2014)

Parallel to these controversies, Camden Arcade owner Chris Scoufis ran a campaign asking Camden residents to answer the following question: What do you love about Camden?  Residents and visitors were asked to complete a statement ‘Camden is special to me because…’ and ‘In 20 years I want Camden to be…’.  After contributions were received, Camden artists Bob Guerney, Roger Percy and Bradley Dengate painted the best responses on the arcade shop windows. Responses ranged across several themes, including the tranquillity of the Nepean River, St John’s church, gorgeous sunsets and horses – all part of the community’s sense of place and identity. (Stillitano, A window into your thoughts 2014) (Stillitano, Artists reveal what they love about Camden 2014)

Council votes and disquiet continued

At the end of the community consultation period, all matters were considered by Camden Council, and councillors voted 6-3 in late November to endorse the key infrastructure initiatives in the Camden Town Centre (Camden Council Minutes (25 Nov) 2014, 4) [Appendix] 

In response, the Chamber of Commerce president, Miriam Roberts, stated that the chamber ‘wasn’t holding its breath that the community consultation regarding the proposed Camden Town Centre plan would have any real sway’.  She maintained the members did not believe that the ‘consultative process provided a balanced and broad presentation of the facts or the alternatives’. Roberts felt the planning process ‘showed a lack of any comprehensive strategic vision for the town centre’.  More than this, Councillor Eva Campbell thought the whole plan was a ‘flawed process and a ‘farce’ in many respects. She stated it was an ‘ad hoc series of piecemeal, so-called improvements that lack any underlying vision’. (Abrahams, Chamber disapponted with town centre process 2014)

The mayor vigorously defended the council’s decisions, stating the consultative process was ‘the most open… process that council [had] embarked upon since I’ve been on the council since 2008’. (Abrahams, Mayor says community was consulted 2015)  She further stated that ‘the cynical and suspicious tone’ as press reports were ‘unfair and unfounded’. (Symkowiak, Grant not unusual, Letter to editor 2015)

If the Camden mayor’s vigorous defence of the council’s actions had not dispelled community disquiet, then it is reasonable to ask: why has stakeholder disquiet about the process been so strong? Apart from increased cynicism about political institutions, the answer to that question partly lies outside the town centre strategy process. It is found in a deeply embedded sense of place and community identity within the Camden community, reinforced by fierce parochialism and localism dating back decades.  While the Camden LGA had a high population growth, it has been taking place at the northern end of the LGA, leaving the township of Camden relatively intact demographically, culturally, and socially.

The town centre still retains its morphology from the Interwar period, and the street layout has not changed since the town’s foundation in 1840. The town is isolated on a bend in the Nepean River on the floodplain, which sweeps around it on three sides. The town’s cultural and built heritage are largely intact from the colonial period, and Camden Park Estate still has a presence on the landscape along with other colonial properties of the landed gentry. (Willis, Townies, ex-urbanites and aesthetics: issues of identity on Sydney’s rural-urban fringe 2012)  Camden conservatism is entrenched in the town’s cultural make-up and has worked its way into the local political landscape, where the council has until recently been dominated by local identities of various colours. Since the 2012 local government election there has been simmering resentment of the current council’s domination by party politics. (Willis, Democracy in Place: Parochial Politics and the 2008 Local Government Elections 2008, 6) A frustration aired by resident Sheila Williams who stated

We never had ‘party’ councillors before so thank  you to the people who voted the Liberals in and I hope they come to their senses and vote them out at the next council election. (Williams 2014)

A community study would be needed to assess the exact impact of these factors, and as worthwhile as this might be, it is well beyond the scope of this paper. The community has a strong sense of ownership of who it is and what it thinks that means, largely based on the area’s history and heritage.

Preliminary Findings

The introduction of the Camden Town Strategy Enhancement Strategy has not been met with a rousing endorsement by the Camden community. Stakeholders are not convinced by the community consultation process in the town centre strategy. They are concerned that the strategy will not protect the community’s sense of place and identity through the proposed urban planning changes. Stakeholders feel they do not have a sense of ownership of the process, and this has created unnecessary anxiety in the community and created cynicism and mistrust.

