Hi Nic, we have only had our Conversations Moreland website for a year but we have had some topical planning projects listed on the site for community engagement (for example, the Design Excellence Scorecard project was hosted on the site fairly recently).

You make a valid point that we could do more to use our website to engage our community on different types of planning matters and this is something that we can definitely look into, to improve community engagement in the future. Our policy includes a commitment to improve how Council engages the community on town planning matters.

In response to your question, I have added a line in our draft community engagement implementation plan to investigate opportunities to increase digital engagement on town planning matters.

Hi Nic, I am really pleased that you have asked this question as you have just helped me spot a couple of gaps in the draft policy.

The exhibited draft policy doesn't make clear how Council will engage on controversial matters so I have made a few changes. These changes are explained below:

I've added some explanation in the draft policy to say that for projects where community engagement is to be carried out in accordance with specific statutory requirements (town planning projects for example), even if the matter at hand is controversial; how we engage will still be informed and limited by statutory requirements and timeframes.

This is true. Typically, for these types of projects we will engage the community at the level of 'consult' on the IAP2 spectrum. We wouldn't engage at a higher level on the IAP2 spectrum because it would be misleading to the community. Options for these projects are unfortunately, usually quite limited due to statutory requirements.

Under the section 'how we engage' (page 9) I have also added a clause to say that 'for controversial projects where there are no statutory requirements for community engagement, Council will aim to engage the community at a higher level on the IAP2 spectrum'. As these types of projects don't have statutory limitations on community engagement, it is possible and appropriate to engage the community at a higher level.

I looked into the example that you gave about Amendment C190 and note that it is an unusual case. It is supported by a background report that outlines all of the analysis, and case study research on live examples to underpin the approach.

The exhibited draft policy doesn't give any guidance about situations where Council would seek to reduce the rights of residents to having a say on specific matters.

To address this gap, I have drafted some wording to go into the policy to say that: "In any circumstances where Council seeks to reduce the right of community members to participate in a decision-making process, it will explain the reasons for this, and provide evidence." If you think this needs more work let me know.

I hope this answers your question. Please come back to me if you would like more information.

Hi James, thanks for getting in touch. I've tried to build some safeguards into the policy so there is accountability about how we engage our community. For example, on page 5 of the draft policy I have included a section on 'roles and responsibilities'. This section talks about how different roles at Council will ensure that we comply with the policy. I will have a look at this section of the policy and make it a bit stronger. Now that you've asked the question, I'm not sure its clear and strong enough and this section might need a bit more work. I'll follow that up and open to your feedback.

In the draft policy on pages 13-14 we also have a section about reporting to Council and the community about the outcomes of community engagement. This is another built in safeguard that ensures Councillors and our community are made aware about what has happened with community engagement processes so nothing gets lost. If you have any further thoughts or questions on this, please let me know. Thanks again!

Hi Emma, thanks for your question. I acknowledge that trust has been broken with the community at Hosken Reserve and it will take some time to build this back.

To answer your question, a major difference between the current policy and our new draft policy is that the new draft policy has the weight of legislation behind it. It is based on changes that were made to the Local Government Act 2020 in March this year. This effectively means that there may be legal consequences to Council if it doesn't comply with its new policy, once it has been adopted by the Council.

On page 6 of the draft policy under 'policy context and guidelines' it says (and I'm paraphrasing here) that there are specific guidelines, which are basically a set of procedures, that all Council officers will use to ensure that they carry out community engagement in a consistent way, in line with the policy.

A draft Community Engagement Implementation Plan 2020-2024 has also been prepared to help us implement our new policy consistently. The Implementation Plan includes projects aimed at building Council officer skills and capacity for community engagement.

Hi Fiona, thanks for your question. Yes. According to the draft Policy, Hosken Reserve would meet the criteria for a category one (high risk) project.

Hi Warren, you make a valid point that a survey on park use is definitely not enough to inform the future plans for Hoskin Reserve.

Our new Community Engagement Policy sets a higher standard for engagement across all Council projects. Page 9 of the policy says that as a rule of thumb, Council will engage the community at the IAP2 standard level of 'involve'. IAP2 is a tool for best practice community engagement and is shown on page 7 of the policy.

