built environment | built environment - the application ofthe ......typically discusses notions of...

The Application ofThe Application ofInternet-Based Technologies toInternet-Based Technologies toImprove Public Involvement inImprove Public Involvement inTown Planning ProcessesTown Planning Processes

Benjamin Cribb (3131287)Thesis Project – PLAN 4132

Bachelor of PlanningNovember 2008

Benjamin Cribb – Thesis Project PLAN 4132 The Application of Internet-Based Technologies to Improve Public Involvement in Town Planning Processes

ABSTRACT i

ABSTRACT The Internet has experienced exponential growth since the birth of the ‘World Wide Web’ in

the early 1990s, permeating almost every facet of modern society. Being a known tool for

presentation, communication and information, the Internet presents opportunities to improve

public involvement processes for subject communities. Yet the nexus between Internet-

based technologies and public involvement is practically untapped in the planning

profession. It should be taken advantage of both by the private sector (in the design and

conduct of projects) and the public sector (what is expected from the process).

Underutilisation of Internet-based technologies as part of voluntary or compulsory public

involvement processes limits the ability to achieve best-practice outcomes, will ultimately

lead to less cost-effective public involvement, and may discourage active citizenship. The

intention of this thesis is to critically analyse a number of public involvement case studies

which have utilised emerging Internet-based technologies within Australia and

internationally to explore and argue their adoption and adaptation in town planning

processes, particularly in the NSW context. The thesis concludes that if proponents of public

involvement seek to achieve ‘best-practice’ principles and outcomes, then the integration of

Internet-based public involvement techniques with traditional methods is desirable.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like sincerely thank my thesis supervisor, Associate Dean, Professor Robert Zehner

for his humbling patience, advice and guidance throughout the preparation of this thesis.

Thank-you also to Professor Robert Freestone for your assistance during the crucial early

stages of this year when I was preparing my research proposal.

Thankyou to everyone that participated in my research (you know who you are), specifically

for your time, hospitality, assistance and most importantly, your encouraging enthusiasm

and invaluable knowledge on the topic.

A huge thanks to my family and close friends that have supported me during the preparation

of this thesis and throughout the past five years – I definitely could not have had done it

without you!

Finally, thanks to all the lecturers that have made the previous five years inspiring, bearable

and fun.


TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Problem Setting ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Context ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Structure ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Method ......................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter Two: Contextualisation in the Literature ................................................................... 7

2.1 The Collaborative Planning Theory .............................................................................. 7 2.2 Traditional Public Involvement Practices in Town Planning ....................................... 11 2.3 The use of the Internet in Public Involvement Processes ........................................... 19 2.4 Concerns with the Internet and its use in society ....................................................... 24 2.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 27

Chapter Three: Public involvement in New South Wales ..................................................... 29

3.1 Public Involvement in New South Wales .................................................................... 29 3.2 Recent Planning Reform ............................................................................................ 33 3.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 34

Chapter Four: Online Public Involvement Case Studies ...................................................... 37

4.1 Case Study 1 – Bang the Table ................................................................................. 37 4.2 Case Study 2 – Future Melbourne 2020 ..................................................................... 44 4.3 International Case Study – ICELE .............................................................................. 49 4.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 53

Chapter Five: Issues and Opportunities ............................................................................... 57

5.1 Issues ......................................................................................................................... 57 5.2 Opportunities .............................................................................................................. 59 5.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 61

Chapter Six: Recommendations .......................................................................................... 62

6.1 NSW Private Sector ................................................................................................... 62 6.2 NSW Public Sector ..................................................................................................... 63

Chapter Seven: Conclusion ................................................................................................. 66 References .......................................................................................................................... 69


TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

FIGURES Figure 01: Thesis structure flow-chart

Figure 02: Information, Consultation and Active Participation.

Figure 03: History of the Internet

Figure 04: ‘Cost per person’ chart

TABLES Table 01: ‘Information’ techniques

Table 02: ‘Consultation’ techniques

Table 03: ‘Active Participation’ techniques

Table 04: Internet-based public involvement techniques

Table 05: Implications for online public involvement

Table 06: ePlanning innovations in NSW

BOXES Box 01: Warringah Council Community Consultation Toolkit

Box 02: Example of how issues were resolved in the PSFMP

Box 03: Example of editing and linked discussion

Box 04: Wingecarribee Shire Council Draft Local Environmental Plan 2008

APPENDICES Appendix 01: Future Melbourne ‘netiquette’

Appendix 02: Minimum requirements for public notification and the rights of appeal

Appendix 03: DoP Discussion Paper summary

Appendix 04: Bang the Table ‘Product Options & Pricing’

Appendix 05: Post by ‘brycec’ on April 08, 2008

Appendix 06: Edits made by ‘PaulMinett’ on the 18th May 2008

Appendix 07: Iterative discussion / collaboration


CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Setting Traditional public involvement mechanisms have evolved since Sherry Arnstein’s 1969

‘ladder of citizen participation’ and gained importance specifically in New South Wales

(NSW) during the period of social and political dispute of Australia’s construction boom in

the 1960s. These traditional public involvement techniques have their theoretical roots in the

relatively young ‘Collaborative Planning Theory’, which is seen as a mechanism of

governance for better co-existence, relation-building and social, intellectual and political

capital building. It is argued that through greater levels of public involvement in the

decision–making process and by establishing a continual dialogue and interaction between

stakeholders, greater public benefit and outcomes can arise.

The Internet, being a known tool for presentation, communication and information, can

improve public involvement mechanisms to achieve the principles of the Collaborative

Planning Theory and ‘best-practice’ consultation. The concept of ‘Web 2.0’ as a trend in

web design, which is discussed in further detail in Chapter Four, enables high interactivity

between the user and the web site, as well as between users. This concept, when combined

with an exponential growth in access to the Internet, establishes the nexus between

Internet-based technology and public involvement.

This nexus is practically untapped in the town planning profession. The emerging use of

‘online’ public involvement techniques has been slow and incremental, particularly in NSW.

This is highlighted in recent Discussion Papers released by the NSW Department of

Planning that make only token gestures towards the opportunities presented in the field of

public involvement.

Online public involvement techniques, in their broad umbrella terms of ‘information’,

‘consultation’, and ‘active participation’, as defined in Chapter Two, should be taken

advantage of both by the private sector (in the design and conduct of projects) and the

public sector (what is expected from the process).



Current inertia to adopt the use of online public involvement techniques needs to be

overcome as underutilisation of such technology as part of voluntary or compulsory public

involvement processes limits the ability to achieve best-practice outcomes, will ultimately

lead to less cost-effective public involvement, and discourages active citizenship.

1.2 Context The proposed research has been contextualised by works on the ‘Collaborative Planning’

theory, which, as Patsy Healey (1997) argues, searches for more than a ‘win-win’ outcome

as an alternative to the inherent ‘I win-you lose’ scenario of rational planning systems. It

“looks for an approach which asks: can we all get on better if we change how we think to

accommodate what other people think?” (Healey, P. 1997, page 312).

Collaborative Planning has its foundations in the work of German philosopher Jurgen

Habermas and his theory of ‘communicative action’ and the latter ‘communicative planning

theory’, to which Patsy Healey (1997) comments as having a ‘transformative’ impact on

conceptions of planning processes and influencing the use of mediation and facilitation

techniques to deal with disputes by organising discussion between stakeholders. Others

have also written about the theory of ‘collaborative planning’, as well as the theory of

‘communicative action’ and ‘communicative planning’ (see Allmendinger, 2002;

Allmendinger & Tewdwr-Jones, 2002; Forester, 1989, 1999; Sager, 1994, 2002).

It is from these notions that practical exercises of public involvement, consultation and

resolution through dialogue and engagement are given meaning. Therefore, a review of key

works in the field of communication and consultation has established a series of ‘best-

practice’ principles and attributes (see Chapter Two).

A discussion on emerging Internet-based technologies and their application within the

planning practice, as well as the implications of the internet in society generally (Healey, J,

2002; Mele, 1999; Stevenson, 2003; Wellman Haythornthwaite 2002) has been provided as

part of Chapter Two. However, literature to-date has not comprehensively explored the

application of Internet-based technologies for public involvement techniques for town

planning other than ‘Public Participation GIS’. Many of the publications to-date on the topic

have been authored by government bodies and usually form a tokenistic chapter towards

the end of the paper.



In contrast, the volume of literature on the wider implications of the Internet within society

typically discusses notions of access inequity (the ‘digital divide’), information integrity, lack

of social interaction, privacy, online ethics and etiquette. These implications have influenced

and informed the recommendations provided at Chapter Six.

1.3 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this thesis is to:

1. Expose the application of Internet-based technologies in planning processes,

2. Identify the issues and opportunities with the use of Internet-based technology in

society and how these relate to public involvement,

3. Establish best-practice principles of public involvement processes and investigate

how the application of Internet-based technologies can assist to achieve these,

4. Make practical and realistic recommendations applicable generally to achieve best

practice outcomes,

5. Investigate current public involvement processes in NSW, and,

6. Make practical and realistic recommendations applicable across the private and

public sectors of NSW.

The previously described untapped nexus and underutilisation of internet-based technology

form the basis of the thesis which will cover the following areas:

1 Community participation, public involvement and engagement,

2 Stakeholder collaboration,

3 Internet-based technologies applicable to planning and consultation,

4 Public involvement in New South Wales,

5 Case studies and best-practice examples.

It is hoped that this thesis will encourage further research in the online public involvement

area with a particular focus on its application in the planning realm. Furthermore, it is

intended that this thesis provides the relevant information to encourage wider adoption of

online public involvement techniques in the NSW and Australian context.



1.4 Structure The structure of this thesis has been designed to be read in a linear fashion, with the latter

chapters being informed by the earlier chapters. This thesis consists of the following

chapters:

• Chapter Two; this chapter describes best practice principles and methods of public

involvement as established within the literature, as well as detailing their origins in

planning theories. In addition, this chapter will contextualise the nexus between these

principles and methods and Internet-based technology, as well as describing

emerging ‘online’ public involvement techniques. An overview of the common

concerns with public involvement and the use of the Internet in society in general will

also be provided.

• Chapter Three; this chapter will introduce the notion of ‘public involvement’ within

the New South Wales (NSW) context, examining when and how public involvement is

undertaken within the statutory framework, as well as recent NSW planning reform

and its implications for public involvement. It is intended that this chapter will inform

the NSW specific recommendations of Chapter Six.

• Chapter Four; this chapter will critically analyse a number of online / web-based

public involvement case studies which have utilised emerging Internet-based

technologies within Australia and internationally to explore and argue their wider

adoption in town planning processes. This analysis will then inform Chapter Five, as

well as specific recommendations for the adoption of such technology contained

within Chapter Six.

• Chapter Five; this chapter provides a summary of the ‘issues’ and ‘opportunities’

described and presented in Chapter Two, Chapter Three and Chapter Four. As a

summation, it provides the platform for the recommendations outlined in Chapter Six

as well as the conclusions made in Chapter Seven.

• Chapter Six; this chapter builds on all the previous chapters and provides

recommendations for the private sector in NSW (for the design and conduct of

projects) and for the public sector in NSW (what should expected from the process).

• Chapter Seven; this chapter details the conclusions of the research findings and the

thesis overall.

The relationship of each of the chapters is illustrated in the Figure 01.



Figure 01: Thesis structure flow-chart

1.5 Method The research strategy that was undertaken to prepare this thesis involved two research

methods, being ‘case studies’ and ‘literature review’.

The use of ‘case studies’ were the primary method of data collection. Case studies are a

popular research method when questions of ‘how’ are being posed, and, when the focus of

the research is on a contemporary phenomenon (Yin, 2003).

As it was intended to investigate the application of internet-based technologies (a

contemporary phenomenon) within the context of which it occurs (the World Wide Web) and

to ask the question of ‘how’ its application in the planning profession can improve public

involvement processes, it was concluded that this method would be most suitable.



As Yin (1998 & 2003) details, there are a number of information sources that are commonly

used in case study research, being:

• Documentation;

• Archival records;

• Interviews; and

• Direct and participant observations.

As part of the case study research undertaken, two interviews were conducted, which

focused on the Australian case studies analysed in Chapter Four:

• Interview One – ‘Bang the Table’; this interview was conducted on the 15th of

September 2008 with both the Sydney based directors of Bang The Table, being Dr

Crispin Butteriss and Matthew Crozier.

• Interview Two – ‘Collabforge’; this interview was conducted on the 30th of

September 2008 with the Melbourne based co-director of ‘Collabforge’, Dr Mark

Elliott. Collabforge are the creators and administrators of the Future Melbourne 2020

website.

Follow-up correspondence with the interviewees via email assisted with additional data

collection and clarification. Due to the nature of this thesis topic, much of the data collected

was through observation and documentation of the case studies themselves and associated

web sites.

A review of existing literature on the various relevant topics is an imperative part of this

thesis. As Bryman (2008) notes, the primary purpose of reviewing existing literature is to

establish what is already known about the topic areas associated with the subject research,

as well as to assist with the formulation of research arguments and the significance of the

research findings. Chapter Two reviews and discusses the relevant literature to this thesis;

with subsequent chapters referring back to the arguments made in Chapter Two to ground

findings and to justify their significance.


CHAPTER TWO: CONTEXTUALISATION IN THE LITERATURE 7

CHAPTER TWO: CONTEXTUALISATION IN THE LITERATURE There is a multitude of emerging Internet-based technologies which can, and will, improve

public improvements processes within the town planning profession. As this Chapter will

demonstrate, there is a clear nexus between best practice principles and methods of public

involvement, their origins in planning theories, and emerging Internet-based technologies.

This Chapter will cover the key areas and notions associated with this nexus to

contextualise the research undertaken. As such, the scope of this Chapter includes the

following topic areas:

• Collaborative and Communicative planning theories;

• Public involvement (information, consultation and active participation);

• Internet-based technologies and their use in public involvement processes; and

• Issues and opportunities with the use of the internet in society and how these relate

to the planning profession.

2.1 The Collaborative Planning Theory In comparison to other ‘planning theories’, being theories on how ‘planning’ should be

undertaken, the ‘Collaborative Planning Theory’ is relatively young. As such, before a

definition of this theory can be agreed upon and detailed within this Section, it is imperative

to understand its origins and the evolutionary notions which have shaped its identity.

A discussion of the key proponents of Collaborative Planning will allow for the establishment

of its principles. Establishing the principles of Collaborative Planning will enable their later

application in, and critique of, Internet-based technologies in public involvement processes.

Patsy Healey, the now retired Professor from the School of Architecture, Planning and

Landscape at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in the United Kingdom, has been for

over a decade developing approaches to ‘Collaborative Planning’. Healey’s most

comprehensive publication to date – Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented

Societies (1997) critically details the evolution of Collaborative Planning and the

controversial aspects of traditional spatial and environmental planning which has given rise

to the need for a new direction.



Healey (1997, 1999) portrays the emergence of an ‘intellectual wave’ building up from the

traditional planning theories since the 1970s which, as Healey notes, is now coined the

‘argumentative, communicative or interpretive planning theory’, with the key emphases

being:

• A realisation that the human capacity to come to a resolution on what to do through

reflection and deliberation (‘practical reasoning’) is as acceptable and ‘correct’ as that

of a rational, scientific process, given the social context in which knowledge and

actions are formulated;

• An acknowledgement of ‘storytelling’ and ‘expressive statements’ in text, pictures and

sounds to be ways of communicating and developing knowledge, along with the

traditional ‘rational systematic analysis’;

• A recognition that individuals reach their ‘preferences’ independently, but are

educated and influenced by their social context and interactions;

• A recognition that in contemporary cultures, individuals have diverse preferences and

expectations; often being altered or oppressed by power relations;

• A recognition of the need for a lean towards a more ‘collaborative consensus-

building’ and through such consensus-building, ideas can be developed which have

the capability to transform cultures; and

• A realisation that the town planning realm is embedded in the social context of

interrelations between the daily practices of many stakeholders and has the ability to

question and alter these relations.