As evidenced by the Grattan Institute, there seems to be a lack of early and robust community engagement in the town centre strategy’s initial development stages, in line with international practice. The concerns around the Camden Chamber of Commerce’s lack of consultation seem to be justified when compared to the NSW Government White Paper or the new planning bill currently before the NSW parliament. Some might argue that Camden Council does not meet the new Community Participation Charter guidelines that are part of the new planning bill.

The mayor’s vigorous defence of the community consultation processes adopted by the council for the community forums and exhibition period is justified.  Yet early and deep community engagement by the council in the community consultation process may have ameliorated community angst and built community confidence. Issues that have created mistrust might have been able to have been worked through with stakeholder perceptions.

To sum up, resident Peter Versluis appears to be justified in expressing his concerns about the legitimacy of the town centre strategy process, and it appears not to line up with the best international practice.  All of this is unfortunate and disappointing from the stakeholders’ point of view and the general well-being of the urban planning process in Camden. A trust deficit has opened in the community consultation process for the town centre strategy that appears to remain a problem for the council.

Chronology

Dates	Matter
1980	Camden Civic Centre precinct concept plan
1995-2006	Decked car park in town centre debate rages
2008	The Camden Town Centre Strategy
22 May 2012	Council resolves to accept gift of land from Greenfields Development Corporation after clearance from the ICAC
March 2013	A consultant was hired to conduct a Camden traffic study
Mid-2013	Camden Council established an internal committee to develop a range of strategies and options to enhance the Camden and Narellan commercial areas in preparation for the departure of  council’s head office to Oran Park.
23 May 2014	Decked car park story breaks in the Camden press
13 June 2014	Concerns expressed by the Camden Chamber of Commerce about Camden Council’s exit strategy and move to Oran Park
8 July 2014	Council endorses Camden Town Centre Enhancement Strategy and releases associated reports.
Wednesday 23 July to Wednesday 17 September 2014.	Public exhibition period
Wednesday 24 July 2014,	Council Community Forum  1
Wednesday 27 August 2014	Camden Chamber of Commerce Community Forum
Wednesday 27 August 2014	Council Community Forum 2
Monday 3 November 2014	Council Community Forum 3
Tuesday 25 November 2014	Council resolved to endorse a number of key infrastructure initiatives in the Camden Town Centre.
December 2014	Review of Town Centre Strategy finalized
Mid-2015	Proposed finalisation of Town Centre Strategy

Appendix

Camden Council

Ordinary Meetings

Tuesday 8 July 2014

[Extract]

The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement for a range of upgraded works for the Camden Town Centre, and to undertake community consultation following the recent adoption of Council’s four year delivery plan, which includes:

• $1.754M towards Stage 1 Camden Town Centre Improvements; and
• $3.6M for the construction of a decked car park.

The proposed key initiatives are to:

• introduce traffic signals on Argyle Street at the intersection of Oxley Street and
• pedestrian signals between John and Hill Street, on Argyle Street;
• increase the footpath width on Argyle Street by 1 metre;
• locate a decked car park at the existing Council car park on Oxley Street;
• improve the footpath slope;
• upgrade furniture and paving material; and
• to advise Council of the Communication Strategy for this project.

 (Camden Council Business Paper (8 July) 2014)

Tuesday 25 November 2014

[Extract]

The elements of the initiative included:

• Traffic lights at the intersection of Argyle Street and Oxley Street and pedestrian lights on Argyle Street, between John and Hill Streets;
• A decked car park located in Oxley Street;
• Increased footpath width of one metre along Argyle Street;
• Footpath paving material; and
• Upgraded street furniture. (Camden Council Minutes (25 Nov) 2014)

Camden Town Centre Enhancement Strategy

[Extract]

The stated aim of the strategy was to:

• Create an environment that will encourage slower speed vehicular movement
• Create an environment which upgrades and enhances pedestrian mobility, safety and access.
• Enhance the main street of Camden so that it can continue to be relevant in a growing and changing LGA
• Provide additional parking close to Argyle Street
• Facilitate the continued retail and commercial success of the Town Centre. (Camden Council Business Paper (8 July) 2014, 3)

Email from mayor to Community Forum 1 participants

22 August 2014

[Extract]

I refer to the first of three Community Forums for the Camden Town Centre Enhancement Strategy (Public Domain Works and Commercial & Retail Study), held on Wednesday 29 July 2014 at the Civic Centre, Camden, and thank you for your attendance and participation.

