Page 2127 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Following the plenary session the conference broke into five streams, including off-site workshops, to hear presentations on the themes of making a difference, achieving effective planning, collaborative action and planning practice. I will outline some of the issues raised during one stream, which looked at achieving sustainable communities. My colleagues may wish to comment on their experiences.
Tara Day and Anna Jakins from Stockland Property Group spoke about the role of community governance in building vibrant and sustainable communities. While noting that there is no one-size-fits-all community governance model, all types need to be ethics based, have a clear purpose and ensure the entire community benefits, and provide for the long-time empowerment of the community to manage development sustainably.
Community governance was defined as a collaborative and inclusive process to achieve outcomes which meet community needs. Tara and Anna identified 16 types of community governance structures, including government ownership, community title, community trust, joint ventures, partnerships, cooperatives, social enterprises and various combinations of these.
The various components which comprise community governance are: who is involved, who operates, who funds, who owns and maintains and what is the catchment? To determine the best governance structure, one needs to define the visions, purpose and stakeholders; identify existing social infrastructure; prepare a community profile; identify community strengths and weaknesses; and assess social infrastructure needs.
She went on to say that they need to define and agree with stakeholders the social infrastructure requirements and catchment; confirm the governance stakeholders and their responsibilities and resources; develop and agree on infrastructure ownership and a maintenance plan; align with other development targets and time frames; define a funding strategy; and develop an operational and service plan.
Tara and Anna explored two case studies. The first was the new development of Vale in Aveley, Western Australia. It is governed by a community trust with the trust board comprising council officers, the Stockland Property Group and community representatives. While noting the benefits of this governance structure, namely, the availability of funding for projects—Stockland Property Group contributes $350 from every lot into the community trust—and the partnership approach between council and community, with applications for funding managed by council with decisions made by the community advisory group, one constraint is ensuring long-term funding.
A second case study was the Roundhouse Community Arts and Recreation Centre in False Creek, North Vancouver, Canada. Jointly managed by the Vancouver City Council and Roundhouse Community Society, the benefits there include having neighbourhood representatives and a strong community focus for programs. Described as a well-loved community hub, the constraints include long development time frames and high operational and maintenance costs. The centre, which was funded by the developer, is now owned by the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video