Two writers have notably aided the development of the ‘argumentative, communicative or

interpretive’ planning theory; these being Anthony Giddens and Jurgen Habermas.

As Healey (1997) points out, Anthony Giddens draws on Marxist and Weberian traditions in

sociology, to offer a social theory which helps to interpret individual ways of being in the

context of social constraints. This social theory is commonly known as the ‘Theory of

Structuration’. Giddens’ idea is that as individuals we live within many ‘relational webs’,

each with their own culture and in turn we construct our own sense of identity. Therefore, it

is common to experience conflict within our own culture and that the intersection of many

cultures and ‘relational webs’. This is important to note, as it speaks of the everyday

potential to come into conflict with different cultures or ‘relational webs’ and therefore we

must learn to co-exist and live with ‘difference’, as opposed to seeking a uniform opinion or



common set of values to base our decisions on. This is referred to by Healey (1997) as the

challenge of ‘making sense together’ while ‘living differently’.

Habermas’ input into this challenge lies in his approach to public reasoning. Similarly to

Giddens, Habermas rejects the notion that individuals focus their efforts on their own

survival and enjoyment, rather, as their consciousness is formed through interaction with

others, individuals develop social responsibilities. This is where Habermas, as Healey

(1997) notes, seeks to remove the traditional viewpoint of ‘reason’ to rework it into tool for

free debate within society. Healey goes on to acknowledge that philosophers since Aristotle

have noted that there is a distinction between the science-based reasoning and the

common sense we use in our daily lives. Therefore, Habermas’ public reasoning refers to a

‘public realm’ where:

“...participants engage in open debate through which they explore each other’s concerns

and the context of these concerns” (Healey, 1997, page 52).

Habermas’ theory of communicative action primarily looks at how communities

communicate in this ‘public arena’, how its citizens exchange ideas, prioritise what is most

relevant, most valued and conclude on a course of action. As Healey (1997) points out:

“In this conception, planning becomes a process of interactive collective reasoning, carried

out in the medium of language, in discourse” (Healey, 1997, page 53).

From these two writers, this notion of a ‘Collaborative Planning’ approach was spawned.

Healey (1997) takes these notions of conflicts from co-existence and the application of

practical reasoning to create a public realm of open debate further:

“Places and cultures are no longer coterminous. Different cultures may reach across many

places, and particular places are likely to contain a mixture of cultural communities, more or

less interconnected” (Healey 1997, page 199).

This in turn creates potential for conflict over the development of local environments, being

as Healey (1997) puts it, the ‘dilemmas of co-existence in shared spaces’. For example, a

common conflict at the local scale usually involves a completely legal proposal being

challenged by neighbour’s concerns about their own amenity, or, when a building for a



particular religious worship is not the same as the dominant religion of the existing

community.

As such, ‘Collaborative Planning’ looks at how to effectively deal with issues that arise from

the problems and opportunities of this ‘co-existence in shared spaces’. In doing so, the

practice of ‘Collaborative Planning’ is about:

“...an inclusionary approach to link-making work, through cultivating the capacity for

collaborative, multi-cultural communication and learning, developed through building up

relations of understandings and trust” (Healey 1997, page 311).

Collaborative Planning can be defined as a mechanism of governance for better co-

existence, relation-building and social, intellectual and political capital building. The

principles of Collaborative Planning could be interpreted as:

• Efforts in developing policies and strategies should have a focus on the collective

concerns about shared spaces. This in turn will serve to build up social, intellectual

and political capital;

• Creating Habermas’ ‘public realm’ to enable future issues to be discussed more

effectively and provide an avenue for such issues to be efficiently understood and

acted upon;

• The use of dialogue and interaction between stakeholders using a mix of arenas,

communicative routines and styles in relation-making, culture building and resolution

of conflict;

• Helping stakeholders work out collective ways of thinking and acting in order to re-

frame and re-structure their ways of dealing with issues; and

• Experts involved have an ethical duty to attend to all stakeholders as the interactive

process develops.

Overall, Collaborative planning seeks to:

“...re-frame how people think about winning and losing. It looks for an approach which asks:

can we all get on better if we change how people think to accommodate what other people

think? If this can be done, then we might think about winning and losing in a different way”

(Healey 1997, page 312).



Healey (1997) argues that through collaboration, social, intellectual and political capital can

be generated and enables futures issues to be resolved more efficiently and assists in the

recognition of the myriad of viewpoints within a community. This collaboration is most

effective through two-way dialogue and with consistent, equal interaction as part of an

overall transparent process.

This ‘practice’ or theory of Collaborative Planning shares its evolution with the traditional

techniques and methods of public involvement.

2.2 Traditional Public Involvement Practices in Town Planning Since Sherry Arnstein’s 1969 ‘ladder of citizen participation’ there has been a gradual

permeation of consultation techniques into the contemporary town planning realm that we

know today, with a number of terms coined for differing techniques, often being used

interchangeably. It is important to distinguish between this myriad of terms and techniques

used in order to understand their differences and the most appropriate method or mix to

use. Arnstein (1969) provided a useful distinction between these various techniques or

‘degrees of participation’ (Aversa, 2002). However, in a paper for the Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development, Joanne Caddy (2001) groups techniques into

three broad umbrella terms; ‘Information’, ‘Consultation’, ‘Active Participation’ which have

been modified and adopted for the purposes of this thesis (see Figure 02).

Figure 02: Information, Consultation and Active Participation.

Source: Adapted from Caddy 2001, page 23.



For the purposes of this thesis, the term ‘public involvement’ has been adopted to

incorporate all three of the above classifications, when distinction between them is not

required.

The collection of traditional techniques known to town planners is attributable to either

‘Information’, ‘Consultation’ or ‘Active Participation’ as previously defined. These are

summarised below along with the relevant issues and best-practice principles associated

with these.

It is widely accepted in both the literature and in practice that no single technique is suitable

in all circumstances. As Zehner and Marshall (2007, page 253) point out:

“Public involvement processes are most effective when several consultative and

participatory techniques are ‘triangulated’. That is, when more than one technique is used,

there is more assurance that all stakeholders and members of the public have been given

the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process and in different ways.”

When deciding on the mix of techniques, consideration must be given to the objectives of

the public involvement, the project and the needs of the audience.

INFORMATION Caddy (2001) defines ‘Information’ techniques as being a one-way relationship where the

authority produces and provides information for consumption by the public. This includes

both ‘passive’ access where the public request the information and, ‘active’ where the

authority instigates the distribution of information. Types of ‘Information’ techniques are

described in Table 01.

Table 01: ‘Information’ techniques

Technique Description

Public Notices, Displays and Brochures (Cogan 2003;

Sinclair, 1978)

These are a means of statically disseminating information to

the community at different stages of a study or project.

Displays are often changing and established at frequented

public places or within civic buildings. Brochures can be part of

a display or be available ‘over the counter’.

Mail-outs (Cogan 2003) This involves posting specific information to specific individuals



or organisations, with the intent to provide information to select

audiences in a relatively inexpensive manner.

Media Releases / Briefing and Public Notification (Cogan

2003; Sinclair 1978;

Washington 1997)

This involves the dissemination of information through printed

and electronic media sources.

Note: if public notification / media releases are used to invite

feedback from the public, then this can be categorised

underneath ‘consultation’.

Newsletters (Cogan

2003)

These are periodic publications that provide ongoing

information and project updates to a general or targeted

audience.

Site Offices (Sinclair,

1978)

These are temporarily established at approachable locations

and include members of the study / project team whom can

directly answer questions or provide information to interested

persons.

CONSULTATION Caddy (2001) defines ‘Consultation’ as being a two-way relationship where the exchange of

information is possible between the public and the authority. The parameters of consultation

are set by the authority who also manages the process and the public are invited to

contribute their views. The types of ‘Consultation’ techniques are described in Table 02.

Table 02: ‘Consultation’ techniques


Advisory Committees

(Cogan 2003; Sinclair

1978; Washington 1997)

A number of persons are elected or appointed to provide

ongoing advice on community views or specialist advice.

Advisory committees are not considered to be ‘partners’ in

decision making, only sources of viewpoints and as such, this

technique is not categorised as ‘Active Participation’.

Deliberative Polls / Televoting (Carson &

Gelber 2001)

Deliberative polls include participants that are usually selected

randomly via telephone numbers and then meet to discuss the

issues at hand, leading to a vote or a series of votes.

Forum (Sinclair, 1978) Forums include representatives of the ‘public’ that are

nominated by existing groups and associations. Forums are

typically setup to facilitate the exchange of views between

these groups, associations and authorities.



Individual Discussions / Interviews (Cogan

2003; Marshall 2003;

Sinclair, 1978)

The individuals are selected by the planner by random or

another sampling technique. Sessions are less structured but

are aimed to gather information about particular issues in a

one-on-one environment.

Public Meetings (Cogan

2003; Sinclair, 1978)

These will include more than 20 people (depending on the level

of interest) and are self-selected through open advertising and

invitations. Proceedings are formalised, with agendas and the

aim to present large amounts of information for comment.

Note: If the agenda precludes open discussion and dialogue;

this technique could be categorised within ‘Information’.

Residents’ Feedback Panels (Carson & Gelber

2001)

A Residents Feedback Panel establishes a number of potential

respondents within a locality or community. These respondents

may then be requested to participate in quantitative research

such as interviews, surveys, or questionnaires.

Search Conference

(Carson & Gelber 2001;

Marshall 2003; Sinclair,

1978)

Search conferences are conducted at the beginning of a

planning process, including between 20 and 30 persons, with

the participants being deliberately selected to be

heterogeneous, with an identifiable shared interest. Discussion

is staged, with an aim to identify broad cross-section of views

in respect to a number of issues, often used to refine planning

ideas and test reactions to them.

Speakers Bureau

(Cogan 2003)

These are presentations to selected groups in the community

or specific stakeholders, with the purpose of informing them

about plans or activities and obtaining opinions and feedback.

Although dialogue is two-way, this technique is not seen as

interactive or discussion based as other ‘Consultation’

techniques.

Small / Focus Groups

(Carson & Gelber 2001;

Cogan 2003; Marshall

2003; Nishikawa 2003;

Sinclair 1978;

Washington 1997)

These groups include up to 10 persons and are usually

homogeneous, already existing in the community, locally

organised or identified by the planner. Discussion is not

particularly structured, but focused on the resolution of a

specific issue or problem. This technique is also used to

determine perceptions and viewpoints or gauge reactions with

regards to particular plans or opportunities.



Submissions / Correspondence

(Cogan 2003; Marshall

2003; Sinclair, 1978)

Received at specific points in the process, this technique is

strongly linked to public information techniques as discussed

above. These are openly invited, but usually attract organised

groups or representatives with a clear position.

Surveys (Cogan 2003;

Marshall 2003; Sinclair,

1978)

These are a means of gathering information (qualitative or

quantitative) about objective characteristics or subjective

viewpoints in a community. There are many forms of surveys

traditionally used, such as mail, telephone and face-to-face

(and increasingly web-based and email as discussed later in

this Chapter).

Trade-off games (Marshall 2003)

As Marshall (2003) describes, ‘trade-off games’ involve active

consultation where the participants establish their ‘competing’

and ‘limiting’ resources, enabling a pattern to form of the

needs, preferences and values of the participants.

ACTIVE PARTICIPATION Caddy 2001 defines ‘Active Participation’ as being based in a partnership arrangement

between the authority and the public, where the public are actively engaged in defining

parameters, setting agendas and resolving the issues and shaping outcomes through

dialogue. It must be noted here that the techniques previously defined as ‘Consultation’

have the potential to be classified as ‘Active Participation’ if, and when, their agenda allow

for its participants to directly formulate an outcome. The types of ‘Active Participation’

techniques are described below in Table 03.

Table 03: ‘Active Participation’ techniques


Charrettes (Carson &

Gelber 2001; Marshall

2003)

A charrette is similar to a ‘workshop’ as described below,

however, charrettes are usually much more intensive and

involve a more dynamic interchange of ideas between

participants whom direct an on-site architect, designer or writer

to design or redesign project or policy elements.

Samoan Circles (Marshall 2003)

Samoan Circles are usually small to medium sized group

meetings without a leader or chairperson where all participants

are ‘equal’. These are used to discuss anything from visions to

issues in an open dialogue forum to stimulate active

participation and with the goal to come a resolution.



Workshops (Cogan

2003; Sinclair, 1978)

Workshops typically involve a number of small groups of

between 8 and 15 persons, whom are selected on the basis of

skills or specialised interest (such as government agency

representatives). Sessions are interactive and structured,

usually with the focus on producing a plan, program or set of

recommendations of direct contribution to an actual planning

outcome.

As Sarkissian et al. (1986) note, there are two key grounds for public participation:

1. It is ethical; the democratic arena that planning operates within, ideally should

include those people and their environments which will be the subject of a decision or

debate; and

2. It is pragmatic; the success of a new policy or plan will often relies on the public’s

appreciation or ‘ownership’ of such a plan or policy and therefore, by involving the

public, support for decisions is more likely to occur.

Although public involvement seems to be an obvious component of planning processes,

there are a number of arguments against greater public involvement.

COMMON ISSUES AND CRITICISMS Regardless of the level or type of public involvement, the ‘issues’ or criticisms associated

with involving the public in town planning and policy-making in general. These have been

summarised below:

• Expensive time-delays and time-consuming. This is the foremost criticism, with

two sides. On one side, public involvement, as Washington (1997) notes, when

multiple stakeholders are required to be involved, or from administrative and

information overloads (see following). On the other side, as Zehner and Marshall

(2007) point out, members of contemporary society do not always have the time or

energy to become involved.

• Administrative and information overloads. As Washington (1997) outlines, the

administrative processes required to undertake public involvement processes can

generate unnecessary, or unwanted, administrative burdens as well as an excess of

information, which subsequently leads to ‘decision-making inertia’.



• Unbalanced views / Unequal pluralism. This is seen as a danger when well-

organised stakeholder groups ‘capture the policy process’ and overshadow the views

of the ‘silent majority’ (Washington 1997). Similarly, when public opinion is sought,

those that do respond are not necessarily representative of the ‘public’ and may only

represent those that are well informed or are able to articulate their concerns in the

public arena. This is more apparent in some techniques than others, which as Zehner

and Marshall state, is a significant challenge for practitioners undertaking public

involvement processes, with Self (2000) coining the challenge as ‘unequal pluralism’.

• Issue blow-out. Washington (1997) details this as a risk when new or previously

unknown issues emerge and cause a deviation from the objectives of the

deliberation. This can also work against public involvement processes which are

usually used to build support around decisions by politicians.

• Unexpected outcomes. Washington (1997) points out that by involving the public,

you are inevitably raising the expectations of the participants that their individual

opinions will be reflected in the final outcome and when you have multiple or

conflicting views, there is likely to be some disappointment with the resolution.

• Expert Vs. Local expertise. As Zehner and Marshall (2007) argue, as public

involvement becomes more and more prevalent in planning processes, professional

knowledge and expertise will come into conflict with local knowledge and aspirations.

This is seen by some as resulting in a ‘poorer’ planning outcome.

This list should not discourage the adoption or use of public involvement techniques. The

reality is, as Arnstein (1969) points out, there is a key difference between simply

undertaking tokenistic gestures of public involvement to meet statutory requirements, and,

properly involving the public to enrich participants with a sense of power. When public

involvement is undertaken properly, in accordance with the principles outlined in the

following section, the issues detailed above are often unapparent or non-existent. As

Sandercock argues, “one way of understanding community action, or the push for public

participation, is to see it as an attempt to redress the balance of power between citizens and

government” (Sandercock 1986, page 8).