Some of the main points, ideas and feedback noted are highlighted below:

• Overall, there was a positive response to the widening of footpaths along Argyle Street, Camden to allow for additional alfresco dining and easier access;
• Participants generally agreed with the need for the installation of traffic lights especially to help improve pedestrian crossing of Argyle Street;
• Refurbishment and replacement of street furniture was well supported with a mix of people wanting contemporary and heritage themed furniture.

Ideas and suggestions were also collated, with a number noted below:

• Reuse existing Council buildings for gallery space or theatre or similar artistic endeavours;
• Diversion of heavy vehicle traffic off Argyle Street to ensure Camden is not as busy and to keep the “English village feel” of Camden;
• Attract a diverse range of businesses to Camden, including medical centres, professional services, accommodation and tourism opportunities;
• Consider alternative to granite pavers, perhaps in an earthy tone.

Lara Symkowiak, Mayor of Camden

(Symkowiak, Correspondence from mayor to participants of forum (email) 2014)

 

New South Wales Government, A New Planning System for NSW

The New South Wales Government’s White Paper states

Early and effective community participation in planning is central in the new planning system for NSW. Genuine community participation requires authorities to commit resourcing to planning processes to create a culture that values ideas, knowledge and contributions from all parts of the community. It gives the community opportunities to participate in shaping the future of their areas. (NSW Government (White Paper) 2013, 44)

Bibliography

New South Wales Government Department of Planning and Environment. 2014. Planning for our future. August 24. Accessed January 25, 2015. http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/en-us/policyandlegislation/planningforourfuture.aspx.

Abrahams, Lee. 2015. “Mayor says community was consulted.” The District Reporter 4.

—. 2014. “Camden car park in the budget.” The District Reporter, May 23: 4.

—. 2014. “Chamber disapponted with town centre process.” The District Reporter, December 12: 1.

—. 2014. “Chamber laments lack of consultation.” The District Reporter, July 11: 3.

—. 2014. “Chamber seeks ‘People’s Panel’.” The District Reporter, July 18: 3-5.

—. 2014. “Community cross section consider town strategy.” The District Reporter, August 29: 5.

—. 2014. “Consultation on town centre needed now.” The District Reporter, June 13: 2.

—. 2014. “Council’s exit triggers concerns.” The District Reporter, June 13: 1.

—. 2014. “Pedestrians out of the CBD upgrade.” The District Reporter, October 10: 3.

Armstrong, Kerrie. 2014. “Chamber slams town centre plan.” Camden Narellan Advertiser, July 16: 3.

—. 2014. “Council cuts ties with chamber.” Camden Narellan Advertiser, September 24: 7.

—. 2014. “‘Outburst’ denied by mayor.” Camden Narellan Advertiser, September 10: 1,5.

—. 2014. “Residents not convinced town centre plan is right one.” Camden Narellan Advertiser, September 10: 8-9.

—. 2014. “Town’s future reviewed.” Camden Narellan Advertiser, August 27: 1.

Burrell, Michelle. 2014. “How I see it, Have your say on CBD while there’s time (Editorial).” Camden Narellan Advertiser, September 10: 4.

Camden Council (29 July-17 September, Advert). 2014. “Our Future Camden How Your Say!” Macarthur Chronicle Camden Edition (Advert). Camden: Macarthur Chronicle, July 29.

Camden Council Business Paper (8 July). 2014. “2014 Business Paper Ordinary Council Meeting.” Camden Council. July 8. Accessed December 23, 2014. http://www.camden.nsw.gov.au/council/about-council/meetings/2014-business-paper-and/.

Camden Council Matters on Exhibition (29 July). 2014. “Matters on Exhibition, Our Future Camden Town Centre Enhancement Strategy.” Camden Council . July 29. Accessed July 29, 2014. http:\\www.camden.nsw.gov.au/page/matters_on_exhibition.

Camden Council Minutes (25 Nov). 2014. “Minutes Ordinary Meeting 25 November 2014.” Camden Council . November 25. Accessed November 27, 2014. http://www.camden.nsw.gov.au/council/about-council/meetings/2014-business-paper-and/.