To engage at the IAP2 standard of 'involve' means that Council commits to working with the community to ensure that concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in options developed for decision making. It also means that we commit to reporting back to the community at the end of an engagement process about how community involvement has influenced outcomes and decisions. In the policy on page 9 it says that we will only engage at a lower level on the IAP2 tool where projects are bound by statutory requirements, or where options for decision making are limited.

To answer your question about reports of a technical nature: Technical studies and research typically happens before a community engagement process so that there is a good understanding of the matter before Council talks with the community. For example, page 7, dot point 5 of the policy says that we will carry out any technical studies or research prior to community engagement for high impact projects so that we can have in-depth conversations with the community about these issues.

Importantly, any information presented to the community in community engagement, including technical studies, should be objective, relevant and timely. This is stated as a requirement for community engagement under the new Local Government Act 2020. In the policy on page 5, under the section on 'Policy Principles', at dot point 2, it states that Council will provide participants in community engagement with access to objective, relevant and timely information to inform their participation. This includes the provision of any important data or evidence relating to the matter.

Let me know if this answers your question or, if you think the policy needs a few changes to make this clearer, let me know too.

Hi Denise, thanks for your question. Yes the policy contains a clause on page 8 to say that if 5 years or more passes between community engagement and the implementation of a project, the community engagement should be considered unreliable and carried out afresh.

A report is planned to go to Council on 9 December about Hoskin Reserve. On 9 December, Councillors will consider the Hoskin Reserve matter, including community feedback received to date, and determine the next steps for this project.

Morning Peter, thanks for your question. Yes, the policy says on page 8 under dot point 5, that if five years or more passes between a community engagement process and implementation of a project, the engagement should be considered unreliable and should be carried out afresh.

There are no plans to carry out any technical studies or research at Hoskin Reserve at this stage, but the matter is going to Council on 9 December. On 9 December the Councillors will consider the Hoskin Reserve matter, including community feedback received to date, and determine the next steps for this project.

Hi Jerry, thanks for your question.

From the community's perspective there should always be 2 stages of community engagement. In the first stage, Council gathers ideas about an issue that affects the community. For example, Council will gather community input to design a new local park. The second stage of engagement involves going back to the community to present the planning work that has been done based on community feedback. In our example, in the second stage of community engagement, Council should go back to the community with a design plan for the new park and check with the community that the plan accurately reflects what the community said. At the very end of the process Council should also report back to the community about how their input and feedback influenced the final outcome or decision.

This is talked about in the draft policy. On page 7, dot point 1 under 'When we engage' it says that Council will carry out 2 stages of community engagement and exhibit any documents for a minimum of 10 business days.

The policy also says on page 13 that Council will report back to the community on the outcomes of a community engagement process.

On page 13 under reporting to Council, dot point 4, it says (and I'm paraphrasing here) that if community engagement is carried out and the officer makes recommendations that go against what the community said, reasons and evidence for this must be provided to Council in a report. Under the policy, Council is also required to report back to the community about the reasons with evidence, about why community feedback was ignored.

I hope this answer is okay. Come back to me if you want a bit more information.

Hi Warren, thanks for your question. We are aware and completely acknowledge that some mistakes were made with Hoskin Reserve. Our CEO is meeting with a small group of residents about this matter this week, and we will be in contact with local residents by post over the coming weeks. This project has been put on hold and will be discussed at a Council meeting on 9 December.

In the case of Hoskin Reserve, community engagement occurred on this project a very long time ago. Council made the mistake in thinking that it would not have to engage the community again about it. In our draft policy on page 8 under dot point 5 it says, that if five years or more passes between a community engagement process and implementation of a project, the engagement should be considered unreliable and should be carried out afresh. Hopefully, this clause in the policy prevents future mistakes being made like the one we made at Hoskin Reserve.

The policy unfortunately can't reverse any past decisions or actions of Council. However it does set a new, higher standard for community engagement. This is expected to improve the quality of Council's engagement practice and decision making. Once the policy is adopted by Council (hopefully in December) it will apply to all projects to be delivered in 2021 and beyond.