BEST – PRACTICE PRINCIPLES Adapted from Burke and Beckhard (1976), Caddy (2001) and Sarkissian et al. (1986), the

following is a list of principles that should be evident in all public involvement techniques, be

it ‘Information’, ‘Consultation’, ‘Active Participation’ or a combination of these:

• Commitment; this is imperative from those responsible for the process, requiring

dedication for the life of the project and the methods adopted. Public involvement

techniques involve the sharing of knowledge and as such, authorities must have

some belief in the value and importance of the process (Sarkissian et al. 1986).

• Rights; the public’s right to information, be consulted and actively participate should

be evident and backed-up by legislation or policy. Those involved in the process

must also be diligently responded to when exercising these rights.

• Clarity; the objectives and limits of the public involvement process should be clear

from inception. Roles and responsibilities of participants and authorities should also

be clear.

• Time; public involvement should be evident from the outset or as early as possible,

to encourage a greater range of possible issues and solutions to emerge.

• Objectivity; Information made available should be objective, complete and not

misleading, with each member of the public given equal treatment.

• Resources; the appropriate amount of financial, human and technical resource, as

feasible should be allocated, with the relevant skills and training being available.

• Setting; the context in which ideas and dialogue are sought needs to be comfortable

for its participants and allow for open deliberation. An open dialogue helps to build

mutual understanding between parties and clear-up misunderstandings. The setting

should also, where required, encourage creative thinking.

• Co-ordination; processes and techniques need to be well-coordinated to avoid

information redundancy and to reduce the risk of “consultation fatigue”.

• Accountability; the use of inputs and information received during public involvement

techniques needs to be accountable and transparent.

• Evaluation; post-public involvement, the process should enable an evaluation of its

success and future refinement.

• Active Citizenship; Where possible, processes should encourage future

participation by instilling a sense of ownership and success its outcomes. In addition,

processes should bring people together and would not normally meet to build

empathy between stakeholders that will subsequently improve future outcomes.



It is these principles which will be used to analyse the ‘success’ of the emerging Internet-

based public involvement techniques that have begun to permeate planning practices.

2.3 The use of the Internet in Public Involvement Processes The Internet has enjoyed an exponential growth rate as highlighted in Figure 03 which

outlines a brief summary of the Internet’s history.

Figure 03: History of the Internet

In contrast to the traditional consultation methods outlined in the previous section, online

techniques using Internet-based technologies are beginning to evolve (Tang & Waters

2005).

The application of Internet-based technologies such as Public Participation GIS and

interactive mapping, communication tools such as forums and blogs, and, contributory tools

such as ‘wikis’ have increasingly been emerging in public involvement techniques nationally

and internationally. Similar to Arnstein’s 1969 ‘Ladder of Public Participation’, these ‘online

techniques’ range in the amount of public involvement which is offered, and again, the

differing levels of involvement made available by each technique should be integrated into

5) By the mid-1990s around 50 million people worldwide were using the Internet (Stevenson 2003).

3) In 1992, Marc Andreesen developed ‘Mosaic’, a program which enabled text, hypertext, and images to appear on the same screen. This represented a huge leap in the look, the interactivity and the ‘feel’ of the Internet (Hassen 2004).

4) In 1991, Berners-Lee developed a browser-editor which allowed for text to be hyper-linked (hyper text). They called the system the World Wide Web and used HTML coding (Hassen 2004).

2) Although PCs were becoming more and more commonplace, for much of the 1980s the Internet was largely unknown. It was still the realm of professionals in the computer industries, in universities and in government agencies (Hassen 2004).

1) In 1977 the first email was sent using a program called ‘XMODEM’ which enabled files to be transferred from one computer to another (Hassen 2004).

6) By 2008, the number of internet users worldwide had exceeded 1.4 billion (Internet World Statistics 2008)



the overall consultation strategy and not used in isolation. Kingston (2002) developed an e-

participation ladder, with the bottom representing online access to government information

and two-way communication in an interactive participation process being further up the

ladder. Table 04 details the techniques currently being used and groups these into the

‘Information’, ‘Consultation’ and ‘Active participation’ categories.

Table 04: Internet-based public involvement techniques

INFORMATION


Blogs These are typically used for one-way dialogue or presentation

of information, where the blogger makes regular blog entries to

which people can subscribe. Most blogs enable other users to

post ‘reply’ comments on blog entries, creating a ‘thread’, this

subsequently becomes a ‘two-way dialogue’. If the blog is

intentionally set-up for this purpose, it is in fact classified under

‘Consultation’.

Development Application

Tracking

DA tracking enables applicants to view the status of their

development application (as well as any interested person) as

it is processed by council’s internal assessment system and by

any external agencies that the application has been referred to.

Some council’s provide information for download, such as town

planning reports and some architectural plans.

eNewsletters These are essentially HTML or Text format emails that are sent

to a vast number of individuals on a periodic basis. The content

of the ‘eNewsletter’ will vary however will usually contain news

or event notifications.

Interactive Maps As Caquard (2003) notes, these differ from conventional maps

as they are able to be animated, interactive and multi-media

based. However, these are categorised as ‘Information’ purely

because they are used to only display information, but it should

be noted that interactive maps are often integrated into

consultation and active participation techniques.

RSS Feeds ‘RSS Feeds’ are a type of data format used for web pages that

have regularly updated content (such as blogs, news and file

sharing web pages) Users are able to ‘subscribe’ to the RSS



Feed which is often integrated into web browsers to enable

quick and easy notifications of changes or updates.

Static Websites The use of a website to display basic information,

announcements, agendas, etc. Downloaded information may

include draft strategies, minutes, maps, etc but can also

include surveys that need to be printed and mailed back

(although this is becoming more redundant with the use of

HTML surveys – see Public Consultation)

Web-casting and

podcasting

These have been used by a number of local councils to stream

live council meetings as they are happening and when stored,

allow users to view past meetings. As an ‘eTool’ these are

often integrated into more interactive ‘Web 2.0’ based websites

as an information supplement to forums, blogs and ‘wikis’.

CONSULTATION


Electronic Voting

(eVoting)

These are set-up to test people’s reactions and gather opinions

on a particular topic or issue. Often received in real-time, these

are a relatively fast way to obtain information from targeted

audiences. Another form of ‘eVoting’ is the use of ‘ePetitions’

which are not strictly used to consult the public, rather used by

the public to get their voice heard (in support or against an

issue or decision).

Email Correspondence Often an email address is provided on a public website for

unstructured submissions or general questions and queries.

HTML Surveys &

Questionnaires

These are surveys either on a number of topics or a particular

issue which can be undertaken by the public and submitted all

online. ‘eSurveys’ an vary in depth of the exercise, with topics

ideally emerging from the community or as a result of

increased public interest (International Centre of Excellence for

Local eDemocracy, 2008).

Message Boards / Public

Forums (eForums)

These enable members of the public to post messages or

discuss local issues. Its application can also be used to

generate visions and create a platform for the documentation



of ideas from the community. Typically, topics are posted on

the Forum by the moderator, with participants responding to

the topics posted and comments made by other users, creating

a rolling dialogue.

Real-time forum / chat

rooms

These facilitate the real-time discussion of issues, topics, etc

and can also be used to arrange online discussions between

members of the public and key project members or authorities.

ACTIVE PARTICIPATION


‘ePanels’ ePanels are a moderated online environment whereby

discussion is led by a moderator and selected participants use

the environment to engage in discussion and debate. Members

of the ‘ePanel’ are selected for their views on an ongoing basis

(International Centre of Excellence for Local eDemocracy,

2008).

Wiki-based Websites Wiki websites enable registered users to directly edit content of

the web pages. These are usually integrated with other ‘eTools’

such as forums to create a ‘collaborative’ environment for the

use by stakeholders, the community and authorities.

Web-based Public

Participation GIS

(WPPGIS)

As Peng (2001) describes, WPPGIS provides spatial data and

GIS functionality over the web for public participation purposes.

WPPGIS are designed to enhance public participation by

providing the public with data, analysis tools, and a forum to

explore knowledge, express opinion, and discuss issues

(Peng, 2001).

Craig (1998) details the benefits of the Internet’s application by neighbourhood groups in

organising, communicating and discussing ideas and information about their localities with

authorities and other communities. Craig also notes the sense of community and

empowerment that can be generated with such use of the Internet, in line with the principles

of the previously discussed ‘collaborative planning theory’. The application of the Internet in

this manner generates a pool of information from the dialogue between citizens, as well as

between citizens and authorities. The success of this kind of ‘online community building’ is

evidenced in Chapter Four.



Literature to-date has not comprehensively explored the application of Internet-based

technologies for public involvement techniques in town planning other than Web-based

PPGIS (WPPGIS). As Peng (1999 & 2001) and others (Peng and Beimborn, 1998; Plewe,

1997) describe, WPPGIS refers to a GIS tool that uses the Internet as the primary interface

and point of access to distributed data, spatial information, and conducting GIS analysis. It

is questionable whether WPPGIS is necessary, particularly for the provision of information

and data for interpretation and use by the public. With the emergence of ‘Web 2.0’ design

principles and ‘eTools’ being seamlessly integrated (such as forums, RSS feeds, document

sharing, etc) into a web site, information and data can be made available through this

central location. However, the possibility of providing simplified GIS tools for the

manipulation and evaluation of data presents a fantastic opportunity to allow the public to

provide quality input and gain a better, more holistic understanding.

Many of the publications to-date specifically on the application of the Internet for public

involvement in town planning, have been authored by government bodies and usually form

a tokenistic chapter towards the end of the publication. However, Robert Goodspeed, a

research analyst at the Boston Metropolitan Area Planning Council in the United States

(US), has over the past few years written on the opportunities that the Internet is presenting

for the planning profession and indeed public involvement. These have culminated in his

2008 Final Paper for the Urban Studies and Planning Program at the University of

Maryland, titled ‘Citizen Participation and the Internet in Urban Planning’ (Goodspeed,

2008). This paper is very much focused on planning in the US, but does however provide a

comprehensive argument for the application of the Internet to improve public involvement in

the planning practice.

In contrast, authors (Kanter 2001; Zehner & Marshall 2007) have questioned the Internet’s

ability to facilitate public involvement noting a number of concerns which are generally in

line with the overall concerns with the use of the Internet in society:

• The Internet may isolate or marginalise users within the process;

• The Internet has led to ‘cyber-bullying’ which can be experienced much more easily

than in a face-to-face exercise. This is used to attack users in conflicting scenarios;

• Online techniques are often limited to being written in English which hinders their use

in a multicultural society;

• Access equity can hinder the effectiveness of online techniques; and

• The Internet which can foster and build empowered communities, but can also lead



to the demise of other communities that are ‘attacked’ by these newly empowered

groups.

2.4 Concerns with the Internet and its use in society The concerns associated with the use of the Internet within society, as well as the

problematic nature of such a rapid growth and adoption of its technology is widely covered

in both printed and online academic literature. These concerns have been discussed below:

SOCIAL INCLUSION AND EQUITY The Internet offers access to the large amounts and variety of information, which notionally

improves an individual’s ability to be more aware and better informed about issues and civic

matters. Being more aware and civically active is imperative for social inclusion; as

Christopher Mele (1999, page 305) phrases it:

“Online communication offers disadvantaged... populations access to sources of detailed

information beyond the confines of locale and to bring those resources to bear on real and

immediate problems”

However, the primary concern with this statement is that the difference between the present

situation and the transition to this utopian dream of total civic participation through online

interaction will inevitably include the marginalisation of particular demographic groups. The

marginalisation of particular demographic groups and a subsequent increase in social

polarisation will result from the fact that some groups will be able to adapt to and adopt the

emerging technology and social trends sooner and more easily than others. This

marginalisation has already begun; for example, Gleeson (2006) argues that access to the

Internet is in today’s society required for the ‘practice of citizenship’ but much of the

population are still largely denied access to such technology. This denial of access has

been coined the ‘digital divide’, as discussed later in this Section.

The rapid growth of the Internet may lead to a further exacerbation of the existing

knowledge inequalities and further isolation of disadvantaged groups (Chen et al, 2002). It is

commonly accepted that new technologies and indeed the Internet are more readily

available for those in higher socio-economic groups and less available to those in lower

socio-economic and geographically isolated communities. This is reflected in the statistical

analysis detailed below.



THE DIGITAL DIVIDE AND THE AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT The term ‘digital divide’ typically refers to the gap between those with, and those without,

effective access to, and knowledge of, Internet use and more broadly, Information and

Communication Technology (ICT). The two main components which contribute to this

‘divide’ are:

1. A lack of knowledge of education in the Internet and computer use; and

2. Lack of access to Internet and more broadly ICT.

This is effectively a contemporary social issue due to the recent emergence of such

technology over the past three decades. An analysis of the digital divide in the Australian

context has been possible with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) collecting

information regarding Australian’s use of Internet and computers since 1998 and including

specific questions on such usage for the first time in the 2001 Census. A statistical analysis

of the 2001 ABS census data undertaken by the Australian Census Analytic Program

(ACAP) compiled in a report titled ‘Australia Online: How Australians are using the

Computers and the Internet (Lloyd and Bill, 2001) has indicated that inequalities in computer

and Internet usage can be attributable to age, employment status, income, education and

people with a mental or physical disability. The findings of this is summarised below:

• 37% of Australians or 6.97 million people used the Internet at home;

• 87% of people aged between 65 and 74 years and 91% of those aged over 75 years

did not access the Internet;

• 80% of Indigenous people did not use the Internet in the week prior to the census;

• 95% of Australians who did not go to school did not use the Internet;

• 95% of people who do not speak English at all did not use the Internet;

• Increases with more income and education;

• Is significantly more common in households with dependent children; and

• Is high among students and people employed in professional occupations.

The ACAP has not published to-date an analytical report using the 2006 Census data.

However, based on the 2006 Census information available at the time of writing, the

following statistics were extracted:

• 66% of households (4.94 million) had an internet connection;

• Increases with income ($250/wk or less = 35% and $2,000/wk or more = 89%); and

• 47% of households with indigenous persons did not have an Internet connection.



As the Internet becomes more dominant in our daily lives, the social and economic impact

of unequal access to and ability to use such technology will become ever more prevalent.

Alternatively, efforts to close the ‘digital divide’ through the widespread provision of public

and private internet facilities and educational programs has the potential for greater social

and economic outcomes, including those in the town planning profession and built

environment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ONLINE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The implications of a digital divide within Australia’s communities and indeed within

communities in other countries and even between countries, has its implications for online

techniques and practices. These implications will need to be taken into consideration when

planning to utilise such technologies and when undertaking analysis of its outcomes.

Table 05 provides comment on how the achievement of some of the ‘best-practice

principles’ that were previous outlined may potentially be hindered in online techniques by

this contemporary social issue.

Table 05: Implications for online public involvement

PRINCIPLE COMMENT

Commitment If online consultation methods were used solely as a replacement of

traditional methods, then there is a threat to the perceived ‘commitment’

level of the authorities for isolating those without Internet access from the

process.

Rights Those on the wrong side of the digital divide are potentially having their

‘rights’ to information, to be consulted and to actively participate in decision

making processes eroded.

Objectivity Members of the subject community may have different levels of skills with

the Internet and different levels of comfort using different online

consultation methods and as such, there is the potential to impact on the

objectivity of the information provided if one method is too heavily relied on

and all individuals are not given equal attention.

Setting Again, with different levels of confidence and access, the context and

setting of the online consultation method used may hinder open dialogue

and the opportunity to clear up misunderstandings.

Active Citizenship

The digital divide hinders active citizenship for those without effective

access to, the knowledge or education in, the use of Internet-based



technologies. The previous statistical analysis of the digital divide within

the Australian context demonstrates that there are still a lot of minority or

disadvantaged groups which cannot be captured by online techniques.