Camden Council Minutes (8 July). 2014. “Minutes Ordinary Council Meeting 8 July 2014.” Camden Council. July 8. Accessed December 23, 2014. http://www.camden.nsw.gov.au/council/about-council/meetings/2014-business-paper-and/.

Capaldi, Vince. 2014. Letter to Residents (Director Community Infrastructure). Camden, November 21.

Childs, A. 2014. “Not madly impressed by the council’s performance (Letter to Editor).” Camden Narellan Advertiser, September 24: 3.

Dunshea, Phillip. 2014. “Solution for carpark (Letter to Editor).” Macarthur Chronicle Camden Edition, June 3: 28.

Elmerhebe, Tarik. 2014. “Town centre talks promised.” Macarthur Chronicle Camden Edition, July 8: 9.

—. 2014. “Vibrant future, Council facelift for town centre shopping.” Macarthur Chronicle Camden Edition, July 15: 1-3.

Fisher, Penny. 2014. “Remarks at Camden Historical Society.” Camden , August 13.

JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd. 2014. Camden Vision Ideas from community workshop #2. Commissioned report, Camden: Camden Council.

John Brockhoff, Anna Rubbo, Kati Westlake, Chris Johnson, Paul Pholeros, Amelia Thorpe, and Geoff Turnbull, interview by Peter Phibbs. 2013. “People Building Better Cities: Participation and Inclusive Urbanization Panel Discussion.” People Building Better Cities – Thursday Night Lectures. YouTube, (April 29). Accessed January 17, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwN_ibIEL8o.

Kelly, Jane-Frances. 2010. Cities: Who Decides? Melbourne: Gratton Insitute.

Macarthur Chronicle Camden Edition. 2014. “Town centre consultations set to continue.” August 5: 9.

Nagan, Thiru. 2014. “Council plans are go (Letter to Editor).” Macarthur Chronicle Camden Edition, September 9: 26.

NSW Government (Brochure). 2013. “A New Planning System for NSW White Paper.” Community Participation A Fresh Approach. Sydney: NSW Government, June 28.

NSW Government (White Paper). 2013. A New Planning Sydney for NSW White Paper. White Paper, Sydney: NSW Government, 43-45.

O’Brien, Michael. 2014. “Opposition obvious.” Camden Narellan Advertiser, September 17: 2.

—. 2014. “Why Bother Asking? (Letters to the Editor).” Camden Narellan Advertiser, September 3: 17.

Standon, Peter. 2014. “Letter to Editor.” Camden Narellan Advertiser. August 20.

Stillitano, Iliana. 2014. “Artists reveal what they love about Camden.” Camden Narealln Advertiser, October 15: 8.

—. 2014. “A window into your thoughts.” Camden Narellan Advertiser, September 17: 9.

Symkowiak, Lara. 2015. “Grant not unusual, Letter to editor.” Camden Narellan Advertiser , January 21: 23.

—. 2014. “Correspondence from mayor to participants of forum (email).” (in possession of author). Camden, August 22.

—. 2014. “Council has plans for CBD (Letter to editor).” The District Reporter, June 27: 4.

Testoni, Jeanette. 2014. “Development plans: unsuitable, inconvenient, ugly (Letter to the Editor).” Camden Narellan Advertiser, September 17: 2.

Thompson, Sean. 2014. “Driving debate, Carpark splits opinion.” Macarthur Chronicle Camden Edition, May 27: 1,7.

Versluis, Pieter. 2015. “Consultation on Town Centre changes was a ‘farce’ (Letter to Editor).” Camden Narellan Advertiser, January 7: 2.

Williams, Sheila. 2014. “Mayor in spotlight (Letter to Editor).” Camden Narellan Advertiser, October 1: 2.

Willis, Ian. 2007. “Democracy in action in local government, Camden NSW.” AQ, Australian Quarterely 17-21. https://www.academia.edu/6315782/Democracy_in_Action_in_Local_Government_Camden_NSW.

Willis, Ian. 2008. “Democracy in Place: Parochial Politics and the 2008 Local Government Elections.” Australian Quarterly 80 (6): 4-9.

Willis, Ian. 2012. “Townies, ex-urbanites and aesthetics: issues of identity on Sydney’s rural-urban fringe.” Australian Quarterly, AQ 20.

Yewen, Betty. 2014. “Enhancement has much to be desired (Letter to Editor).” The District Reporter, September 12: 2.