However, this is a key reason to use online techniques in combination with

traditional methods to ensure equality and choice.

ONLINE DYNAMICS AND INTERACTION The exponential growth of the Internet and the rise of online interaction have brought with it

a new wave of communication protocol, as well as a series of negative or abusive actions

that exploit the elements of the Internet which has given rise to its popularity (such as

instantaneous access and networking). This is typically referred to as ‘online dynamics’.

‘Netiquette’ is the term coined for the etiquette or a set of conventions often associated with

the online dynamics of interaction between users. Netiquette is most commonly referred to

in the context of the Internet, but can be applied to most modern information communication

technology. An overview of netiquette should be provided wherever online communication is

available to ensure first-time users or ‘Newbies’ can be educated on basic guidelines of

online interaction. This is evident in the case of Future Melbourne (See Chapter Four) which assisted with the success of its wiki-based consultation period.

Netiquette information, at a minimum should detail common Internet slang, acronyms and

abbreviations and rules of thumb for forum and blog discussion. The ‘netiquette’ section of

the Future Melbourne web site is reproduced at Appendix 01. Netiquette is one component

of online dynamics and establishing these for first-time users will assist with establishing

‘norms’ for user interaction which can in turn help to safeguard against the other, negative,

elements of online dynamics (such as those detailed at Section 4.2).

2.5 Conclusion As this Chapter has demonstrated, there is a clear nexus between best practice public

involvement and emerging Internet-based technologies. The multitude of Internet-based

technologies can, and will, improve public involvement processes within the town planning

profession. As the following chapters describe, Internet-based public involvement

techniques have the ability to move the town planning profession closer to the idealistic

‘Collaborative Planning’ approach which looks at how to effectively deal with issues that

arise from the problems and opportunities of ‘co-existence’ (such as competing interests

and conflicts views on a particular development application or policy).



The Internet, with the emergence of the ‘Web 2.0’ web design trend (see Section 4.1) and

the greater permeation of the Internet in other facets of modern society, is able to provide a

Habermas-like ‘public realm’ whereby issues can be discussed in an open, public arena. As

Healey (1997) notes on Habermas’ public realm, this enables these issues to be efficiently

understood through dialogue and subsequently acted upon. This dialogue and interaction

between stakeholders is a form of ‘relation-making’, ‘culture building’ as well as a ‘conflict

resolution’ mechanism.

Although the birth of the ‘Collaborative Planning’ theory (through the writings of Anthony

Giddens and Jurgen Habermas) contributed to the foundations for public involvement in

decision-making, it was Sherry Arnstein’s 1969 ‘ladder of citizen participation’ that initiated

the public involvement techniques of the town planning realm that we know today. Over the

past four decades since Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation, authors have constructed

principles for ‘best-practice’ public involvement. This chapter compiled those from Burke

and Beckhard (1976), Caddy (2001) and Sarkissian et al. (1986) into a list that will be used

to assess case studies of Internet-based public involvement techniques described in

Chapter Four.

The concerns associated with the use of the Internet within society generally, as well as the

problematic nature of such a rapid growth and adoption of its technology (as covered by this

chapter) have inevitably played a part in the slow adoption of Internet-based public

involvement techniques in the New South Wales planning system. The following chapter

discusses public involvement within the NSW planning context as well as reviewing the

recent NSW planning reform and its implications for Internet-based public involvement.


CHAPTER THREE: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN NEW SOUTH WALES 29

CHAPTER THREE: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN NEW SOUTH WALES This chapter will introduce the notion of ‘public involvement’ within the New South Wales

(NSW) context, examining when and how public involvement is undertaken within the

statutory framework, as well as recent NSW planning reform. In this chapter, an attempt to

identify the issues and opportunities surrounding these practices will be made, with

references to where Internet-based technologies fit into the equation. The scope of this

chapter therefore includes the following topics in reference to NSW:

• The emergence of public involvement within planning;

• Legislative and non-legislative public involvement; and

• Recent planning reform and its implications for public involvement.

3.1 Public Involvement in New South Wales As Aversa (2002) notes, a period of social and political dispute during Australia’s

construction boom of the 1960s, gave rise to many infamous battles between groups of

residents and the NSW Builders’ Labourers Federation (BLF) and developers and

governments. This is also seen by Aversa (2002) as a representation of the frustration

experienced by those being locked out of local planning and decision-making processes.

The fight for Kelly’s Bush in the 1970s was notably a significant step towards the arguably

more participatory NSW planning system in place today, for a number of reasons:

• It was the first of 42 “green bans” imposed by the BLF in this decade, and the first the

union had involved themselves in that did not affect them financially;

• It highlighted the “vacuum in planning procedures” (Jack Mundey cited in Shaw 1996,

page 39) and the lack of democracy in the planning system at the time;

• It highlighted the inadequacy of having an elected body of representatives (council) if

ordinary people are denied a say;

Another notable ‘green ban’ in the history of NSW was that placed on the Rocks area during

the mid-1970s. Aversa (2002), Burgmann and Burgmann (1998), and Roddewig (1978)

describe the ‘Battle for the Rocks’ as a challenge of Australian urban planning as a result of

public disillusion with the process, a representation of a breakdown of democratic principles.



The green bans place on Kelly’s Bush and the Rocks area, as well as the 40 other green

bans undoubtedly influenced the introduction of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 (Aversa 2002; Harding (ed) 1998). This is specifically reflected at

Clause 5, which stipulates the Objectives of the EP&A Act. Of particular relevance is

Objective (c), being:

(c) to provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in

environmental planning and assessment.

As amended, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act 1979)

provides a number of situations where differing levels of public involvement are required,

and differing avenues for public input and challenge.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNDER THE EP&A ACT 1979 The NSW planning system is influenced by various state and local government agencies,

each with their own roles, responsibilities and obligations to the community. The legislative

planning system itself is based on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

(EP&A Act) which provides the legal grounds for both plan-making and development

assessment.

In terms of plan-making, there is no legal requirement for public comment to be considered

when Environmental Planning Instruments (EPI) are made (such as SEPPs, REPs and

LEPs). However, most plan-making processes invite public submissions during a period of

exhibition and will usually undertake some level of public involvement. For LEPs, the

process of public involvement is only required to occur at Section 66, with an exhibition

period of 28 days

The EP&A does have provisions available to the public for challenging plan-making

decisions. Section 123 of the EP&A Act allows for anyone to ‘remedy or restrain a breach’ of

the EP&A Act in the NSW Land and Environment Court (NSWLEC) if the mandatory steps

have not been complied with. A Section 123 action can only be made within three months of

publication of the EPI in the NSW Government Gazette.

With regards to the development process, in general, there is no specific right to be notified

of a development application, and individuals do not have the right for their views to be



considered unless the council has a practice of giving notice and considering submissions

(Farrier and Stein, 2006). However, for specific types of developments, the EP&A Act and

the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 do stipulate minimum

requirements for public notification and the rights of appeal. These are summarised at

Appendix 02.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNDER SECTION 342ZA In addition to the EP&A Act, Section 342ZA of the Local Government Act 1919 includes

public participation requirements. Section 342ZA has been repealed but continues to be in

force under the Miscellaneous Acts (planning) Savings and Transitional Provisions

Regulation 1980, for development applications involving the provisions of either a Planning

Scheme Ordinance or Interim Order made before the introduction of the EP&A Act. As

Farrier and Stein (2006) point out, Section 342ZA, in practice, only applies to residential flat

buildings and involves advertising similar to that of designated development.

NON-LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT An area in the town planning realm where public involvement takes place, usually as a

mandate rather than as a legislative requirement, is within the private consultancy arena.

Authorities often engage private consultancy firms to undertake studies or provide

independent assistance with the preparation of new plans and strategies.

Although processes and projects vary across government areas and indeed consultants,

most utilise public involvement techniques as the ‘best-practice’ way to understand the

existing community, explore alternatives and gain feedback. Urban design and planning

authors (Gindroz et al 2003; Walters 2007 and Watson et al. 2003) see public involvement

as an integral component of the planning and design process, particularly active

participation techniques such as community workshops and design charrettes.

Most councils within NSW and indeed Australia expect some level of public involvement

within the scope of the urban design and town planning projects. This is because councils

understand that as elected representatives and/or public officials, it is their ‘duty’ to ensure

that a plan or strategy reflects the aspirations and vision of the community on which it will

impact. This is consistent with the grounds for participation outlined by Sarkissian et al.

(1986), being that public participation is an ethical duty within the democratic system in



which planning operates. This ethical ‘duty’ which most councils have adopted towards

public involvement is reflected in the Planning NSW 2003 publication ‘Community

Engagement in the NSW Planning System’ which points out, many councils have:

“…comprehensive community consultation policies that embrace a range of techniques

including the establishment of precinct committees, adopted engagement guidelines,

conflict resolution policies” (Planning NSW 2003, Page 14).

An example of this is the ‘Warringah Council Community Consultation Toolkit’ which seeks

to provide Council staff with guidance on how to undertake different types of public

involvement (Warringah Council, 2000). A summary of this document is provided at Box 01.

Box 01: Warringah Council Community Consultation Toolkit This document provides a ‘framework’ which includes information on Council’s consultation

policy, as well as providing a ‘consultation matrix’ which details the different types of

consultation methods that are available.

The community consultation matrix, which supplements the toolkit, enables staff to assess

and determine the best consultation approach for each particular project or issue. The

toolkit then details how the different approaches can be done, which are divided into four

levels of participation; ‘Informing’, ‘Seeking Information’, ‘Involving’, and ‘Partnerships’.

These ‘levels of participation’ are likened to Arnstein’s 1969 ‘ladder of citizen participation’

as discussed in the previous Chapter.

The toolkit provides an informative seven step process for community consultation, which

guides the process from the selection of an approach, to post-consultation monitoring and

evaluating. In addition, the toolkit provides protocol of the preparation of particular

consultation outputs (such as media releases), as well as providing ‘best-practice’ examples

of the consultation approaches being used.

Overall, the toolkit is comprehensive in nature and offers a practical guide to traditional

consultation methods. Adopted in 2000, it is in need of review to include emerging online

public involvement techniques such as those described in the previous Chapter, or at the

very least, reflect the current practices of Warringah Council whom have adopted a number



of these online techniques. These include webcasts of council meetings, online DA tracking,

planning information online and online forms.

3.2 Recent Planning Reform Previous NSW planning system reforms such as ‘PlanFIRST’ identified a number of

concerns pertaining to public involvement. Comments received in relation to the publication

by the NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) ‘Ideas for community

consultation’ (2001) as detailed in the subsequent 2003 Planning NSW, publication –

‘Community Engagement in the NSW Planning System’, are summarised below:

• Public involvement wasn’t effective enough and needed to occur earlier in the

process, especially in the case of more complex strategies and development

applications;

• The process should be more inclusive, collaborative and interactive with the subject

community;

• Public involvement should be seen as a continuous process not just a stage within

the process; and

• More importance given to public involvement at the state and regional levels.

More recently, the ‘New Ideas for Planning’ Forum which took place in August 2007 and

was attended by over 600 stakeholders (NSW Department of Planning 2007), helped

identify a range of issues, including some pertaining to public involvement and the emerging

‘ePlanning’ practices. This forum and the subsequent discussion paper – Improving the

NSW Planning System – Discussion Paper November 2007, identified a number of key

areas of the NSW planning system which could be improved. The areas identified for

improvement that had some relevance to public involvement included:

• Changing land use and plan-making;

• Development assessment and review;

• Exempt and complying development; and

• ePlanning initiatives.

The recommendations of the discussion paper, in relation to public involvement have been

summarised in a table at Appendix 03.



3.3 Conclusion This chapter has built on the theoretical context of the need and benefits of public

involvement in planning and decision-making by illustrating its evolution in the NSW

planning milieu. The introduction of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

provided for the inclusion of differing levels of public involvement to be required as part of

the decision and plan-making processes. However, public involvement is almost rendered

void if there is no legal responsibility to consider submissions made by the public.

It is obvious from Section 3.1 of this Chapter that the scope of legislated public involvement

is very limited and seems to only occur from the ethical practices of those with authority, or

when suggested by a consultant as part of their study. Furthermore, it has been long

commented that the public involvement that does happen, often happens too late in the

process and leaves the community with a sense of apathy and cynicism from a perceived

lack of opportunity to influence the outcome (Perlgut 1986; DUAP 2001; Planning NSW

2003; DoP 2007).

This sense of apathy and cynicism, resulting from a perceived lack of opportunity to

influence the outcome, is commonplace with most traditional methods of public involvement,

especially those that offer less participation, being classified under ‘Information’ and

‘Consultation’. As discussed at Section 2.2, Washington (1997) describes this as a process

of inevitably raising the expectations of the public, that their individual opinions will be

reflected in the outcome. This can also be influenced by a lack of transparency and open

debate which are imperative for the exploration of the context of conflicting views between

participants, as well as between participants and authorities. Governments around the world

and indeed within Australia are establishing ways in which to harness the capabilities of

Internet-based technology within the decision-making and planning realms to improve this

situation.

The current ‘ePlanning’ initiatives, as previously discussed, are using basic Internet

technology for ‘Information’ techniques as defined at Section 2.2. These are a step in the

right direction, but are still relatively conservative in terms of the greater level of participation

that can be offered via the Internet. There is a great deal more that can be achieved to

overcome the well-documented apathy and lack of opportunity the public have in shaping

outcomes within their community. For example, the opportunity to improve transparency is



presented by ‘Web 2.0’ concepts such as ‘wiki-based’ pages that allow for real-time editing

(and tracking of edits made) of the strategic documents whilst also promoting greater open

debate through the integration of forums and blogs. This is discussed in further detail in

Chapter Four.

In terms of the recent ‘ePlanning’ innovations in NSW, as detailed in the 2007 DoP

Discussion Paper, Table 06 categorises these into their appropriate public involvement

category. As Table 06 reinforces, these are limited in their level of participation and in fact

are really only digitising existing services offered.

Table 06: ePlanning innovations in NSW

Innovation Description Category

DA Tracking DA tracking enables applicants to view the status of their

development application (as well as any interested person)

as it is processed by council’s internal assessment system

and by any external agencies that the application has been

referred to.

Public

Information

Smart Forms These are electronic submission forms where the applicant

is guided through a checklist specific to their proposal.

N/A

Certified Planning Information

This allows the public to purchase ‘certified’ copies of

relevant planning information (such as s.149 certificates)

from the council’s website.

Public

Information

Filtered Planning Controls

This allows for the integrated display or generation of the

relevant planning controls applicable to a particular site to

be packaged together, removing the need to read through

and cross check multiple printed documents.

Public

Information

Online Maps This allows the public to search an interactive map and

view the applicable layers to their site (such as zoning and

heritage conservation areas).

Public

Information

It is evident from the ePlanning innovations presented in the discussion paper that the

Internet is not only providing an avenue for improved public involvement but also

collaboration across government agencies and indeed within these organisations. However,



even though these ‘innovations’ are a step in the right direction, especially for NSW

planning, they are in fact very conservative when compared to the adoption of Internet

technology in other facets of society. The lack of acknowledgement and discussion of online

public involvement techniques is representative of the inertia for their adoption in planning

practices.

Despite the overall inertia and lack of acknowledgement for the opportunities that Internet-

based technologies present for greater public involvement, there are a number of councils

cross Australia that have are being the ‘early adopters’ of online techniques. In terms of

NSW councils, two examples are provided below:

• North Sydney Council; this council allows for online submissions to be received via

a ‘DA Comment’ section of their website which enable the public to electronically

submit a 6,500 character comment on any current DA. This council website also

includes a blog page for discussion on a number of current issues and council

initiated projects.

• Port Stephens Council; this council provides an eNewsletter for those who register

on their emailing list. In addition, they are one of a handful of local councils utilising

the services of ‘Bang the Table’ (see Chapter Four) to provide online forums and

other public involvement techniques on a number of projects.

In addition, there are a number of NSW councils (such as City of Sydney, Lake Macquarie,

Sutherland Shire and Woollahra) which are integrating RSS Feeds for News and other

regularly updated content such as event notifications. Case studies which provide

comprehensive application of Internet-based technology for public involvement are analysed

in the following Chapter.


CHAPTER FOUR: ONLINE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT CASE STUDIES 37

CHAPTER FOUR: ONLINE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT CASE STUDIES This Chapter will critically analyse a number of online public involvement case studies which

have utilised emerging Internet-based technologies within Australia and internationally to

explore and argue their wider adoption in town planning processes. As such, in this Chapter

there will be a discussion of how these case studies achieved, or didn’t achieve, the best-

practice consultation principles established in Chapter Two. This analysis will then inform

Chapter Five, as well as specific recommendations for the adoption of such technology in

the NSW context in Chapter Six.

4.1 Case Study 1 – Bang the Table ‘Bang the Table’ (www.bangthetable.com.au) was established in November 2007 after the

experiences of its directors (Matthew Crozier and Dr Crispin Butteriss) in private practice

convinced them that the Internet could provide new ways to open up community

engagement and open policy debate. Bang the Table (BTT) is a web-based ‘tool’ for the

facilitation of online public involvement as part of a project or as part of an organisation’s on-

going commitment to engaging the community. In order to achieve this, BTT integrates a

number of popular and emerging web-based technologies.

The BTT web site is part of the recent movement in web design coined as ‘Web 2.0’. ‘Web

2.0’ encapsulates the development trend in web design which seeks to boost the sharing

capabilities, collaboration and creatively of the World Wide Web (WWW). It is a user

interface innovation, an intention to provide more tools to allow users to interact with a web

site and each other, rather than being a new version of the WWW as the name may

suggest. As Berners-Lee (2006) argues, ‘Web 2.0’ hasn’t changed the foundations of the

WWW (such as HTML), rather has built on existing technology. The concept of ‘Web 2.0’

has led to the evolution of:

• Online-communities (such as http://groups.google.com.au);

• Social-networking sites (such as www.facebook.com);

• File sharing and streaming (such as www.youtube.com);

• Blogs (such as www.blogger.com); and

• Wiki-based sites (such as www.wikipedia.com).



The use of this technology or ‘eTools’ within BTT enables public involvement techniques to

achieve or, at the very least, take a step towards best-practice public involvement principles

as discussed later in this Chapter.

BTT SERVICES AND COSTS The ‘products’ and ‘services’ which are provided by BTT are effectively priced to lower the

‘cost per person’ of public involvement processes. This is represented in Figure 04 which

has been produced by BTT and available through their blog

(www.onlinecommunityconsultation.com).

Figure 04: ‘Cost per person’ chart

Source: Online Community Consultation, 2008

A ‘Product Options & Pricing’, which is available at Appendix 04 shows how the services

offered are flexible in their application, to encourage their efficient adaption to each client’s

needs. For example, local councils can have the services integrated into their existing

website, allowing for the services to appear with the council logo and colour schemes, whilst

still being managed and hosted by BTT. In some instances, this may increase the amount of

confidence for first-time users for the information may appear to have more integrity coming

from a familiar site.



The service packages for multiple projects encourage continual involvement of the public,

which is an essential factor in the success of BTT public involvement techniques. The

establishment of a continual dialogue with the subject community on an array of topics

cultivates an ‘online community’ for future public debate and the efficient resolution of

issues. This can be likened to Jurgen Habermas’ (see Section 2.1) notion of the ‘public

realm’ which allows participants to engage in open debate and explore the concerns of

others. Through this exploration of issues and their context, there is a move towards

‘consensus building’, one of the principles of the ‘argumentative, communicative or

interpretive planning theory’ (Healey, 1997).

Further, this commitment from the council or organisation, when combined with the eTools

available on the site (such as RSS feeds) promotes active citizenship by allowing

community members to easily be aware of changes in their locality. These ‘eTools’ are

seamlessly integrated into project pages and increase the interactivity of the site for users.

A BTT webpage allows community access to each project, with each project including the

following elements and tools:

• An interactive forum which has links to other tools and external websites. The Forum

discussions also enable ‘importance voting’ on each topic and also allows each user

to ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ about a comment;

• A project library for users to download project information;

• Personalised user content which enables a user to see where they visited last and

what is new on this topic each time they login;

• A ‘program’ of key project dates;

• A ‘frequently asked questions’ section;

• A ‘related projects’ section;

• Online survey questions;

• A ‘search’ function;

• Share functionality to external social networking and user review sites (such as

Facebook, Newsvine, Digg and Fark) as well as the opportunity to email to a friend;

• ‘RSS’ Subscription (see Section 2.3); and

• A ‘Tag Cloud’ box which has links to where particular key words are used, assisting

with targeted navigation.



Simply, BTT host consultations for clients as well as produce accurate factual feedback

reports (quantitative data) and moderate the page in accordance with the following rules

and principles (Bang the Table, 2008):

• Comments need to be constructive and respect the views of others;

• SPAM, irrelevant material, abusive language, defamatory material or personally

abusive postings will be removed;

• Clients are not allowed to self moderate the project discussions and are encouraged

to participate; and

• Removed comments will be replaced by an explanation;

At the time of writing, Bang the Table had hosted 38 projects for 23 different organisations.

Organisations have typically included local councils and government associations, political

parties and members of parliaments, private consultancies, as well as government-initiated

events such as the Australia 2020 Summit.

A ‘successful’ example of this utilisation of Internet-based public involvement techniques is

the Port Stephens Foreshore Plan.

PORT STEPHENS FORESHORE MANAGEMENT PLAN In 2000, the Port Stephens and Myall Lakes Estuary Management Plan recommended that

a Port Stephens Foreshore Management Plan (PSFMP) be prepared. Initially, a Draft

Management Plan was developed after preliminary public consultation, which included:

• Local Community Meetings, as well as meetings with council and other government

agencies (including Land Councils);

• Set-up of the Port Stephens and Myall Lakes Estuary Management Committee as the

key stakeholder reference group and consisted of members from both Port Stephens

and Great Lakes Councils;

• A project brochure was distributed initially to community groups, outlining the scope

and objectives of the project and the extent of the project area;

• A press release was issued by Port Stephens Council to announce the

commencement of the project;

Overall, 49 written submissions were received from the processes and the key points of

these submissions were collated and subsequently informed the scope of the management

plan project.



Subsequently, the PSFMP project page was created on the 25th of February 2008 and even

though consultation concluded on the 26th of May 2008, all discussions and information are

made available for viewing. By allowing this material to be viewed post-consultation, there is

an increased sense of transparency. During this consultation period, the following statistics

were achieved by the project:

• 673 unique visitors and a total of 1337 visits;

• 101 ‘Votes’ on 16 different discussion topics and 1300 ‘disagrees/agrees’;

• 3 removed comments;

• 234 document downloads;

• 9,069 views (this has increased to 11,325 as at 26/09/2008), 54 participants whom

posted 166 comments; and

• Most popular discussion: “Proposal for Dogs on Leashes at Bagnall Beach” (1744

views, 69 comments and 27 votes).

On the project webpage, Port Stephens Council have detailed their post-consultation

commitment to the compilation of comments and written submissions received, with the

intention of amending the Draft PSFMP. The amended plan will then be approved by the

Port Stephens and Myall Lakes Estuary Management Committee and subsequently put

before council for adoption. At the time of writing, the Draft PSFMP had not been adopted.

The amended plan will be accompanied by a summary report, discussing the changes

made as well as the comments/submissions that were not acted upon and the rationale for

doing so. In this way it is considered that the participation of the public, as facilitated by the

use of online public involvement techniques, has influenced the project outcome.

Furthermore, the popularity of some discussion topics over other topics demonstrates that

those users, whom chose to participate, were able to openly debate the issues / topics most

valued to them and come to some level of resolution.

DISCUSSION Bang the Table is an effective web-based facilitation tool for involving the public and follows

the principles and concept of the ‘Web 2.0’ web design movement. The facilitation of

continual dialogue, across projects, which can be established when organisations commit to

multiple projects being hosted by BTT, cultivates an avenue for public debate that can be

likened to Jurgen Habermas’ notion of a ‘public realm’ (see Section 2.1). However, as the

adoption of this technology is really in its early stages and until it can be widely encouraged



and promoted across the planning profession, active citizenship and consensus building of

the nature idealised by such theories as the collaborative planning theory will remain a

dream.

The success of these web-based public involvement techniques, particularly those that can

be categorised as ‘active participation’ (see Section 2.2) is demonstrated by the PSFMP

project. The PSFMP project is considered a ‘success’ as over the three month period that

the webpage was active, a number of issues were raised, debated and to some degree

‘resolved’, with council committing to these shaping the outcome. What sets this project

apart is that although it has not been the most visited BTT project page or generated the

most posted comments (although 9,069 views and 166 comments is impressive), is the fact

that unforeseen issues were raised and given more attention by the community than those

that are ‘typical’ of this type of project (see Box 02).

Box 02: Example of how issues were resolved in the PSFMP

As previously detailed, the most popular discussion was the forum which discussed the

proposal to convert an existing ‘off-leash’ dog exercise area into an ‘on-leash’ area due to

water quality management issues. This forum topic received 1744 page views, 69

comments, 27 ‘Importance votes’ and 513 disagree / agree votes. This amount of attention

that this issue received, especially when compared to other forum discussion topics such as

those on Climate Change, is a reflection of what the subject community values, as well as

its needs and desires. This is essentially what involving the public is about.

Posted by: ‘margw’, March 07, 2008 05:44pm

Agree: 32 Disagree: 8

Further research needs to be done to identify if it is really dogs causing water quality issues.

Water quality peaks in previous years which resulted in the closure of the beach were at

one stage identified by Council as being caused, not by dogs, but by birds and from

fertilisers from gardens in the Bagnall Beach residential area above the beach. Perhaps the

education campaign undertaken by Council with residents in that area worked as the

readings over the summer period this year were better than the previous 2-3 years. Leave

the dogs alone and bring this plan up to date with what is currently happening there.

Reply post by: ‘dreyer’, April 08, 2008 12:42pm




20, 10 years ago the sea life on the beach and sea weed area was so full of life it was

great!!! i wonder why there is nothing there at all now?

Im guessing the dog lovers would disagree and its obviously nothing to with dogs jumping

on them, eating them, digging them up, and generally disturbing the native and natural eco

system!! get a life, go to a dog park and chase a ball.. GET OFF THE BEACH

Not to even mention the fact that i cant walk along the beach with my kids without getting

dogs running up to us not sure if we are going to get bitten or slurped or generally harassed

or step in what is left over from there backsides.

Posted by: ‘Jules’, March 13, 2008 10:31pm


Prominent signage indicating that Bagnalls is a dog beach may help individuals decided

whether it is the most appropriate beach to meet their needs - it is not as if there is a lack of

quality beaches in the area, most of which are much more pleasant than Bagnalls (due to

the seaweed and stench at low tide). If dogs are to be given free reign of one beach, surely

Bagnalls is the most appropriate? If the dogs weren't there, people would complain about

the kiteboarders - where does it end? Chose another beach!

A subsequent post by ‘brycec’ on April 08, 2008 details a media release from council (see

Appendix 05) which outlines how council, due to the attention the issue received on Bang

the Table, is not going to adopt the recommended action.

Box 02 details a level of discussion that would not be possible during most traditional public

involvement techniques, especially those typically implemented for a Management Plan.

The ability of participants to analyse previous statements and contribute their own viewpoint

in this open platform lead directly to its resolution.

The availability of relevant information to the project, as well as the availability of project

team members to provide input and participate in the online forums, contributes an overall

sense of transparency in the process. Decision-making transparency is imperative to

encourage repeat contributions from users, as well as to instil a sense of confidence for the

community that their input has helped shape the outcome (‘active participation’).



The inclusion of a web-based public involvement tool such as BTT within the organisation’s

overall consultation scope secures the opportunity to achieve more best-practice principles

(see Section 2.2) as well as produce an outcome which can be ‘owned’ by the subject

community.

The facilitation offered by BTT, especially when integrated with traditional methods of public

involvement, provides an invaluable opportunity to capture more community views from a

broader demographic, or at the very least, provide the community with sufficient information

for them to make the decision to be involved or not to be. The inclusion of such web-based

services has become expected in many other facets of society, catering for the often time-

poor modern citizen who demands convenience and user-focused services.

4.2 Case Study 2 – Future Melbourne 2020 ‘Future Melbourne 2020’ is the strategy for the City of Melbourne local government area,

being the core activity hub of the wider Metropolitan Melbourne, the Capital city of Victoria.

Once adopted, the Future Melbourne Strategy will replace the current City Plan 2010 and

sets out six strategic goals, the means or ‘pathways’ to achieving these goals, as well as the

projected outcomes of these goals to be achieved by 2020 (City of Melbourne, 2008).

The current draft Future Melbourne strategy has been prepared by collaborating with key

agencies, extensive stakeholder and public consultation. The public involvement techniques

which were utilised included:

• The ‘Future Melbourne Reference Group’, being made up of prominent members of

the local community and stakeholders was set-up to guide and lead the project;

• Five public forums were held in mid 2007 with over 500 people attending (City of

Melbourne, 2008). The issues raised during these forums shaped the scope of the

Future Melbourne strategies; and

• Formal written submissions were received either by post or email.

After the extensive public forums, the community website, ‘e-village’

(www.evillagemelbourne.com.au) allowed for continual discussions between interested

community members and stakeholders on visions, topics and other emerging plans. The

Future Melbourne 2020 project moving into its next phase ‘negotiating the results’ provided

the rationale for the creation of the wiki-based project web site, where the draft plan could

be further developed in an online, collaborative manner.



The Future Melbourne 2020 project website (www.futuremelbourne.com.au) was

developed, and is maintained, by a business named ‘Collabforge’ which has been

established by Dr. Mark Elliot and Marcus Leonard on the back of the success of Future

Melbourne, as well Dr. Elliot’s PhD thesis, ‘Stigmergic Collaboration: A Theoretical

Framework for Mass Collaboration’ (see www.mark-elliot.net).

The design of the site follows the design principles of the ‘Web 2.0’ movement (see Section 4.2), in particular the use of ‘wiki’ technology. ‘Wiki’ technology lets participants easily

create, edit and update content on web pages online and was named by its developer,

Ward Cunningham in 1995. ‘Wiki’ is the English translation of the Hawaiian word for ‘fast’.

The City of Melbourne and the creators of Future Melbourne, claim that this project is a first

for local government in Australia. The application of wiki technology in this instance is

different to that of other wiki-based websites (such as www.wikipedia.com) as after the

consultation period closes, edits to the strategy can only be made by selected council

officers and stakeholders. After adoption of the strategy, an electronic version will be

available for viewing, downloading and printing from the same location, with only a limited

number of hard copy versions anticipated to be produced.

The electronic format of the adopted plan means that it will be easily updated, with changes

tracked at the Future Melbourne webpage, making the document more dynamic, able to

adapt to change more readily and in full public view (further increasing the transparency of

the process).

The wiki-based Future Melbourne website enabled desirable collaboration across council

officers, stakeholders and registered members of the public during the specified

consultation period. The consultation period ran for one month, between the 24th May and

the 24th of June 2008. During this period, the following approximate statistics were

achieved:

• 30,000 page views;

• 7,000 unique viewers;

• 650 registered users from over 16 different countries;

• 200 edits;



The three key areas of public involvement avenues available during the consultation period

included:

• Information; The draft strategies and the relevant information were available for

review and it was recommended that this was done by users before participating

through direct edits to the document and discussions. In addition, ‘RSS’ subscriptions

to the site and each of its discussions, allowed users to be informed when changes

were made, providing an increase level of ‘information’;

• Editing; using wiki-technology, the draft plan was available to be directly edited by

participants with the intention to ‘improve’ the plan’s outcome;

• Discussion; participants were able to post comments and discuss different facets of

the draft plan online with other participants, including council officers and

stakeholders. The Future Melbourne page also offered the creation of ‘groups’ where

participants could generate interest and discussion on common themes and ideas;

The integration of these three avenues contributed to the success of the Future Melbourne

site. For example, edits made to components of the Plan were linked to discussion posts

made by the user whom made the edit (see Box 03)

Box 03: Example of editing and linked discussion

A simple example of the effectiveness of linking the discussion function with edits

(Appendix 06), as well as the collaboration possible with the use of a wiki site is the ‘edit’

made by the user ‘PaulMinett’ on the 18th May 2008. PaulMinett, an expert on carpooling

from New Zealand, added content to component ‘S2G6’ of the plan which is under the

section ‘Connected’ in relation to carpooling systems as a way of reducing fuel use and

emissions. In the discussed thread, PaulMinett posted the following in response to the

changes made:

Treat Carpools and Vanpools the same way as 'public transport'

On this page I have suggested that the list of public transport modes be expanded to refer

to carpools and vanpools. Please see elsewhere where I've suggested consideration of

flexible carpooling as a system for reducing the fuel use and emissions of the whole

transport system at incredibly low cost.

-- PaulMinett – 18 May 2008 09:23



One of the key concerns of the City of Melbourne Council during this period was risk

assessment and management. The risk assessment and management strategy for the

content being contributed was essential to the success of the project. This involved a three-

tier process administrated primarily by Collabforge:

• Tier 1 – Machine Intelligence; this involved an automated system where

inappropriate language and the like was searched for in the content and removed;

• Tier 2 – Log Online Dynamics Monitoring; this involved the personnel at

Collabforge monitoring the system-generated log of content edits to ensure that there

weren’t any unnoticed changes and or negative online dynamics; and

• Tier 3 – Content Relevance; this involved council’s city planners to monitor the

relevance of contributions in terms of their content and location within the document.

Negative instances of online dynamics, such as ‘wiki-trashing’ where users deliberatively

over load the document with useless or abusive information, and, instances of off-topic

debate or arguments were not experienced during the Future Melbourne consultation

period.

DISCUSSION The application of ‘wiki’ technology on the scale of the Future Melbourne project is

considered to be a benchmark and precedent internationally. Dr. Mark Elliott notes in his

paper titled ‘Future Melbourne Wiki: From Consultation to Participation’ (2008), the Future

Melbourne 2020 strategy, as a document, represents:

“…an important evolution in the process and outcomes of the consultation process, through

the use of wiki technology” (Elliot, 2008).

As Elliott (2008) argues, the application of wiki-technology in this context is a shift away

from the traditional, more linear ‘cooperative’ approach where authorities specify a number

of individualised avenues to ‘submit’ a comment via a limited number of media formats

(face-to-face, letters, emails), to a more dynamic, iterative process which fosters

collaboration between the public and authorities as well as internal collaboration within

agencies (such as the example provided at Box 03 above and at Appendix 07). The

application of wiki-technology allows for a desirable variation to the current linear process,

whereby the public are invited to read information, contribute comments and edit the

document for adoption. Furthermore, the nature of wiki-technology enables simultaneous



edits to different parts of the same document and as such creates a ‘non-linear contribution’

(Elliott 2008).

This process achieves a greater sense of ownership for the participants as well as being

much more transparent. It is evident that the Future Melbourne project, through the

application of Internet-based technology, was able to achieve the following best-practice

principles of public involvement:

• Rights; the ability for registered users to directly edit and discuss the changes to the

Future Melbourne 2020 strategy is representative of a citizen’s democratic rights to

be provided with information and directly participate in the decision making process.

• Clarity; this was achieved through the increased transparency in the process,

particularly whereby edits were directly linked to discussion forums which sought to

‘back-up’ or justify changes.

• Time; although the active, ‘wiki’ side of the Future Melbourne web site was only

available to the registered members of the public for a specific period of time, the

existence of ‘eVillage’ earlier in the process, as well as the commitment by council to

have the final product be predominately electronic and online, promoted public

involvement for an extensive and ‘continual’ period of time.

• Active Citizenship; this process encourages future participation by the public as it

has instilled a sense of ownership and success in the outcome.

A potential deterrent of the use of wiki technology in projects such as these, where

community members are encouraged to significantly contribute their time and aspirations, is

the perhaps demoralising outcome when content is substantially modified or moved as a

result of structural change or another user’s modifications. This can often be the case with

dynamic documents such as Future Melbourne which can go through multiple revisions and

draft versions before adoption. This can also result when there is a conflict in view or

desired direction or outcome. However, as edits are linked to discussions and the process is

iterative, with the outcome evolving from many revision, initial input is never ‘lost’, even if

devalued over time, especially with changes being tracked and monitored. Furthermore, the

process itself encourages users to ‘learn as they go’ whereby understanding and resolution

are created through dialogue.



4.3 International Case Study – ICELE The International Centre of Excellence for Local eDemocracy (ICELE) was developed in

early 2006 as a ‘virtual centre’ (www.icele.org) and is supported by Lichfield District Council,

located approximately 180km north-west of London in the United Kingdom (UK).

ICELE supports local authorities and communities in the UK by providing advice on

eDemocracy techniques and online public involvement solutions to increase the level and

quality of public involvement in decision-making processes. In addition ICELE promotes the

use of its online facilities internationally to government and academic institutions as well as

not-for-profit organisations.

The ICELE team trial and review technology and emerging technology developments from

government sectors, private practices and from online communities (such as those that

provide free ‘open source’ software). By doing so, ICELE are able to exhibit local and

international case studies of the use of such technologies for informational and promotional

purposes.

ICELE’s vision to serve as a “virtual focal point for collaborative eDemocracy initiatives both

in the UK and abroad” (ICELE, 2008) extends to their provision of an online calendar of

events on eDemocracy and related topics, as well as their eNewsletter of similar

information.

In addition, ICELE publish online ‘information guides’ for use primarily by local governments

(although any interested person can download these) on topics related to eDemocracy and

online citizen engagement such as blogs and webcasting. One example is ‘Civic Leadership

Blogging: how to use weblogs as an effective local leadership tool’ (ICELE, 2005). To

complement this provision of informational resources, ICELE offer a number of free or low

cost ‘eTools’ which can be directly accessed via their website.

One of the most notable eTools available through ICELE is “Bloginabox” (www.readmyday.co.uk). “Bloginbox” is the rebranded “ReadMyDay” Blog Service which

ICELE took ownership and improved its functionality and user-friendliness. Bloginabox aims

to be the most comprehensive site for local authority blogs in the UK.



Another noteworthy eTool provided and operated by ICELE is “Voice” (www.e-voice.org.uk)

which is a web publishing ‘toolkit’ that is made available to local councils in the UK and

voluntary groups to assist with the creation and management of websites as well as

generating an online directory of registered community groups. This tool allows users to

post content, news, documents, video and sound files, as well create blogs, forums, surveys

and ePetitions.

VOICE – EMPOWERING CITIZENS AND COMMUNITIES As previously detailed, ‘VOICE’ is a web-publishing toolkit which is made available to local

councils in the UK as well as voluntary community groups, such as those from

neighbourhoods or schools.

The toolkit comes with detailed instructions on how to set-up a free website based on the

templates available and tailored tools. The toolkit includes a number of features or ‘plug-in

modules’ which the council / community group can choose to, or not to include:

• RSS feed and news;

• Noticeboard, events calendar and classifieds;

• File sharing and photo albums;

• Jobs Listings;

• Forums and blogs; and

• ePetitions.

Many of these plug-in modules are common across the previous case studies discussed,

which highlights their popularity and success of use. These features are in line with the

concept of ‘Web 2.0’ design which seeks to engage the user and encourage their interaction

with not only the web site itself, but other users. In this manner, the VOICE toolkit is another

example of how internet-based technology can be utilised to at the very least, take a step

towards achieving the principles of the ‘communicative’ planning theory, whereby citizens

exchange ideas, prioritise what is most relevant, most valued and judge a course of action.

The achievement of a more collaborative approach such as that being made easier by

ICELE is relatively cost-effective. The costs involved in using the toolkit depend on whether

you are a local authority, not-for-profit organisation or community group:

• Local authorities in the UK are charged an annual fee of between £2,000 and

£5,000 depending on the type of local authority (e.g. County, District, etc);



• Not-for-profit organisations are charged an annual fee of between £2,000 and

£3,000;

• Local community groups can use the toolkit for free, as long as their local authority

has purchased the annual licence.

The rationale behind the pricing is to encourage local authorities to purchase the annual

licence and promote an online presence for their local community groups, in turn supporting

active citizenship and public involvement.

In addition to the provision of free websites for community groups, a benefit of VOICE is that

it establishes an online directory of community groups, across council areas. Registration

with the community directory is also offered for those community groups that already have

an online presence. As at October 2008, there were 367 registered communities on the

VOICE directory.

An example of the VOICE toolkit is ‘Birmingham Voice’ (e-voice.org.uk/birmingham) which

was set-up by Birmingham City Council and includes 98 local community groups, including

the ‘Friends of Rectory Park’ (www.e-voice.org.uk/friends-of-rectory-park) and ‘VOTO

(Voices Of The Oppressed)’ (www.e-voice.org.uk/voto).

DISCUSSION Overall, ICELE is an example of a government-backed initiative that has led the way and

become the ‘early adopters’ of new technology. ICELE seeks to be a ‘virtual focal point’ for

information and tools to encourage active citizenship through the use of internet-based

technology and as such, it has enormous potential to increase the presence of online public

involvement techniques in decision-making processes (which is essentially what

‘eDemocracy’ is about).

The ‘eTools’ and information available through ICELE are similar to that of the previously

discussed case studies in that they are based on the ‘Web 2.0’ concept of higher

interactivity between the user and the site, as well as between users.

The creation of a community directory, as well as the community group websites

themselves, creates a larger pool or ‘web’ of knowledge that decision-makers and citizens

alike can tap into. The generation of this web of knowledge, through debate and information



exchange between participants, can assist with moving towards a mutual understanding

between participants as they are able as Healey (1997) puts it, to “explore each other’s

concerns and the context of these concerns” (page 52).

The major power and benefit of the 'eTools' offered by ICELE, in particular the 'VOICE'

Internet publication toolkit, is its ability to provide greater organisation, information and

communication of community groups and citizens generally. However, these community

group websites are frequently issue-based, rather than project-based and as such, a direct

link to planning outcomes was hard to decipher at the time of writing.

An example of this is the North Lincolnshire community portal (www.northlincs.info), which

was one the first councils to take advantage of the VOICE toolkit, with over 100 community

groups. However there is an unclear commitment from Council to utilise the discussion or

interaction taking place on these community group websites, with Council's website

(www.northlincs.gov.uk) making no reference or hyperlink to the community portal. It would

seem that in this instance, the community group websites are more of an online information

and communication resource for offline activities, than a community empowerment tool

which implies some level of influence on decisions (being the full potential of such tools).

North Lincolnshire Council does offer the provision of application tracking and the ability to

electronically provide comment on such applications (see www.northlincs.gov.uk/planning).

However there is not the opportunity to make such comment through the community portal

or community group websites.

This is similarly the case for both Birmingham Voice (www.e-voice.org.uk/birmingham) and

Lichfield Voice (www.e-voice.org.uk/lichfield) where there is excellent organisation of

community groups on their VOICE website, as well as interactive and online opportunities

on the parent Council’s website (www.birmingham.gov.uk/ and www.lichfielddc.gov.uk) to

provide comment online on planning applications, but no direct link between them or a clear

commitment from Council. Lichfield Council’s planning section has even taken on board

even more ‘Web 2.0’ concepts with sharing functionality to social networking sites such as

www.twitter.com, www.facebook.com and www.digg.com (to only name a few).

However, it is through the application of the ‘eTools’ and information provided by ICELE that

there can be an achievement of best-practice principles of public involvement:



• Time; by encouraging the establishment of websites for local community groups,

authorities can be confident that when a public involvement process is commenced

as part of a particular project or strategy, the appropriate mechanisms, as well as a

knowledge pool is available at the project’s outset and isn’t restricted to period of

time traditionally allocated to public consultation.

• Setting; as the web sites for local community groups are backed by their local

government, the ‘setting’ for dialogue and open deliberation is perceived as more

legitimate and as such, citizens may feel more comfortable participating.

• Accountability; as the local community group websites are available before and

after a traditional consultation period for projects, information and dialogue remains

highly accessible and available. This increases the sense of transparency of the

process and in turn the accountability of its users.

• Active Citizenship; the establishment of a community directory promotes citizens to

be kept well informed on topics of their choice and when combined with the plug-in

modules of each web site such as RSS Feeds and forums, active citizenship is

promoted as participants are encouraged to be kept abreast of updates and debates.

This also then increases the quality of input from participants over time, as they ‘learn

as they go’.

4.4 Conclusion The local and international case studies presented in this Chapter exhibit the effective

utilisation of the ‘Web 2.0’ concepts and their application in public involvement. The nexus

between these Internet-based technologies and the planning profession is evident,

particularly their application across Caddy’s (2001) three broad umbrella terms of

‘Information’, ‘Consultation’, and ‘Active Participation’. It is documented by these case

studies that the integration of the World Wide Web into public involvement processes can

boost quality of each of these broad types of public involvement:

• Information; the 24/7 accessibility to information provided online, the speed at which

users can be notified (such as via emails or RSS feeds), as well the ability to provide

interactive information, vastly improves this level of public involvement.

• Consultation; the integration of online forums and discussion boards allow for

dialogue to open up between citizens as well as between citizens and the decision-

makers and other stakeholders. The ‘eTools’ facilitated by the emergence of ‘Web

2.0’ can be customised by the authority or proponent of the public involvement



process in order allow for differing levels consultation, as well as easily promote

active citizenship by allowing the two-way dialogue to directly influence the outcome.

• Active Participation; The establishment of a continual dialogue with the subject

community on an array of topics cultivates an ‘online community’ for future public

debate and the efficient resolution of issues. In this manner, there is a move towards

‘consensus building’, one of the principles of the ‘argumentative, communicative or

interpretive planning therory’. In addition, the application of wiki technology that

enables collaboration across stakeholders and the public creates greater

transparency, which is imperative to encourage repeat contributions from users and

active participation.

The impact that Internet-based public involvement techniques can have on planning

outcomes varied across the case studies. The impact that Bang the Table (BTT) can have

on planning outcomes depends largely on the project and the host organisation (i.e. if the

project is strictly planning-oriented and the relevant authority has clearly committed to

shaping the outcome, based on the public’s involvement, then there is a direct and evident

impact). An example of this is the Wingecarribee Shire Council’s use of BTT for their draft

comprehensive Local Environment Plan 2008 (see Box 04).

Box 04: Wingecarribee Shire Council Draft Local Environmental Plan 2008 Public exhibition of the Wingecarribee Shire Council Draft Local Environmental Plan 2008

(Draft LEP) commenced on the 28th November 2007 and concluded on the 1st February

2008. Wingecarribee Shire Council adopted an extensive and ‘triangulated’ public

involvement strategy that included:

This produced over 990 written submissions and 1148 page visits to the BTT webpage

(including 138 comments). The majority of submissions and comments were made in

• Public notification in the local media, including print, radio and television;

• Static displays at three separate libraries, council’s customer service centre, as well

as on their website (www.wsc.nsw.gov.au);

• Eleven public information forums at venues across the local government area;

• Nine focus group presentations to community groups and associations;

• Receipt of posted and emailed submissions; and

• The utilisation of a BTT project webpage.



relation to the proposed reclassification of certain parcels of land. Subsequently council

revised the proposed land reclassifications under the Draft LEP. The revised Draft LEP is

currently being processed by the NSW Department of Planning as part of the plan-making

process (council is awaiting a Section 65 Certificate to re-exhibit the LEP before gazettal).

It is acknowledged that in this instance the traditional public involvement methods

contributed to the majority of submissions made, however, this is not to discount the impact

that the BTT webpage had on the outcomes. As part of a ‘triangulated’ approach, the BTT

webpage and the comments received during the public exhibition period contributed to the

overall impact that the public involvement had, directly shaping the outcome. In addition, the

BTT project webpage allowed for council staff to accommodate and receive a broader range

of community perspectives, whilst also offering open and public debate of the issues.

In terms of the Future Melbourne project, the impact that Internet-based public involvement

techniques (in this case, predominately the use of ‘wiki’ technology integrated with

discussion forums) can have on planning outcomes is not as clear as BTT as the Future

Melbourne project is not strictly a planning matter. However, its impacts are obvious if the

application of such technology were similarly applied to the preparation of a Local

Environmental Plan (LEP). In such an instance, government agencies and council staff

could interactively collaborate and edit the draft document, whilst discussing such changes

using linked discussion forums. These linked discussion forums would also allow for

members of the public, as well as other stakeholders, the ability question and debate the

element and edits to such elements. The edits made and the discussion around these edits

directly, and transparently, shape the final document.

For ICELE however, the impact that their services (such as ‘VOICE’ and ‘Bloginabox’) had

on their relative council’s planning decisions were intrinsically harder to determine, as

previously discussed at Section 4.3.

The inclusion of web-based services detailed within this Chapter has become expected in

many other facets of society, catering for the often time-poor modern citizen that demands

convenience and user-focused services. The move towards a non-linear, creative

collaboration across stakeholders, especially via wiki technology and the ‘Web 2.0’ concept,

is the future of democracy. However, it is considered that at this point in time, the planning

profession and to some degree society in general, is still in a transitional phase where



traditional methods need to be retained to at the very least create a balance and maintain a

sense of ‘equal opportunity’ to get involved. As such, it is foreseen that authorities and

proponents of greater public involvement in decision-making should recognise the

application of the technology discussed in this Chapter be integrated into a ‘triangulated’

public involvement strategy. In this way, a broader number and quality of views can be

captured, in a more ‘equitable’ manner.


CHAPTER FIVE: ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 57

CHAPTER FIVE: ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES This Chapter will discuss the identified ‘issues’ and ‘opportunities’ associated with the

application of online public involvement techniques within the planning realm and

specifically within the NSW planning system. The issues and opportunities outlined in this

Chapter are based on the research undertaken and inform the recommendations made in

Chapter Six.

5.1 Issues There are a number of inherent issues with the use of online public involvement techniques

such as those described in the previous chapters. These issues revolve around notions of

organisation inertia, online dynamics and access equality, whilst issues of timing and

exclusivity specifically relate to the NSW planning system.

OPEN TO CRITICISM The instantaneous and transparent nature of online public involvement techniques such as

wikis, forums and blogs can instil fear and inertia into public representatives and

organisations as they open themselves up to criticism. Although most will argue that being

open to criticism is an ingredient of democracy and imperative for constructive debate, this

is considered to be more of an issue at this point in time due to its ability to scare

traditionally established organisations away from utilising online techniques.

NEGATIVE ONLINE DYNAMICS Negative online dynamics can include the inappropriate use of the web site itself as well as,

negative contribution or the deliberate abuse (online bullying) of other users of the web site.

The inappropriate use of the web site itself, as discussed in Chapter Four, include such

actions as ‘wiki-trashing’, whereby the user contributes directly abusive or inappropriate

contributions to flood the editable document. This can be as subtle as contributing incorrect

or misleading information or as overt as including foul language or personal insults.

Online bullying, being the other common form of negative online dynamics, include

instances where vocal or dominant participants ‘bully’ other participants. Again, the subtlety

of these actions can vary, from the very covert (and sometimes accidental) instances where

a vocal participant will persistently challenge others in an unconstructive manner,

discouraging others to participate in a particular discussion forum. At the other end of the



spectrum, online bullying can take the direct form of intimidation tactics such as ridiculing

and abusing other users.

Online bullying is very much linked to one of the common criticisms of involving the public

outlined at Section 2.2, being the presence of an unrepresentative viewpoint dominating

discussion and ‘getting their way’. However, online public involvement techniques can in

fact overcome this criticism of public involvement, as discussed later in this Chapter.

It must be noted that ‘negative online dynamics’ such as those described here, is not a

reference to an opposing or an ‘against’ point of view, rather the unconstructive approach

and use of the platform. Participants should be encouraged to debate with empathy and

respect of other’s point of view.

UNEQUAL ACCESS AND EXPERIENCE As discussed at Section 2.2, not every person has access to the Internet, or the knowledge

to know how to use the Internet and ‘eTools’. Furthermore, even those with access to the

Internet may not be confident about using the online public involvement techniques, thereby

hindering their opportunity to participate. This is an obvious issue with the widespread

adoption of online public involvement techniques.

This ‘issue’ is however, not confined to online techniques, as this is also an issue for

traditional techniques. For example, not everyone can attend public meetings as these are

usually organised at inconvenient times, and even those that do attend have different levels

of confidence and knowledge and as such some participants will have less opportunity to

have their viewpoint heard. For this reason, online public involvement techniques should be

considered as a complementary part of a ‘triangulated’ public involvement strategy which

adopts a range of traditional and online techniques to accommodate their intended

audience.

TIMING The issue of timing specifically relates to the current NSW planning system, being two-fold.

Firstly, public input is often sought too late in the process, whereby designs and plans are

very much developed and public involvement is more of a ‘reaction test’ or retrospective

justification. Secondly, as described previously at Section 2.2, public involvement should be

considered a continual processes rather than just a stage in the overall process as is often

the case in NSW.



EXCLUSIVITY Public involvement in NSW, as a result of happening too late in the process or occurring at

inconvenient times, often excludes certain demographics from having the opportunity to

participate.

The current planning system is strictly linear in nature which inherently limits collaboration

and interaction between stakeholders, the community and authorities. As such, knowledge

of the system and the process is required in order to determine the ‘when’, ‘where’, and

‘how’ to participate and help shape the outcome, further adding to the exclusivity of the

current planning system.

5.2 Opportunities The opportunities that online public involvement techniques present have been well covered

in the previous chapters. As such, this Section will provide an overall and summary of the

opportunities.

COST EFFECTIVENESS As demonstrated by Bang the Table (see Chapter Four), the use of online public

involvement techniques can significantly reduce the cost per participant. This is highlighted

in Crozier’s (2008a) reflection on a council’s Management Plan:

In the previous year the Council in question had held 10 public meetings to consult the

community on their management plan. Their total attendees to all the events was (I am told)

less than 50. I have no idea what this would have cost but I would guess about $20,000

when venue hire, facilitation and staff time are taken into account. The General Manager

pointed out to me that this year in 1 week the site had been visited by over 100 different

people who had left a smattering of comments. What did this consultation cost? $1000.

Therefore there is an opportunity to integrate online public involvement techniques, reducing

the quantity of traditional methods required and therefore the cost of the process.

TIME EFFECTIVENESS It is an accepted phenomenon of modern society that people are becoming ‘time poor’ and

those with the least about of time are also going to be those the least inclined to get

involved in many of the ‘time-consuming’ traditional methods (Marshall 2007; Washington



1997). Online public involvement techniques, such as those discussed in Chapter Four tend to suit these time-poor people in particular, offering ‘24-7’ access.

NON-DOMINANT VIEWPOINTS A well documented concern of traditional public involvement techniques is the notion of

‘unequal pluralism’ (Self, 2000) as discussed at Chapter Two. This is essentially where a

well organised and vocal community group dominate discussion or submission in order to

shape the outcome to their agenda. Although these people or organisations are present in

online discussions they cannot ‘dominate’ others or drown out other points of view. This is

because in the online environment, physical intimidation (often present at meetings or

workshops) is not possible, and, no matter how persistent the user is (i.e. posting repeat

comments) anyone can always make a contribution and have their point of view seen:

“All users of an online engagement speak with an equal volume” (Crozier, 2008b).

Therefore there is an opportunity to ameliorate this concern of traditional public involvement

techniques.

GREATER TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY Online public involvement techniques, especially when they integrate all three levels of

involvement (information, consultation and active participation), generate a greater level of

transparency in the process, as well as making participants and authorities more

accountable. The greater level of collaboration offered by online techniques, allowing for all

stakeholders to interact and contribute in an open and public platform creates a sense of

transparency. Statements made are recorded accurately, removing the possibility of

misquoting and allowing for each statement to be interrogated. Wiki-based sites can take

this a step further. The electronic format of the end document can be subsequently updated

when necessitated, in the same open and public platform in which it was created.

Therefore, there is an opportunity to create more transparent decisions and policy

outcomes, in which the subject community can have a greater level of satisfaction and

confidence in.

CULTIVATING COMMUNITY The nature of online public involvement techniques such as those discussed in previous

chapters, present the opportunity, especially for councils and government authorities, to



continually involve the public and ‘cultivate’ online communities. Cultivating online

communities that can be engaged on a number of projects or issues as they arrive, is a step

towards the idealised ‘consensus building’ practices of the Collaborative Planning theory.

Cultivating communities for future engagement allows for more effective resolution of issues

as participants, over time, become familiar with process and ‘carry-over’ their experience

and knowledge from previous involvement, creating a valuable ‘knowledge pool’.

5.3 Conclusion The issues discussed in this chapter are not exhaustive and can be overcome, especially as

online public involvement techniques continue to evolve and develop. Overall, it is

considered that the opportunities presented by online public involvement techniques greatly

outweigh the issues with their application and the NSW planning system in general. Online

public involvement techniques can be utilised to slowly breakdown community apathy

towards the current planning system.

This chapter has set the platform for the recommendations made in the following chapter,

which are predominately based on taking advantage of the opportunities being presented,

as well as overcoming the issues.


CHAPTER SIX: RECOMMENDATIONS 62

CHAPTER SIX: RECOMMENDATIONS This Chapter details a number of recommendations for immediate adoption by both the

private and public sectors operating within the NSW planning system. It is hoped that by

adopting these recommendations; both the public and private sectors can achieve the

principles of ‘best-practice’ public involvement as detailed in Chapter Two. In addition,

through the adoption of these recommendations, it is hoped that planning in NSW

appropriately utilises these cost-effective Internet-based techniques as part of voluntary or

compulsory public involvement processes.

6.1 NSW Private Sector The NSW private sector, as professional service providers and consultancies, has the

opportunity to lead the way with implementing many of the Internet-based public

involvement techniques previously described. Including these techniques within their project

scope when tendering for government work or briefing a potential client will not only improve

the outcome in a cost-effective manner, but will also be much more time efficient when

implemented. As such, the following recommendations are made:

EDUCATION

• Ensure staff are educated in the basic elements of ‘online dynamics’ and ‘netiquette’;

• Educate staff in the current ‘eTools’ available and how these can be utilised and

integrated within project websites; and

• Network with online public involvement facilitators to understand what is available

and the technology.

ADVOCACY

• Set the benchmark by including project websites that are internally or externally

administrated within project scopes; and

• Advocate the use of Internet-based public involvement techniques as part of a

‘triangulation’ strategy, along with the necessary traditional methods.

DISCUSSION The purpose of these recommendations is to ensure that as an appointed consultant, the

project team, at the very least, can effectively participate within Internet-based techniques. It

is hoped that by educating staff in the basics of Internet-based public involvement

techniques, that there will be a flow-on effect and lead to the pro-active use and advocacy of



such technologies. It should be noted that the private sector does not need to be the web

designers or developers (as this can be out-sourced) in order to take advantage of the

opportunities being presented by Internet-based techniques, rather a knowledge of their

application and, at the very least, how to participate is desirable to ensure that ignorance

does not become a major deterrence to their use.

6.2 NSW Public Sector The NSW public sector, being the local and state authorities and governmental

departments, can take advantage of the opportunities being presented in the same way as

the private sector, with the benefit of being more transparent and instilling confidence in the

community as well as collaborating across internal departments. It is considered that the

local and state planning departments in NSW have the opportunity to be the ‘early adopters’

of such technologies and will subsequently influence other government agencies involved in

the planning process to also adopt and integrate Internet-based techniques. As such, the

following recommendations are made:

EDUCATION

• Ensure staff are educated in the basic elements of ‘online dynamics’ and ‘netiquette’;

• Educate staff in the current ‘eTools’ available and how these can be utilised and

integrated with traditional methods; and

• Revise current consultation policies in order to include Internet-based techniques

(preferably using a wiki-based website and keeping the document electronic for

flexibility).

ADVOCACY

• Request the inclusion of Internet-based techniques within project scopes and public

involvement strategies; and

• Advocate the use of Internet-based public involvement techniques across

governmental departments and agencies.

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

• For major Development Applications (such as those classified under Part 3A),

mandate the facilitation of online discussion (blogs and forums), either through



existing websites (such as the NSW DoP website) or external sources (such as Bang

the Table). These project websites should also integrate informational resources

(plans, reports, event notifications, etc) as well as ‘share’ functions to link to social

networking sites (such as www.facebook.com); and

• The NSW Government should streamline funding for the recommendations made in

the 2007 DoP Discussion Paper before these become outdated and to ensure that

the provision of online services are equal across NSW to manage community and

practitioner expectations.

INFORMATION

• Regulate a standard set of ‘eTools’ and components applicable across each local

council website to ensure consistency. The list of ‘eTools’ that would be required

should be reviewed periodically to ensure they are relevant and up to date;

• In addition to the recommendations made by the 2007 DoP Discussion Paper,

council websites should include RSS Feeds, Councillor blogs (as desired),

subscriptions to eNewsletters, and web-casting; and

• The NSW State government should initiate funding for community websites and a

community directory, similar to that operated by ICELE (see Chapter Four).

CONSULTATION AND ACTIVE PARTICIPATION

• Integrate Internet-based public involvement techniques with social networking sites

such as www.myspace.com and www.facebook.com;

• For plan-making and other development policies, mandate the requirement to consult

and seek participation using Internet-based techniques as part of a ‘triangulation’

approach which integrates the appropriate traditional methods as well;

• Councils should set-up a blog or forum tool either integrated into their own website,

or an external site for the debate of planning and non-planning issues and cultivate

an online community and information pool; and

• For larger non-statutory documents (such as council-wide strategic plans), the use of

a wiki-based website should be mandated, especially where a large quantity of

community input and departmental collaboration is desired.



DISCUSSION Historically, emerging technology has been absorbed by the planning system incrementally,

often as a result of widespread change in society and other professions (such as

information processing and emailing). Although these recommendations are considered to

be conservative, they are representative of what needs to be done now, in order to cater for

the needs and demands of modern society, rather than being a broad set of strategic goals

for incremental adoption. The high rate of technological change, being the nature of the

Internet, renders such broad strategic recommendations useless as these would become

quickly outdated.


CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION 66

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION The purpose of this thesis has been to explore how the applications of Internet-based public

involvement techniques are being used within Australia and internationally to improve

planning processes, with a specific focus on the NSW planning system. In doing so, the

thesis has critically analysed case studies that have showcased such applications and

technologies, as well as the issues and opportunities with the use of the Internet in society

generally. It has been demonstrated that the inclusion of these Internet-based techniques

assist in the achievement of the ‘best-practice’ public involvement principles as detailed at

Section 2.2. It is hoped that this thesis has encouraged further research in the online public

involvement area with a particular focus on its application in the planning realm.

Chapter One introduced the thesis, detailing the problem setting, the context, scope,

structure and method of research. Chapter Two described the best-practice principles and

methods of public involvement, their origins in planning theory as well as contextualising the

nexus between Internet-based technologies and the planning profession. Chapter Three

introduced the notion of public involvement within the New South Wales (NSW) context,

examining when and how it is undertaken within the planning system, as well as discussing

the recent planning reform and its implications for greater public involvement. Chapter Four critically analysed a number Internet-based public involvement case studies from within

Australia and internationally to argue their wider adoption in the planning profession and

indeed within NSW. Chapter Five proved a summary of the ‘issues’ and ‘opportunities’,

providing a platform for the recommendations and conclusions made Chapter Six and the

conclusions made in this Chapter, Chapter Seven.

The strengths of this thesis are its demonstration of the nexus between Internet-based

technologies and public involvement within the planning profession, as well as the

demonstration of how the application of Internet-based public involvement techniques assist

with the achievement of best-practice principles of public involvement, as established by the

literature and the experiences of traditional methods.

However, this thesis is not without its limitations. The pure nature of Internet-based

technology means that aspects of this thesis may be outdated or irrelevant within five years.



At a minimum, however, it should be read as a means of enacting change now and

encouraging additional and continual research in this emerging area of town planning.

Specific research opportunities presented by this thesis include the qualitative and

quantitative testing of the ability of Internet-based public involvement techniques to improve

the level of participant-satisfaction. In addition, there is an opportunity to test if the

application of such technology improves the public perception of decision-making

transparency and its outcomes.

The majority of modern society currently utilise the Internet to work, read the news, bank,

communicate, socialise, shop, browse and inform themselves. Government and proponents

of participatory democracy internationally have increasingly been using the same

technology to engage citizens and mobilise ‘eDemocracy’ tools (see

www.peopleandparticipation.net, www.involve.org.net, www.opinionsuite.com, to name a

few), with the planning profession not too far behind. This has been, in part, facilitated by

the emergence of ‘Web 2.0’ design principles, which have made taking advantage of the

opportunities presented by the Internet even easier and user-friendly.

Whether or not the planning profession embraces such technology to get the public

involved, it will be (and already has been) embraced by the public as a powerful activist tool.

The ability of the Internet to provide effective organisation of community groups, with fast

information sharing and instantaneous communication makes the Internet an effective tool

for rallying for or against policy decisions. Whilst the final decision should remain with the

elected council or with the public official (i.e. the planner) through delegated authority, it

would be unethical and anti-democratic to deny the public equal and fair opportunity to

influence the decision being made.

The Internet provides planners with a fantastic opportunity to improve the effectiveness,

meaningfulness and quality of public involvement in the planning practice. As Zehner and

Marshall (2007) note:

“When the people who are being planned for begin to feel that they have little say in or control over planning processes – that, in fact, planning is something being done to them –

the seeds for greater public involvement in the planning process have been planted” (Zehner and Marshall 2007, page 248).



As Howard (1998) argues, greater public involvement in planning processes leads to

greater understanding and acceptable of the plans in which are created to guide the future

of the subject community. Howard (1998) rightfully quotes Moore and Davis (1997) in his

explanation of this:

"Tell me, I forget. Show me, I remember. Involve me, I understand."

Furthermore, the common arguments against involving the public which have been

associated with traditional methods (such as expensive time-delays, administration overload

and unequal pluralism) can be overcome with the integration of online techniques. However,

at this point in time, as Coleman and Gotze (2001) note on the ‘unavoidable truths’ of online

public participation, these techniques are still in their infancy and there are too few people

that know about them. With a growing awareness and advocacy of the positive impacts and

of the Internet’s application in public involvement for town planning processes, there will

hopefully be an increase adoption of such technologies. Overtime, with an increase in the

application of Internet-based public involvement techniques in town planning, there will be a

substantial increase in the positive impacts that such techniques have on planning

outcomes. Moreover, it is anticipated that such outcomes will be arrived at more efficiently

and to the overall satisfaction of the public.


REFERENCES 69

REFERENCES Allmendinger, P. 2002. ‘Planning Theory’. Palgrave, England.

Allmendinger, P. and M. Tewdwr-Jones, 2002. ‘Planning Futures: New Directions for

Planning Theory.’ Routledge, London.

Arnstein, S. 1969. ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Institute of

Planners, Vol. 35, Issue 4, pp 216-24.

Aversa, A. 2002. ‘Public Participation in Local Government Decision-Making’. An

undergraduate thesis of the Bachelor of Planning at the University of New South

Wales, Australia. Retrieved from the University of New South Wales Library 3rd

August, 2008.

Bang The Table, 2008. ‘Community Contract’. Retrieved from www.bangthetable.com on

16th September 2008.

Berners-Lee, T. 2006. ‘DeveloperWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee’. Accessed

24/09/2008. Retrieved from http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-

int082206txt.html on 24th August 2008.

Bryman, A. 2008. ‘Social Research Methods’ 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

Burgmann, M. and V. Burgmann (1998). ‘Green bans, red union: environmental activism

and the New South Wales Builders Labourers’ Federation’. UNSW Press, Sydney,

Australia.

Burke, W.W. and Beckhard, R. (eds.) (1976) ‘Conference Planning’, 2nd edn. La Jolla,

California, University Associates.

Caddy, J. 2001. ‘Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in

Policy-Making’. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.


REFERENCES 70

Caquard, S. 2003. ‘Internet, Maps and Public Participation: Contemporary Limits and

Possibilities’ in Maps and the Internet. M.P. Peterson (ed.), Elsevier Science.

Carson, L. and K. Gelber. 2001. ‘Ideas for Community Consultation: A discussion on

principles and procedures for making consultation work.’ A report prepared for the

NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.

Chen et al. 2002. ‘The Global Villagers. Comparing Internet Users and uses Around the

World’ in ‘The Internet in Everyday Life’. 2002. B. Wellman and C. Haythornthwaite

(eds). Blackweel Publishing, Australia.

City of Melbourne. 2008. ‘Introduction’. Retrieved from: www.futuremelbourne.com.au on

28th August, 2008.

Cogan, E. 2003. ‘Public Participation’, Chapter 6 in ‘The Planner’s Use of Information’

Edited by Dandekar, H. American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois.

Coleman, S. and J. Gotze. 2001. ‘Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy

Deliberation’. Hansard Society, London. Retrieved from www.bowlingtogether.net on

2nd October, 2008.

Craig, W. J. 1998. ‘The internet aids community participation in the planning process’ in

Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 393-404,

Crozier, M. 2008a. ‘What makes a successful consultation?’ Blog entry on 18th May 2008.

Retrieved from www.onlinecommunityconsultation.com on 25th September 2008.

Crozier, M. 2008b. ‘Bullying, standover tactics and intimidation in an online consultation.

What are the risks and remedies?’ Blog entry on 28th May 20008. Retrieved from

www.onlinecommunityconsultation.com on 25th September 2008.

Elliot, M. 2008. ‘Future Melbourne Wiki: From Consultation to Participation’. Retrieved from

www.futuremelbourne.com.au on 26th September 2008.


REFERENCES 71

Farrier, D. and P. Stein (ed). 2006. ‘The Environmental Law Handbook.’ 4th edn. Redfern

Legal Centre Publishing, Sydney.

Forester, J. 1989. ‘Planning in the Face of Power’. University of California Press, England.

Forester, J. 1999. ‘The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning

Processes’. The MIT Press, England.

Future Melbourne, 2008. ‘Future Melbourne 2020 Plan’. Retrieved from

www.futuremelbourne.com.au on 2nd August 2008.

Gindroz, R. 2003. ‘The urban design handbook: techniques and working methods’. Urban

Design Associates. W.W. Norton and Company: New York.

Gleeson, B. 2006. ‘Australian Heartlands: making space for hope in the suburbs’. Allen &

Unwin, Sydney.

Goodspeed, R. 2008. ‘Citizen Participation and the Internet in Urban Planning’. In the

possession of Robert Goodspeed, research analyst at the Boston Metropolitan Area

Planning Council.

Harding, R. (ed) 1998. ‘Environmental Decision-making: the roles of scientists, engineers

and the public’. The Federation Press, Sydney.

Hassen, R. 2004. ‘Media, Politics and the Network Society’. Open University Press, New

York, NY.

Healey, J. 2002. ‘Internet Uses and Abuses’. Spinney Press, Australia.

Healey, P. 1997. ‘Collaborative Planning’. Macmillan Press, London.

Healey, P. 1999. ‘Deconstructing communicative planning theory: a reply to Tewdwr-Jones

and Allmendinger’ in Environment and Planning A, Vol. 31, pp 1129-1135.


REFERENCES 72

Howard, D. 1998. ‘Geographic Information Technologies and Community Planning: Spatial

Empowerment and Public Participation’. A Paper Prepared for the Project Varenius

Specialist Meeting on Empowerment, Marginalization, and Public Participation GIS.

State University of New York at Buffalo.

International Centre of Excellence for Local eDemocracy, 2005. ‘Civic Leadership Blogging:

how to use weblogs as an effective local leadership tool’. Retrieved from

www.icele.org on 25th September 2008.

International Centre of Excellence for Local eDemocracy, 2008. Retrieved from

www.icele.org on 16th September 2008.

Internet World Statistics, 2008. Retrieved from www.internetworldstats.com/stats on 6th July

2008.

Kanter, R. 2001. ‘E-volve: Succeeding in the Digital Culture of Tomorrow.’ Harvard Business

School Press, Boston.

Kingston, R. 2002. ‘The Role of E-Government And Public Participation in the Planning

Process’. Retrieved from www.ccg.leeds.ac.uk on 4th August 2008.

Lloyd, R. and A. Bill. 2001. ‘Australia Online: How Australians are using Computers and the

Internet’. Australian Census Analytic Program. Retrieved from www.abs.gov.au on

22nd August 2008.

Marshall, N. 2003. ‘Public Involvement techniques: an annotated description.’ In the

possession of N. Marshall, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Mele, C. 1999. ‘Cyberspace and Disadvantaged Communities’ in ‘Communities in

Cyberspace’ edited by M. Smith and P. Kollock. Routledge, London.

Moore, C. N. and D. Davis (1997) Participation Tools for Better Land-Use Planning:

Techniques and Case Studies. 2d ed. Sacramento: Center for Livable Communities.

Nishikawa, N. 2003. ‘Survey Methods for Planners’, Chapter 2 in ‘The Planner’s Use of

Information’ Edited by Dandekar, H. American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois.


REFERENCES 73

NSW Department of Planning, 2007. ‘Improving the NSW Planning System – Discussion

Paper November 2007’. Retrieved from www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planning_reforms

on 7th August 2008.

NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. 2001. ‘Ideas for Community Consultation:

A discussion on principles and procedures for making consultation work’. Retrieved

from http://203.147.162.100/pia/engagement/stories/alphabetical.htm#37 on 7th August

2008.

Online Community Consultation. 2008. ‘Why Consult Online Presentation’, Retrieved from

www.onlinecommunityconsultation.com on 12th October, 2008.

Perlgut, D. 1986. 'Introduction', Chapter 1 in 'The Community Participation Handbook:

Resources for Public Involvement in the Planning Process' Edited by W. Sarkissian, D.

Perlgut and E. Ballard

Peng Z-R, 1999. ‘An assessment framework for the development of Internet GIS’. in

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. Vol. 26. pp 117-132.

Peng, Z-R. 2001. ‘Internet GIS for Public Participation’ in Environment and Planning B:

Planning and Design, Vol. 28 pp 889-905.

Peng Z-R and Beimborn E, 1998. ‘Internet GIS applications in transportation’. In

Transportation Research News, March-April, Issue 195, pp 22-26.

Planning NSW. 2003. ‘Community Engagement in the NSW Planning System’. Retrieved

from http://203.147.162.100/pia/engagement/index.htm on 7th August 2008.

Plewe B, 1997. ‘GIS Online: Information Retrieval, Mapping, and the Internet’. OnWord

Press. Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Roddewig, R. J. 1978. ‘Green bans, the birth of Australian environmental politics: a study in

public opinion and participation’. Hale & Iremonger, Sydney, Australia.

Sager, T. 1994. ‘Communicative planning theory’. England.


REFERENCES 74

Sager, T. 2002. ‘Democratic Planning and Social Choice Dilemmas’. Ashgate Publishing

Limited, England.

Sarkissian, W, Perlgut, D, and E. Ballard. 1986. 'The Community Participation Handbook:

Resources for Public Involvement in the Planning Process.’ Impacts Press, Roseville,

Sydney Australia.

Sandercock, L. 1986. 'Citizen Participation: The New Conservatism’ in The Community

Participation Handbook: Resources for Public Involvement in the Planning Process.

Edited by W. Sarkissian, D. Perlgut and E. Ballard. Impacts Press, Roseville, Sydney

Australia.

Shaw, M. 1996. ‘The History of the Battle to Save Kelly’s Bush and the Green Ban

Movement in the Early 1970s’. Buckleys Publication, Australia.

Sinclair, A. 1978. ‘Public Participation in Transport Planning (In Australia)’. Bureau of

Transport Economics, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Self, P. 2000. ‘Is effective democratic planning possible?’, in ‘Equity, Environment,

Efficiency’ by P. Troy. Melbourne University Press.

Stevenson, D. 2003. ‘Imaging the City, Movies, Maps, and Cyberspace’ in ‘Cities and Urban

Cultures’. Open University Press, New York.

Tang, K. X. & Waters, N. M. 2005 ‘The internet, GIS and public participation in

transportation planning’ in Progress in Planning Vol. 64. pp 7–62.

Walters, D. 2007. ‘Designing Community: charrettes, master plans and form-based codes’

Elsevier Architectural Press, London.

Warringah Council. 2000. ‘Warringah Council Community Consultation Toolkit’. Retrieved

from www.warringah.nsw.gov.au on 18th September 2008.


REFERENCES 75

Washington, S. 1997. ‘Consultation and Communications: Integrating Multiple Interests into

Policy Managing Media Relations. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development, Paris.

Watson, D, A. Plattus and R. Shibley. 2003. ‘Time-Saver Standards for Urban Design’.

McGraw-Hill, New York.

Wellman, B, and C. Haythornthwaite. 2002. ‘The Internet in Everyday Life’. Blackweel

Publishing, Australia.

Yin, R. 1998. ‘The Abridged Version of Case Study research: Design and Method’ in

Bickman, L and D. Rog (eds) ‘Handbook of Applied Social Research methods’. SAGE

Publications, London.

Yin, R. 2003. ‘Case Study Research: Design and Methods’ 3rd edn. Applied Social

Research Methods Series, Volume 5, SAGE Publications, London.

Zehner, R, and N. Marshall. 2007. ‘Community Participation: to be involved or not to be

involved – is that the question?’ In ‘Planning Australia: an overview of urban and

regional planning’ edited by S. Thompson. Cambridge University Press, Victoria,

Australia


APPENDIX ONE

APPENDIX ONE: FUTURE MELBOURNE’S GUIDE TO BASIC NETIQUETTE


APPENDIX TWO

APPENDIX TWO: SUMMARY OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC

NOTIFICATION AND THE RIGHTS OF APPEAL


APPENDIX THREE

APPENDIX THREE: SUMMARY OF 2007 DOP DISCUSSION PAPER WITH

REGARDS TO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND EPLANNING


APPENDIX FOUR

APPENDIX FOUR: BANG THE TABLE’S PRODUCT OPTIONS & PRICING


APPENDIX FIVE

APPENDIX FIVE: PROPOSAL FOR DOGS ON LEASHES AT BAGNALL

BEACH DISCUSSION POST 8TH APRIL 2008


APPENDIX SIX

APPENDIX SIX: FUTURE MELBOURNE EDIT EXAMPLE


APPENDIX SEVEN

APPENDIX SEVEN: FUTURE MELBOURNE DISCUSSION THREAD EXAMPLE

built environment | built environment - the application ofthe ......typically discusses notions of...

Documents